```

[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 63259-63344]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-31]                         

[[Page 63259]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; 
Proposed Rule

[[Page 63260]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-9210-8]
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: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address Clean Air Act 
requirements to establish new source performance standards for new 
units and emission guidelines for existing units for specific 
categories of solid waste incineration units. In previous actions, EPA 
has promulgated new source performance standards and emission 
guidelines for large municipal waste combustion units, small municipal 
waste combustion units, commercial and industrial solid waste 
incineration units, and other solid waste incineration units. These 
actions did not establish emission standards for sewage sludge 
incineration units. In this action, EPA is proposing new source 
performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage sludge 
incineration units.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 15, 
2010, unless a public hearing is held. If a public hearing is held, 
then comments must be received on or before November 29, 2010. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, since the Office of Management and Budget 
is required to make a decision concerning the information collection 
request between 30 and 60 days after October 14, 2010, a comment to the 
Office of Management and Budget is best assured of having its full 
effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives it by November 
15, 2010.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by October 25, 2010 
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing 
on October 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0559, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
    Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
    Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a 
separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. 
Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation 
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays) and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket and may be made available on-line at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider 
to be Confidential Business Information or otherwise protected through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov 
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle 
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Joan Rogers at (919) 
541-4487 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, 
to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the hearing 
location. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public 
hearing concerning this proposed rule by October 25, 2010, the hearing 
will be cancelled, and a notification of cancellation will be posted on 
the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC, 
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource 
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several acronyms and terms are used in 
this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the 
reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following 
terms and acronyms are defined here:

7-PAH 7-polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AsvArsenic
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

[[Page 63261]]

CAA Clean Air Act
CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System
CBI Confidential Business Information
Cd Cadmium
CDD/CDF Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
Cr Chromium
CWA Clean Water Act
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
FF Fabric Filter
FB Fluidized Bed
FGR Flue Gas Recirculation
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration
ICR Information Collection Request
ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System
ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
MH Multiple Hearth
Mn Manganese
MWC Municipal Waste Combustion
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
Ni Nickel
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
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
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
OTM Other Test Method
OW Office of Water
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PM Particulate Matter
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPM Parts Per Million
PPMV Parts per Million by Volume
PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specifications
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SBA Small Business Administration
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TMB Total Mass Basis
TPD Tons per Day
TPY Tons per Year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
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 proposed action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
    A. What information is included in this preamble and how is it 
organized?
    B. Where in the CFR will these standards and guidelines be 
codified?
    C. What is the statutory background?
    D. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the 
emissions?
    E. How are the EG implemented?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
    A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards
    B. Summary of the Proposed EG
    C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
    D. Summary of Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    E. Other Requirements for New and Existing SSI Units
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    G. Electronic Data Submittal
    H. Title V Permit Requirements
    I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the NSPS and EG
IV. Rationale
    A. Subcategories
    B. Format for the Proposed Standards and Guidelines
    C. MACT Floor Determination Methodology
    D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
    E. Rationale for Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    G. Rationale for Operator Training and Qualification 
Requirements
    H. Rationale for Siting Requirements
    I. What are the SSM provisions?
    J. Delegation of Authority To Implement and Enforce These 
Provisions
    K. State Plans
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
    A. Impacts of the Proposed Action for Existing Units
    B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units
    C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and EG
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to CAA Sections 112(c)(3) 
and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii)
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Other SSI Rules for the 
Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Although there is not a specific NAICS code for 
SSI, these units may be operated by municipalities or other entities. 
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 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the 
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected 
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria 
in proposed 40 CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR

[[Page 63262]]

60.5005 of subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of the proposed action to a particular entity, contact 
the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: 
Ms. Amy Hambrick, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), 
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. Clearly mark the part or all of the information 
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that 
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be 
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI 
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page 
number).
    Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions 
or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
    Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
    If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived 
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest 
alternatives.
    Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified in the preceding section titled DATES.
3. Docket
    The docket number for the proposed action regarding the SSI NSPS 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM) is 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
4. Worldwide Web
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the TTN Web site. 
Following signature, EPA posted a copy of the proposed action on the 
TTN Web site's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control.

II. Background

A. What information is included in this preamble and how is it 
organized?

    In this preamble, EPA summarizes the important features of these 
proposed standards and guidelines that apply to SSI units. This 
preamble describes the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of 
these standards and guidelines; describes the basis for each of the 
decisions made regarding the proposed standards and guidelines; 
requests public comments on certain issues; and discusses 
administrative requirements relative to this action.

B. Where in the CFR will these standards and guidelines be codified?

    The CFR is a codification of the general and permanent rules 
published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and 
agencies of the Federal government. The code is divided into 50 titles 
that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. These 
proposed rules for solid waste incineration units would be published in 
Title 40, Protection of the Environment. Part 60 of title 40 includes 
standards of performance for new stationary sources and EG and 
compliance times for existing sources. The table below lists the 
subparts in which the standards and guidelines will be codified.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Title of the regulation            Subpart in Title 40, part 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards of Performance for New           Subpart LLLL
 Stationary Sources: Sewage Sludge
 Incineration Units.
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times   Subpart MMMM
 for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the statutory background?

    Section 129 of the CAA, titled, ``Solid Waste Combustion,'' 
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and EG for solid waste 
incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. A SSI unit is 
an incinerator that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing 
the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter.
    Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new 
SSI units, and CAA sections 111(d) and 129 (b) address emissions from 
existing SSI units. The NSPS are directly enforceable Federal 
regulations, and under CAA section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months 
after promulgation. Under CAA section 129(f)(2), the EG become 
effective and enforceable 3 years after EPA approves a State plan 
implementing the EG or 5 years after the date they are promulgated, 
whichever is sooner. Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies 5 
categories of solid waste incineration units:

     Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity 
greater than 250 TPD.
     Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal 
to or less than 250 TPD.
     Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious 
waste.
     Units that combust commercial or industrial waste.
     Units that combust waste and which are not specifically 
identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D) are referred to in 
section 129(a)(1)(E) as ``other categories'' of solid waste 
incineration units.

    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 in 
this section of the preamble, none of those emission standards apply to 
SSI units.
    Section 129(g)(1) 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)(6) provides that ``solid 
waste'' shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its 
authority under the RCRA.

[[Page 63263]]

    EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on December 16, 2005 
(70 FR 74870). The OSWI standards did not include emission standards 
for SSI units. EPA received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI 
standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of certain 
categories, including SSI.\1\ While EPA granted the petition for 
reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became 
effective January 22, 2007, concluded that no additional changes were 
necessary to the 2005 OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is 
currently being held in abeyance. However, EPA currently intends to 
revise the emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that 
rulemaking would address all OSWI units except SSI units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club v. EPA; DC Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA stated that we 
were not issuing emission standards under CAA section 129 for SSI units 
(70 FR 74870). We explained that we would instead regulate SSI units 
under CAA section 112 because we interpreted CAA section 129(h)(2) as 
giving EPA the discretion to choose the section of the CAA (i.e., 
section 112 or section 129) under which to regulate these sources. We 
reiterated that decision in the response to the petition for 
reconsideration on this issue. In addition, we stated in the final 
action, on January 22, 2007, that the 4 specific statutory exemptions 
from the definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' in CAA section 
129 (g)(1) were not exclusive, and that section 129(a)(1)(E) does not 
require EPA to establish emission standards for all other types of 
incineration units in addition to those identified in section 
129(a)(1)(A) through (D) (72 FR 2620). However, since the January 2007 
action responding to the petition for reconsideration, the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) \2\, in 
June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA's December 1, 2000, 
emission standards for CISWI units, held that any unit combusting any 
solid waste must be regulated under section 129 of the CAA, as 
explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As part of EPA's December 1, 2000, CISWI rulemaking, EPA defined 
the term ``commercial and industrial waste'' to mean solid waste 
combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion 
without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any 
commercial or industrial facility. On August 17, 2001, EPA granted a 
request for reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 
submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the 
Louisiana Environmental Action Network, related to the definition of 
``commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit'' and 
``commercial or industrial waste'' in EPA's CISWI rulemaking. In 
granting the petition for reconsideration, EPA agreed to undertake 
further notice and comment proceedings related to these definitions. In 
addition, on January 30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition for 
review in the Court challenging EPA's final CISWI rule. On September 6, 
2001, the Court entered an order granting EPA's motion for a voluntary 
remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. On remand, EPA solicited 
comments on the CISWI Rule's definitions of ``solid waste,'' 
``commercial and industrial waste'' and ``CISWI unit.'' On September 
22, 2005, EPA issued the CISWI Definitions Rule, which contained 
definitions that were substantively the same as those issued before 
reconsideration. In particular, the 2005 CISWI Definitions Rule defined 
``commercial or industrial waste'' to include only waste that is 
combusted at a facility that cannot or does not use a process that 
recovers thermal energy from the combustion for a useful purpose.
    EPA received a petition for judicial review of the CISWI 
Definitions Rule from several environmental organizations. The 
petitioners challenged the CISWI Definitions Rule on the grounds that 
its definition of ``commercial or industrial waste'' was inconsistent 
with the plain language of CAA section 129, and, therefore, 
impermissibly constricted the class of ``solid waste incineration 
unit[s]'' that were subject to the emission standards of the CISWI 
Rule. The Court agreed with petitioners and vacated the CISWI 
Definitions Rule.
    In its decision, the Court held that EPA's definition of 
``commercial or industrial waste,'' as incorporated in the definition 
of CISWI units, conflicted with the plain language of CAA section 
129(g)(1). That provision defines ``solid waste incineration unit'' to 
mean ``any facility which combusts any solid waste material'' from 
certain types of establishments, with 4 specific exclusions. The Court 
stated that, based on the use of the term ``any'' and the specific 
exclusions for only certain types of facilities from the definition of 
``solid waste incineration unit,'' CAA section 129 unambiguously 
includes among the incineration units subject to its standards, any 
facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid waste 
material at all--subject only to the 4 statutory exclusions. The Court 
held that the definitions EPA promulgated in the CISWI Definitions Rule 
constricted the plain language of CAA section 129(g)(1), because the 
CISWI Definitions Rule excluded from its universe operating units that 
combusted solid waste and were designed for or operated with energy 
recovery.
    The rationale EPA provided in 2007 for not regulating SSI units 
under section 129 is squarely in conflict with the Court's 2007 holding 
in NRDC v. EPA. Specifically, the Court stated that the 4 enumerated 
exemptions in section 129(g)(1) are in fact exclusive, and EPA lacked 
authority to create additional exemptions. The Court also rejected 
EPA's interpretation of section 129(h)(2), as articulated in the 2007 
notice. The Court found that section 129(h)(2) ``simply directs EPA in 
plain terms to subject a solid waste combustion facility exclusively to 
section 129 standards, and not to section 112,'' and that the provision 
confers no discretion in this respect \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA has historically taken the position that sewage sludge 
is solid waste under the RCRA. EPA has taken this position in an EPA 
letter dated February 12, 1988, to Thomas A. Corbett, Environmental 
Chemist I, New York State Department of Environmental Quality 
addressing the regulatory status of certain sewage sludge, as well as 
in its 1980 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste rulemaking 
(45 FR 33097, May 19, 1980) (included in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking).
    Finally, on June 4, 2010, EPA proposed a definition of non-
hazardous solid waste (75 FR 31844) under the RCRA which is consistent 
with this historical interpretation. In that proposal, EPA explained 
its interpretation for purposes of that definition that sewage sludge 
is solid waste, and, therefore, unit(s) combusting sewage sludge should 
be regulated under CAA section 129. Although EPA has not taken final 
action on that proposed rule and will consider all public comments 
received before taking final action, the proposed rule represents EPA's 
most recent interpretation regarding this issue and is consistent with 
its historical interpretation under the RCRA. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing emission standards for SSI units under CAA section 129.
    On September 9, 2009, EPA received a letter from the National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies stating that SSI units should be 
regulated under section

[[Page 63264]]

112(d) of the Act (included in the docket of today's proposed 
rulemaking). The National Association of Clean Water Agencies claimed 
that SSI units are within the scope of the Clean Water Act's definition 
of ``publicly owned treatment works,'' and that section 112(e)(5) 
directs EPA to issue emissions standards under section 112(d) for 
publicly owned treatment works as defined by the CWA. However, EPA 
issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 and did not include 
standards for SSI units in those regulations \4\. In fact, in the 
proposed emissions standards for POTW, EPA stated that ``[s]ewage 
sludge incineration will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA, and 
will be included in the source category Other Solid Waste 
Incinerators[.]'' \5\ Therefore, EPA has taken the position in its 
regulation of POTW under the Clean Air Act that section 112(e)(5) does 
not apply to SSI units and for this reason did not regulate them in its 
POTW section 112(d) emissions standards. EPA solicits comment on 
National Association of Clean Water Agencies' claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 64 FR 57572 (Oct. 26, 1999).
    \5\ See 63 FR 66084, 66087 (Dec. 1, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 4 categories 
identified in CAA section 129 (a) through (d). EPA is proposing, and 
intends to take final action on, emission standards for SSI units in 
advance of its re-issuance of emission standards for the remaining OSWI 
units because these emission standards are needed as part of EPA's 
fulfillment of its obligations under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B)(ii). 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) \6\. 
Sewage Sludge Incineration units are one of the source categories 
identified for regulation to meet the 90 percent requirement for 7-PAH, 
Cd, Cr, CDD/CDF, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. EPA is ordered by the Court to 
satisfy its obligation under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by 
January 16, 2011 \7\. Therefore, EPA is proposing and intends to 
finalize the SSI standards prior to taking action on the remaining 
source categories that will be regulated under section 129(a)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii).
    \7\ Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. 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, but is increasingly becoming less common. 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, CDD/CDF, HCl, Hg, 
NOX, opacity (where appropriate), PM, Pb, and 
SO2. Emissions of the CAA section 129 pollutants from SSI 
units come from the SSI unit's stack. Fugitive opacity and PM emissions 
also occur from ash handling. 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. How are the EG implemented?

    Standards of performance for solid waste incineration units 
promulgated under CAA sections 111 and 129 consist of both NSPS 
applicable to new units, and EG applicable to existing units. 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, but not later than 5 years 
after the relevant EG are promulgated. Likewise, the requirements of 
the State plan are to be effective as expeditiously as possible 
following EPA approval of the plan, but must be effective no later than 
3 years after the State plan is approved or 5 years after the EG are 
promulgated, whichever is earlier (CAA section 129(f)(2)). 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.
    EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan 
for solid waste incineration units located in any State which has not 
submitted an approvable State plan within 2 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.

III. Summary of the Proposed Rules

    This preamble discusses the proposed standards and guidelines 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 proposed requirements and compliance 
times, see the attached regulations.

A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards

    The proposed standards and guidelines apply to owners or operators 
of an incineration unit burning solid waste at wastewater treatment 
facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 CFR 60.5065). A SSI 
unit is an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that burns 
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage 
sludge by removing combustible matter. The affected facility is each 
individual SSI unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply 
to new and existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as defined in the 
subparts.

B. Summary of the Proposed EG

    EPA is proposing 2 subcategories for existing sources based on 
their incinerator design: (1) MH incinerators and (2) FB incinerators. 
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the proposed

[[Page 63265]]

emission limits for existing SSI units for each subcategory. These 
standards would apply at all times.

                            Table 1--Proposed Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Emission        Emission
                 Pollutant                                  Units                  limit for MH    limit for FB
                                                                                   incinerators    incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................           0.095          0.0019
CDD/CDF, TEQ...............................  ng/dscm @ 7% 02....................            0.32           0.056
CDD/CDF, TMB...............................  ng/dscm @ 7% 02....................             5.0            0.61
CO.........................................  Ppmvd @ 7% 02......................           3,900              56
HCl........................................  Ppmvd @ 7% 02......................             1.0            0.49
Hg.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................            0.02          0.0033
NOX........................................  Ppmvd @ 7% 02......................             210              63
Opacity....................................  %..................................              10               0
Pb.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................            0.30          0.0098
PM.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................              80              12
SO2........................................  Ppmvd @ 7% 02......................              26              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS

    As explained in IV.C.2, EPA is proposing to require all new 
sources, regardless of incinerator design, meet the emission limits 
based on the best-performing FB incinerator. Table 2 of this preamble 
summarizes the proposed emission limits for SSI units subject to the 
NSPS. These standards would apply at all times.

                               Table 2--Proposed Emission Limits for New SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Emission        Emission
                 Pollutant                                  Units                  limit for MH    limit for FB
                                                                                   incinerators    incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................         0.00051         0.00051
CDD/CDF, TMB...............................  ng/dscm @ 7% 02....................           0.024           0.024
CDD/CDF, TEQ...............................  ng/dscm @ 7% 02....................          0.0022          0.0022
CO.........................................  ppmvd @ 7% 02......................             7.4             7.4
HCl........................................  ppmvd @ 7% 02......................            0.12            0.12
Hg.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................          0.0010          0.0010
NOX........................................  ppmvd @ 7% 02......................              26              26
Opacity....................................  %..................................               0               0
Pb.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................         0.00053         0.00053
PM.........................................  mg/dscm @ 7% 02....................             4.1             4.1
SO2........................................  ppmvd @ 7% 02......................             2.0             2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Summary of Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    The proposed rule would require all new and existing SSI units to 
demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the emission limits and 
combustion stack opacity limits using EPA-approved emission test 
methods.
    For existing SSI units, the proposed rule would require initial and 
annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring 
as an alternative), continuous parameter monitoring, and annual 
inspections of air pollution control devices that may be used to meet 
the emission limits. Additionally, existing units would also be 
required to conduct initial and annual opacity tests for the combustion 
stack and a one-time Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) 
visible emissions test of the ash handling operations to be conducted 
during the next compliance test.
    For new SSI units, the proposed rule would require initial and 
annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring 
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 proposal would require all new SSI units to install a CO 
CEMS. New units would also be required to conduct initial and annual 
opacity tests for the combustion stack and Method 22 visible emissions 
testing of the ash handling operations would be required during each 
compliance test.
    For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb 
or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling with 
periodic sample analysis) would be approved alternatives to parametric 
monitoring and annual compliance testing. For new SSI units, CO CEMS 
would be required, and use of Cd, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or 
SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling, with 
periodic sample analysis) would be approved alternatives to parametric 
monitoring and annual compliance testing.

E. Other Requirements for New and Existing SSI Units

    Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units would be required 
to meet operator training and qualification requirements, which 
include: Ensuring that at least 1 operator or supervisor per facility 
complete the operator training course, that qualified operator(s) or 
supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course specified 
in the regulation, and that they maintain plant-specific information, 
updated annually, regarding training.
    Owners or operators of new SSI units would be required to conduct a 
siting analysis, which includes submitting a report that evaluates 
site-specific air

[[Page 63266]]

pollution control alternatives that minimize potential risks to public 
health or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair 
environmental impacts and any other factors related to the 
practicability of the alternatives.

F. 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 on 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 
would be required to be included in initial and subsequent compliance 
reports.

G. Electronic Data Submittal

    Electronic data collection is commonly employed to collect and 
analyze data for a variety of applications, such as the CAA Acid Rain 
Program. Both industry and the public benefit from electronic data 
collection in that it increases the ease of submitting the data as well 
as increasing the accessibility and transparency of these data.
    EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of 
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes 
including compliance determinations, emission factor development and 
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 
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 action, EPA is proposing a step to improve data 
accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of reporting for 
sources. Specifically, we are proposing that owners and operators of 
SSI facilities be required to submit to EPA's ERT database the 
electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests required 
under this rule. Data will be entered through an electronic emissions 
test report structure called the ERT that will be used whenever 
emissions testing is conducted. 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, 
and access to direct data submittal to EPA's electronic emissions 
database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 2011.
    The requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA 
would not require any additional performance testing and would apply to 
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported 
by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for 
most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. The Web site listed 
below contains a listing of the pollutants and test methods supported 
by the ERT. In addition, when a facility submits performance test data 
to WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for emissions test 
data compilation. Moreover, we believe industry will benefit from 
development of improved emission factors, fewer follow-up information 
requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. The 
information to be reported is already required for the existing test 
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test 
method.
    One major advantage of submitting source test data through the ERT 
is that it would provide a standardized method to compile and store 
much of the documentation required to be reported by this rule while 
clearly stating 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. If EPA had 
source category data, there would likely be fewer or less substantial 
data collection requests in conjunction with prospective 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).
    State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit from the reduced 
burden associated with receipt of electronic information opposed to 
having to process paper forms. Finally, another benefit of submitting 
these data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data would improve 
greatly 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 emission factors are outdated or not 
representative of a particular source category. Receiving and 
incorporating data for most performance tests would ensure that 
emission factors, when updated, represent accurately the most current 
operational practices. In summary, receiving test data already 
collected for other purposes and using them in the emission factors 
development program would save industry, State/local/tribal agencies 
and EPA, time and money and work to improve the quality of emission 
inventories and related regulatory decisions.
    As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that would be used is 
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA's TTN Web. 
The WebFIRE Web site was constructed to store emissions test data for 
use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 
database can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    The ERT would 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.

H. Title V Permit Requirements

    All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final SSI rule 
would be required to apply for and obtain a Title V permit. These Title 
V operating permits would assure compliance with all applicable 
requirements for regulated SSI units, including all applicable CAA 
section 129 requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 63267]]

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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 
71.5(a)(1)(i).

    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 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 1 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional background information on the interface between CAA 
section 129 and Title V, including EPA's interpretation of section 
129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications 
and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final ``Federal Plan 
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,'' October 3, 
2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the ``Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses'' document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156).

I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the NSPS and EG

    Under these proposed standards, new SSI units that commence 
construction on or after October 14, 2010 or that are modified 6 months 
or more after the date of promulgation, would have to 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 proposed EG, and consistent with CAA section 129(b)(2) 
and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, states are required to submit State 
plans containing the existing source emission limits of subpart MMMM of 
this part, and other requirements to implement and enforce the EG 
within 1 year after promulgation of the EG. State plans apply to 
existing SSI in the State (including SSI that are modified prior to the 
date 6 months after promulgation) and must be at least as protective as 
the EG.
    The proposed EG would require 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 proposed limits, EPA 
anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3 year compliance 
period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA does not approve a 
State plan or issue a Federal plan, then the compliance date is 5 years 
from the date of the final rule.
    EPA intends to develop a Federal plan that will apply to existing 
SSI units in any State that has not submitted an approved State plan 
within 2 years after promulgation of the EG. The proposed EG would 
allow 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).

IV. Rationale

    All standards established pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2) must 
reflect MACT, 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 each category. This level of control is referred to as a 
MACT standard.
    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, depending on whether they regulate 
new or existing sources. For new units, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar unit. Emission standards for existing units may 
be less stringent than standards for new units, but cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in the category. These requirements 
constitute the MACT floor for new and existing sources; however, EPA 
may not consider costs or other impacts in determining the MACT floors. 
EPA must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts 
and energy requirements in connection with any standards that are more 
stringent than the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor controls).
    In general, MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emissions 
from the best-performing units in a source category. The assessment can 
be based on actual emissions data, on knowledge of the air pollution 
control in place in combination with actual emissions data, or on State 
regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the actual 
performance of the regulated units and other relevant emissions 
information. For each source category, the assessment involves a review 
of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions 
variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be used provided 
that the methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the 
actual emissions performance of a source or sources.
    As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no 
less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar unit. Under CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA 
determines the best control currently in use for a given pollutant and 
establishes the MACT floor at the emission level achieved by that 
control with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Once 
the MACT floor determinations are done for new sources, we consider 
regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control 
that could result in reduced emissions. More

[[Page 63268]]

stringent potential 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 emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine 
some measure of the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in each subcategory to establish the 
MACT floor for existing units. Once the MACT floor determinations are 
done for each subcategory of existing units, we consider various 
regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control 
that could result in lower emissions. More stringent beyond-the-floor 
regulatory options reflect other or additional controls capable of 
achieving better performance.

A. Subcategories

    The CAA allows EPA to subcategorize a source category based on 
differences in class, type, or size. EPA is proposing to subcategorize 
SSI units into 2 subcategories, based on differences in the design type 
of the incineration units.
    To EPA's knowledge, there are 2 types of incinerators currently 
used to combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. Of the 218 SSI 
units in operation, 55 use the FB design, while 163 use the MH design. 
These two types use significantly different combustor designs. A. MH 
incinerator consists of a vertical cylinder containing from 6 to 12 
horizontal hearths and a rotating center shaft with rabble arms. 
Biosolids (i.e., sewage sludge) enter the top hearth and flow downward 
while combustion air flows from the bottom to the top. The MH is 
divided into 3 zones. The upper hearths comprise the drying zone in 
which water and some organic compounds are evaporated from the 
biosolids. The middle hearths comprise the combustion zone. The 
exposure to the combustion gas and biosolids to high temperature is 
only in this section and residence time of the gas is short. The lower 
hearths form the cooling zone, where ash is cooled as its heat is 
transferred to the incoming combustion air. Some MH incinerators have 
an additional zone above the drying hearths which can be used as an 
afterburner to combust the organics and CO generated in the lower 
hearths. Multiple hearth units are sensitive to any change in the feed, 
such as feed moisture and feed rate. Since the emissions of CO and 
organic compounds are dependent on the temperature of the top hearth, 
any changes occurring in the biosolids input can cause operational 
upset with momentary drop in top hearth temperature and an increase in 
emissions. In order to assure proper startup, shutdown, and modulation 
of combustion temperatures, fuels (e.g., natural gas and distillate 
oil) may be added to the combustion chamber.
    In a FB incinerator, the reactor is a vertical steel shell 
comprised of 4 sections. The lower section is called the windbox and 
acts as a plenum in which combustion air is received. Above the windbox 
is a refractory arch. The section above the refractory arch is filled 
with sand and is called the bed area or combustion zone. Hot air is 
distributed homogeneously throughout the FB. The intensive mixing of 
the solid and gas in the fluidized State results in a high heat 
transfer resulting in rapid combustion of the biosolids. The section 
above the bed is the freeboard or disengagement zone. The freeboard 
provides 6 to 7 seconds of gas residence time, which completes the 
combustion of any volatile hydrocarbons escaping from the bed.
    The differences between the 2 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. 
Generally, FB incinerators have lower emissions of NOX, 
organic compounds, CDD/CDF and CO than MH incinerators due to the 
combustion temperature, mixing, and residence time differences. 
Intermittent operations, involving frequent shutdown and startup, are 
generally easier and more rapid for FB incinerators than MH 
incinerators. Additionally, FB incinerators have better capability of 
handling feeds with varying moisture and volatile contents. Lower 
excess air and auxiliary fuel is required to operate FB incinerators 
resulting in smaller flue gas flow rates and consequently smaller sized 
downstream control devices.
    To reflect the differences in their combustion mechanisms, 2 
subcategories, FB and MH, were developed for new and existing SSI 
sources.
    We are requesting comment on whether other combustor designs are 
used at SSI units, and, if so, we are requesting emissions information 
from stack tests conducted on those units.
    We are also aware that sewage sludge may be incinerated in certain 
commercial or industrial units and energy recovery units that are 
subject to the recently proposed CISWI rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts 
CCCC and DDDD of this part). Therefore, we are proposing that sewage 
sludge that is incinerated in combustion units located at commercial 
and industrial facilities be subject to the CISWI standards rather than 
the SSI standards. We are requesting comment on the appropriateness of 
this proposed decision. While we are not aware of other combustion 
units that incinerate sewage sludge, we are requesting comment on 
whether such other units exist, and, if so, what the content of the 
combusted materials is (i.e., constituents in the sewage sludge), the 
amount of sewage sludge incinerated, and whether these units should be 
subject to SSI standards or subject to other section 129 standards.

B. Format for the Proposed Standards and Guidelines

    The EPA selected emission limitations as the format for the 
proposed SSI standards and guidelines. As required by section 129 of 
the CAA, the proposed standards and guidelines would establish 
numerical emission limitations for Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, HCl, Pb, Hg, 
opacity, NOX, PM, and SO2. For regulating Cd, Pb, 
Hg, and total PM, the EPA is proposing numerical concentration limits 
in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). Emission limits 
of CDD/CDF are in units of total ng/dscm, based on measuring emissions 
of each tetra through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and dibenzofuran 
and summing them. For CO, HCl, NOX, and SO2, the 
proposed standards and guidelines are volume concentrations, ppmvd. 
Standards and guidelines for opacity are proposed on a percentage 
basis. All measurements are corrected to 7 percent oxygen to provide a 
common basis.
    The EPA selected an outlet concentration format because outlet data 
are available for SSI units and characterize the best performing SSI 
units. In addition to numerical emission limits, the SSI standards 
include operator training and qualification provisions and siting 
requirements (for new sources only) as required by section 129.
    EPA understands that the metal emissions from SSI units are 
influenced by the metals content in the sludge burned. It is not clear 
from the data available to EPA whether the sludge burned during the 
emissions tests (that were used to establish the MACT floor) represent 
typical sludge composition/concentrations or are closer to minimum or 
maximum levels. We are also requesting additional sludge metals content 
information from the best performing sources collected during emissions 
stack tests so that we can

[[Page 63269]]

appropriately account for any differences in metal content of the 
sludge in the final standards.

C. MACT Floor Determination Methodology

    Section 129 (a)(2) of the CAA requires that EPA determine the 
emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled 
similar unit when establishing the MACT floor for new units, and the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent 
of units when establishing the MACT floor for existing units. Section 
129(a)(4) states that the standards promulgated under section 129 shall 
specify a numerical emissions limitation for each pollutant enumerated 
in that provision. Section 129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish 
standards requiring the ``maximum degree of reduction of emissions.'' 
``Maximum degree of reduction of emissions,'' in turn is defined in 
section 129(a)(2) as including a minimum level of control (known as the 
MACT floor). EPA's long-standing interpretation is that the combination 
of section 129(a)(4), requiring numerical standards for each enumerated 
pollutant, and section 129(a)(2), requiring that each such standard be 
at least as stringent as the MACT floor, supports that floors be 
derived for each pollutant based on the emissions levels achieved for 
each pollutant.
    The emission limits proposed also account for variability. 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 SSI units under variable 
conditions. The Court has recognized that EPA may consider variability 
in estimating the degree of emission reduction achieved by the best-
performing sources and in setting MACT floors that the best performing 
sources can expect to meet ``every day and under all operating 
conditions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA; 370 F.3d at 
1232, 1241-42 DC Cir 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maximum Achievable Control Technology and other technology-based 
standards are necessarily derived from short-term emissions test data, 
but such data are not representative of the range of operating 
conditions that the best-performing facilities face on a day-to-day 
basis. In statistical terms, each test produces a limited data sample, 
and not a complete enumeration of the available data for performance of 
the unit over a long period of time \12\. EPA, therefore, often needs 
to adjust the short-term data to account for these varying conditions. 
The types of variability that EPA attempts to account for include 
operational distinctions between and within tests at the same unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Natrella, Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of 
Standards Handbook 91, chapter 1 revised ed., 1966.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Between-test variability'' can occur even where conditions appear 
to be the same when 2 or more tests are conducted. Variations in 
emissions may be caused by different settings for emissions testing 
equipment, different field teams conducting the testing, differences in 
sample handling or different laboratories analyzing the results. 
Identifying an achieved emissions level for best-performing sources 
needs to account for these differences between tests, in order for ``a 
uniform standard [to] be capable of being met under most adverse 
conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur[.]'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ National Lime Association I, 627 F.2d at 431, n. 46 and 
Portland Cement Association, 486 F.2d at 396, ``a single test 
offered a weak basis'' for inferring that plants could meet the 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same types of differences leading to between-test variability 
also cause variations in results between various runs comprising a 
single test, or ``within-test variability.'' A single test at a unit 
usually includes at least 3 separate test runs. (See 40 CFR 63.7(e)(3) 
for MACT standards under CAA section 112 and 40 CFR 60.8(f) for NSPS 
under CAA section 111). Each data point should be viewed as a snapshot 
of actual performance. Along with an understanding of the factors that 
may affect performance, each of these snapshots gives information about 
the normal and unavoidable variation in emissions that would be 
expected to recur over time.
    One approach to estimating future variability that may be used is 
the UPL. The UPL is an appropriate statistical tool to use in 
determining variability when there is a limited sampling of the source 
category. An UPL (i.e., sample mean plus a multiplier times the 
standard deviation) for a future observation is the upper end of a 
range of values 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, UPL estimates the high 
end of the range in which future values will fall, with a certain 
probability, based on present or past background samples taken. Given 
this definition, the UPL is the value below which the average result of 
a future emissions test consisting of 3 test run observations (3-run 
average) from the source to be tested is expected to fall below with a 
stated level of confidence (e.g., 99 percent). Therefore, should a 
future test condition be selected randomly from any of these sources, 
we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall below 
a MACT floor emissions limit calculated using an UPL. Since a source 
must demonstrate compliance with the MACT floor using the average of a 
3-run test, the appropriate test condition to use to assess variability 
is 3 runs. If a source had to demonstrate compliance by showing that 
each individual test run was below the MACT floor emission limit, it 
would be appropriate to use a future test condition of 1 run. (See 
further discussion in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.) We are 
soliciting comment on all aspects of our variability analysis.
    EPA understands that the metal emissions from a SSI unit may vary 
due to the metals content in the sludge burned. We are requesting 
additional sludge metals content information collected during emissions 
stack tests so that we can appropriately account for any differences in 
metal content of the sludge in the final standards.
1. MACT Floor Analyses Data Set
    As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no 
less stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar unit. For existing sources, the CAA requires 
that MACT be no less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of units in a source 
category. Because the number of units in different subcategories may be 
different, the number of units that represent the best-performing 12 
percent of sources in different subcategories may be different. Also, 
mathematically, the number of units that represent the best-performing 
12 percent of the units in a subcategory will not always be an integer. 
To ensure that each MACT standard is based on at least 12 percent of 
the units in a subcategory, EPA has determined that it is appropriate 
to always round up to the nearest integer when 12 percent of a given 
subcategory is not an integer. For example, if 12 percent of a 
subcategory is 4.1, the standards will be based on the best-performing 
5 units even though rounding conventions would normally lead to 
rounding down to 4 units. As discussed earlier, there are 218 SSI 
units, composed of 163 MH incinerators and 55 FB incinerators. This 
procedure results in a top 12 percent comprised of

[[Page 63270]]

20 MH incinerators and 7 FB incinerators.
    Information collection request surveys were sent to 9 
municipalities operating SSI units to collect emissions information. 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. EPA believes these controls 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 CDD/CDF; regenerative thermal oxidizer or afterburners to 
reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; high 
efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and impingement tray 
scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg and acid gases such as 
HCl and SO2; and units with multiple control devices that 
could reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as a venturi scrubber in 
combination with an impingement scrubber and a wet ESP or another 
particulate control device. See the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis 
for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category,'' which is in the 
SSI docket for a list of municipalities that were sent an ICR and their 
controls.
    In contrast to MWC units or CISWI units, SSI units receive a 
homogenous type of waste to burn. There are variations in the amount of 
each of the CAA section 129 pollutants present, but because all SSI 
units are required to meet the CWA SSI discharge and emission 
requirements (40 CFR part 503), the variations are not as significant 
as variations that would occur if different types of materials were 
combusted (e.g., sewage sludge, coal, wood). Part 503 establishes daily 
average concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage 
sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also requires that 
SSI meet the National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in 
subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the 
40 CFR part 503 standards, facilities are already incorporating 
management practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the 
concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as 
segregating contaminated and uncontaminated wastes and establishing 
discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for non-domestic users 
discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus, SSI units burn a relatively 
homogenous waste, and non-technology measures to reduce emissions are 
already being taken. As a result, the data used to develop the MACT 
emission limits reflect the control technologies used at each facility, 
and the other HAP emission reduction approaches, such as management 
practices each facility is following to comply with the CWA part 503 
standards. For this reason, we believe that the sources identified for 
testing and the resulting emissions information received from the 
surveyed SSI units represent the best-performing SSI units.
    From the 9 surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 16 
units that were in operation (11 MH incinerators and 5 FB 
incinerators). The surveyed information was supplemented with test 
information for 9 MH SSI units collected from State environmental 
agencies public databases. In total, emissions information was 
collected from 5 FB incinerators and 20 MH incinerators from facilities 
responding to the ICR and additional test reports provided by State 
environmental agencies. However, not every test report contained 
information on all pollutants. Except for CDD/CDF and SO2, 
test information for most of the 9 CAA section 129 pollutants was 
available from 5 FB incinerators. For CDD/CDF and SO2, data 
from only 3 FB incinerators were available. Depending on the pollutant, 
the number of MH incinerators with emissions information ranges from 5 
to 19. The MACT floor analysis was then conducted using all the 
emissions information for each pollutant in each subcategory (i.e., all 
5 FB incinerators for Cd and all 14 MH incinerators for Cd), as this 
information includes emissions data from the population of best-
performing units.
    Test results from each of these units are based on the results of 
at least 3 individual runs per test, meaning that one would expect MACT 
floor calculations based on a population of 21 FB runs (7 FB multiplied 
by 3 runs per FB) and on a population of 60 MH runs (20 MH FB 
multiplied by 3 runs per MH). While EPA does not have actual emissions 
test data for the population of units that represent the best-
performing 12 percent, the statistical technique described below is the 
approach we used to establish the existing source MACT floor. The MACT 
floor calculations are based on all the actual data received, for 
example, a population of 15 MH runs from 5 MH incinerators for CDD/CDF. 
Because the emissions data are normally distributed, or can be 
transformed to be normally distributed (using the log-normal 
transformation of the data), EPA is able to employ statistical 
techniques to determine the minimum number of observations needed to 
accurately characterize the distribution of the best performing 12 
percent of units in each subcategory. This technique is necessary to 
assure that the characteristics of the sampled data set mirror those of 
the best-performing 12 percent of units in the source category.
    EPA used this statistical technique because of the lack of data 
from the full set of the best-performing 12 percent of sources. While 
Congress adopted identical language describing the MACT floor 
calculation in section 129(a)(2) as it did in section 112(d)(3), the 
latter section includes a provision stating that the MACT floor for 
existing sources cannot be less stringent than ``the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing 
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information).'' 
Section 129, however, simply states that the existing source MACT floor 
cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing sources in the 
category. Therefore, while we believe Congress intended for the MACT 
floor calculation under each section of the CAA to be the same, this 
difference in the text of the 2 sections requires us to establish the 
MACT floor for section 129 source categories based on the best-
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. Because we do not 
have that data at this time, the statistical technique described below 
is the only manner in which we can establish the existing source MACT 
floor on that basis. We request that commenters provide additional 
emissions stack test data and supporting documentation, as that may 
enable us to establish a final MACT floor based on a more complete data 
set.
    In order to assess whether or not the minimum number of samples 
collected adequately characterizes the population, a statistical 
equation was applied for each subcategory. If the number of 
observations collected equals or exceeds the required minimum number of 
observations calculated using the statistical equation, then the MACT 
floor calculations of the sampled data set are consistent with what the 
MACT floor calculations would have been had they been performed on the 
complete data set from the best-performing 12 percent of the 
population. The sample size calculation is discussed in more detail in 
the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator 
Source Category,'' which is

[[Page 63271]]

in the SSI docket. The results of the calculation show that for the 
population of 7 FB incinerators, which comprises 12 percent of the 
source category, the minimum number of test runs that need to be 
collected is 10, and the actual number collected, for the pollutant 
with the least amount of test data, including late arriving data, is 
12. Similarly, the calculation shows that for the population of 20 MH 
incinerators which comprise 12 percent of the source category, the 
minimum number of test runs that need to be collected is 14, and the 
actual number collected, for the pollutant with the least amount of 
test data, is 15. Based on EPA's assessment, the data set meets the 
minimum size needed to characterize the population of 12 percent of the 
best-performing units for all pollutants, when late-arriving data are 
included. EPA determined that the number of observations of data 
collected accurately represent the 12 percent of the best-performing 
sources in each subcategory. Data received too late to incorporate in 
the analysis for the proposed rule will be included in the analysis for 
the final rule along with any relevant data received during the comment 
period. However, EPA conducted a preliminary review of the late data 
received subsequent to the final analyses, e.g., MACT floor ranking, 
impacts, etc., and determined that based on this preliminary review, 
the data would have minimal impact on the proposed standards. For more 
information on the outcome of this review, please refer to the ``MACT 
Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category,'' 
memorandum, which is in the SSI docket.
2. Variability Calculation
    To conduct the existing source MACT floor analysis for each 
pollutant, individual SSI units in each subcategory for which we had 
emissions test data were ranked based on their average emission levels 
of the pollutant from lowest to highest. The MACT floor was calculated 
as the average of the test runs from the best-performing (i.e., lowest 
emitting) 12 percent of sources. For the SSI source category, all the 
quality-assured emissions information from the ICR responses and 
additional test reports collected were used in the MACT floor 
calculation. That is, for each pollutant, the MACT floor emission level 
was calculated as the average emission limit for all the test runs from 
the quality assured emissions data collected.
    The first step in the statistical analysis includes a determination 
of whether the data used for each MACT floor calculation were normally 
or log-normally distributed. If the data were normally distributed 
(e.g., similar to a typical bell curve), then further variability 
analyses could be conducted on the data set. If the data were not 
normally distributed (for example, if the data were asymmetric or 
skewed to the right or left), then the type of distribution (e.g., log-
normal) was determined and a data transformation was performed (e.g., 
taking the natural log of the data) to normalize the data prior to 
conducting the variability analysis. Two statistical measures, skewness 
and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the data were normally or 
log-normally distributed. For details on the statistical analysis, see 
the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator 
Source Category,'' which is in the SSI docket.
    For the existing source variability analysis, all the emissions 
test runs reported for the best-performing 12 percent of units in each 
subcategory were identified. By including multiple emissions tests from 
units with a test average in the top 12 percent, EPA can evaluate 
intra-unit variability of emissions tests over time, considering 
variability in control device performance, unit operations, and fuels 
fired during the test. As discussed previously, the UPL was used for 
the SSI MACT floor variability analysis.
    For the existing source analysis, 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. Since 
compliance with the MACT floor emission limit is based on the average 
of a 3-run test, Equation 1 shows the UPL is calculated as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC10.000

Where:

n = Number of test runs (i.e., sample size)
m = Number of test runs in the compliance average
s = Standard deviation of the emissions test data
x = Mean, i.e., average of the emissions test data
t0.99, (n-1) = t-statistic for 99 percent significance and a sample 
size of n.

    This calculation was performed using the following 2 Microsoft 
Excel spreadsheet functions:
    Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL = AVERAGE (Test Runs in Top 12 
percent) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12 percent) x TINV(2 * 0.99, n-1 
degrees of freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+1/3))], for a one-tailed t-value (with 2 
x probability), probability of 0.01, and sample size of n.
    Lognormal distribution: 99 percent UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log 
Values of Test Runs in Top 12 percent) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values of 
Test Runs in Top 12 percent) x TINV(2 * 0.99, n-1 degrees of freedom) * 
SQRT((1/n)+1/3))]{time} , for a one-tailed t-value (with 2 x 
probability), probability of 0.01, and sample size of n.
    The 99 percent UPL represents the value which one can expect the 
mean of future 3-run performance tests from the best-performing 12 
percent of sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based 
upon the results of the independent sample of observations from the 
same best-performing sources. In establishing the limits, the UPL 
values were rounded up to 2 significant figures. For example, a value 
of 1.42 would be rounded to 1.5 because a limit of 1.4 would be lower 
than the calculated MACT floor value.
    The summary statistics and analyses are presented in the docket and 
further described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this preamble. The 
calculated UPL values for existing sources (which are based on 
emissions data from the sources representing the best-performing 12 
percent of sources and evaluate variability) were selected as the 
proposed MACT floor emission limits for the 9 regulated pollutants in 
each subcategory.
    To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we used an UPL 
calculation similar to that for existing sources, except the best-
performing similar source's data were used to calculate the MACT floor 
emission limit for each pollutant instead of the average of the best-
performing 12 percent of units. In summary, the approach ranks 
individual SSI units based on actual performance and establishes MACT 
floors based on the best-performing similar source for each pollutant 
and

[[Page 63272]]

subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of emissions variability. 
In other words, the UPL was determined for the data set of individual 
test runs for the single best-performing source for each regulated 
pollutant from each subcategory.
    For the FB new source subcategory, we considered the best-
performing FB incinerator to be the best-performing similar source. For 
the MH new source subcategory, we also considered the best-performing 
FB incinerator to be the best-performing similar source because these 
types of units are both operated for the same purpose (e.g. to 
incinerate sewage sludge and similar control technologies can be used 
on both). We chose not to treat the best-performing MH incinerator as 
the best-performing similar source for the MH new source subcategory 
because we are not aware of any new MH sources that have been 
constructed in the last 20 years. During that period, however, over 40 
new FB incinerators have been installed, with at least 11 replacing MH 
incinerators. Information provided by the industry indicates that 
future units that will be constructed are likely to be FB incinerators. 
Information provided by the industry also indicates that new FB units 
have more efficient combustion characteristics resulting in lower 
emissions. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider the 
best-performing FB incinerator as the best-performing similar source 
for the MH new source subcategory. We are aware that owners and 
operators with modified MH units may have concerns regarding meeting 
the new source limits. We request comment on this proposed approach. To 
assist commenters with their evaluation of the proposal, we have 
calculated what the MACT floor emission limits would be based on the 
best-performing MH incinerator, and the emission limits for FB and MH 
incinerators are shown in Table 3. These potential limits were 
developed by analyzing the MH test data using the same new source MACT 
floor methodology as discussed earlier in this section of this 
preamble. See the MACT floor memorandum in the docket for additional 
details.

   Table 3--Potential Emission Limits for New MH Units Based on Best-
                        Performing MH Incinerator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Potential
                                                        emission limit
          Pollutant                    Units              for new MH
                                                         incinerators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd...........................  mg/dscm @ 7% O2......              0.0011
CDD/CDF, TEQ.................  ng/dscm @ 7% O2......              0.0022
CDD/CDF, TMB.................  ng/dscm @ 7% O2......              0.024
CO...........................  ppmvd @ 7% O2........             45
HCl..........................  ppmvd @ 7% O2........              0.36
Hg\a\........................  mg/dscm @ 7% O2......              0.02
NOX..........................  ppmvd @ 7% O2........            150
Opacity......................  %....................              0
Pb...........................  mg/dscm @ 7% O2......              0.0020
PM...........................  mg/dscm @ 7% O2......              5.8
SO2..........................  ppmvd @ 7% O2........              6.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculation results in a limit of 0.069 which is greater than the
  existing source beyond the floor limit.

    The MACT floor limits for opacity from combustion stacks were 
determined slightly differently from other pollutants. The opacity data 
available for FB and MH SSI units were obtained using EPA Method 9 at 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, for 3 FB incinerators (providing 10 
observations or test runs) and 10 MH incinerators (providing 29 
observations). Similar to the amount of data collected for other 
regulated pollutants, this constitutes less than 12 percent of the 
sources, but meets or exceeds the minimum sample size needed to 
characterize the population of the best-performing 12 percent of units. 
Under Method 9, the opacity of emissions from stationary sources is 
determined visually by a qualified observer. Opacity observations are 
recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals on an 
observational record sheet and the average opacity of the observation 
period is calculated. For FB incinerators, all of the available average 
opacity measurements were reported as 0 percent. Consequently, the MACT 
floor for opacity from existing FB incinerators and all new units is 0 
percent opacity. For MH incinerators, 60 percent of the available 
average opacity measurements were greater than 0 percent and 40 percent 
were reported as 0 percent. A review of the opacity data for MH 
incinerators indicated that they are not normally distributed. However, 
because the MH opacity data contain zero values, the log-normal 
transformation of the data could not be calculated to normalize the 
data set. Consequently, the procedures used to assess the variability 
of the data were modified. For MH incinerators, the variability 
analysis for existing sources was conducted on the opacity data set 
without transforming the data using the log normal calculation. 
Additionally, because the opacity readings are in 5 percent increments, 
the calculated UPL was rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5. The 
analysis results in an opacity limit of 10 percent for existing 
sources. We request comment on the methodology used to set the opacity 
limit. We are also requesting additional opacity information from SSI 
units.
3. Incorporation of Non-Detect Data
    Non-detect values comprise more than 50 percent of the emissions 
data for HCl from FB incinerators and CDD/CDF from both MH and FB 
incinerators. For these pollutants, EPA developed a methodology to 
account for the imprecision introduced by incorporating non-detect data 
into the MACT floor calculation.
    At very low emission levels where emissions tests result in non-
detect values, the inherent imprecision in the pollutant measurement 
method has a large influence on the reliability of the data underlying 
the MACT floor emission limit. Because of sample and emission matrix 
effects, laboratory techniques, sample size, and other factors, method 
detection levels normally vary from test to test for any specific test 
method and pollutant measurement. The confidence level that a value, 
measured at the detection level is greater than zero, is about 99 
percent. The expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value 
occurring at or near the method detection level is about 40 to 50 
percent. Pollutant measurement

[[Page 63273]]

imprecision decreases to a consistent level of 10 to 15 percent for 
values measured at a level about 3 times the method detection 
level.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method 
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One approach that we believe can be applied to account for 
measurement variability in this situation starts with defining a method 
detection level that is representative of the data used in the data 
pool. The first step in this approach would be to identify the highest 
test-specific method detection level reported in a data set that is 
also equal to or less than the average emission calculated for the data 
set. This approach has the advantage of relying on the data collected 
to develop the MACT floor emission limit, while to some degree, 
minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an inordinately high method 
detection level (e.g., the sample volume was too small, the laboratory 
technique was insufficiently sensitive or the procedure for determining 
the detection level was other than that specified).
    The second step is to determine the value equal to 3 times the 
representative method detection level and compare it to the calculated 
MACT floor emission limit. If 3 times the representative method 
detection level were less than the calculated MACT floor emission 
limit, we would conclude that measurement variability is adequately 
addressed, and we would not adjust the calculated MACT floor emission 
limit. If, on the other hand, the value equal to 3 times the 
representative method detection level were greater than the calculated 
MACT floor emission limit, we would conclude that the calculated MACT 
floor emission limit does not account entirely for measurement 
variability. We would, therefore, use the value equal to 3 times the 
method detection level in place of the calculated MACT floor emission 
limit to ensure that the MACT floor emission limit accounts for 
measurement variability and imprecision.
    The approach discussed above was used to calculate the proposed 
MACT floor limit for HCl. The following additional procedures were 
followed for CDD/CDF, TMB, and TEQ basis limits. To calculate a TMB 
limit, all the 17 congeners of interest were identified and non-detect 
values that are associated with each were indicated. The mean of the 
non-detect values was calculated and multiplied by 17 (for the total 
number of congeners of interest). The mean value was then used as the 
detection limit of the run. Then, each data set was reviewed to 
identify the highest test-specific method detection level reported that 
was also equal to or less than the average emission level (i.e., 
unadjusted for probability confidence level) calculated for the data 
set. The second step discussed above and also used for HCl was used to 
set the limit.
    To calculate a limit on a TEQ basis, first, the mean of the non-
detect values was calculated. Then the TEF for each congener was 
multiplied by the mean to determine the TEQ for each congener. Toxic 
Equivalencies for each congener were summed to calculate a TEQ sum 
value. The TEQ sum was then used as the detection limit for the test 
run. The second step discussed above and also used for HCl was used to 
set the limit.
4. EG MACT Floor
    Once the sources that represent the best 12 percent of units were 
identified for each subcategory and pollutant, the individual test run 
data for these units were compiled and a statistical analysis was 
conducted to calculate the average and account for variability and, 
thereby, determine the MACT floor emission limit.
    The summary results of the UPL analysis and the MACT floor emission 
limits for existing units are presented in Table 4 of this preamble for 
each subcategory and each pollutant.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA interprets CAA section 129 as supporting the pollutant-
by-pollutant approach (74 FR 51380, Oct. 6, 2009).

                                          Table 4--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       FB Incinerators                        MH Incinerators
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Pollutant                               Units                                         MACT floor                             MACT floor
                                                                             Avg of top   99% of UPL    emission    Avg of top   99% of UPL    emission
                                                                                12%                    limit \a\       12%                    limit \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.........................................  mg/dscm@7% O2................      0.00055      0.00189       0.0019        0.030       0.0947        0.095
CDD/CDF TEQ................................  ng/dscm@7% O2................        0.027       0.0559        0.056        0.047        0.314         0.32
CDD/CDF TMB................................  ng/dscm@7% O2................         0.32        0.602         0.61         0.69         4.95          5.0
CO.........................................  ppmvd@7% O2..................           28         55.1           56        1,013        3,885        3,900
HCl........................................  ppmvd@7% O2..................         0.17        0.489         0.49         0.53        0.982          1.0
Hg.........................................  mg/dscm@7% O2................       0.0019      0.00325       0.0033         0.10        0.162         0.17
NOX........................................  ppmvd@7% O2..................           30         62.4           63          130          207          210
Opacity....................................  %............................            0            0            0          2.0          6.4           10
Pb.........................................  mg/dscm@7% O2................       0.0030       0.0098       0.0098        0.082        0.295         0.30
PM.........................................  mg/dscm@7% O2................          2.6         11.9           12         42.6         79.8           80
SO2........................................  ppmvd@7% O2..................          3.3         21.5           22          9.4         25.7           26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures except that opacity limits were rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 for reasons explained in
  section IV.C.2 of this preamble.

    Information gathered indicates that all of the units have some 
level of air pollution control and management practice in place either 
as a result of CWA part 503, State and local requirements, or previous 
Federal standards to address air emissions. MACT floor emissions 
reductions were calculated assuming that units needing to meet the 
limits for Cd and Pb would install a FF, units needing to meet the 
limits for Hg and CDD/CDF would apply activated carbon injection, and 
units needing to meet the limits for HCl and SO2 would apply 
a packed bed scrubber. We are requesting comment on whether there are 
space constraints at wastewater treatment facilities that would affect 
the feasibility and cost of installing air pollution control devices. 
The results of the analysis indicate that all existing FB and MH units 
would meet the MACT floor levels of control for NOX, CO, and 
PM without applying any additional control. (However, PM would be 
reduced from applying controls to meet the Cd and Pb emissions limits.) 
Additionally, all existing MH units would also meet the MACT floor 
levels of control for CDD/

[[Page 63274]]

CDF without applying any additional control. These results for 
NOX, CO, PM, and CDD/CDF are attributable to the relatively 
high 99 percent UPL values computed from the submitted data. The small 
sample sizes and the high degree of variability observed in the data 
for these pollutants resulted in large 99 percent UPL values.
    Given the smaller than desired data sets for these pollutants, we 
computed the 95 percent UPL values to account for the influence of the 
limited data set. The results are presented in Table 5 of this 
preamble. We are requesting comment on whether it is appropriate to use 
these alternative UPLs for this source category due to the limited 
availability of data.

      Table 5--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units Using Alternative Percent UPL a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FB Incinerators    MH Incinerators
                Pollutant                               Units              -------------------------------------
                                                                                95% Of UPL         95% Of UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................  mg/dscm@7% O2...................             0.0011              0.048
CDD/CDF TEQ.............................  ng/dscm@7% O2...................              0.046               0.12
CDD/CDF TMB.............................  ng/dscm@7% O2...................               0.51                1.8
CO......................................  ppmvd@7% O2.....................                 47              2,200
HCl.....................................  ppmvd@7% O2.....................           \b\ 0.49               0.84
Hg......................................  mg/dscm@7% O2...................             0.0018               0.14
NOX.....................................  ppmvd@7% O2.....................                 48                190
Opacity.................................  %...............................                  0                 10
Pb......................................  mg/dscm@7% O2...................             0.0052               0.14
PM......................................  mg/dscm@7% O2...................                6.1                 69
SO2.....................................  ppmvd@7% O2.....................                8.6                 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures except that opacity limits were rounded up to the nearest
  multiple of 5 for reasons explained in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
\b\ Value shown is the result of the non-detect analysis, which results in using the limit that is based on 3
  times the highest detection limit that is less than the average of the data. The calculated UPL values without
  the non-detect analysis are 0.25, 0.23, and 0.22 for percent UPLs of 95 percent, 90 percent, and 85 percent,
  respectively.

5. NSPS MACT Floor
    New source MACT floors are based on the best-performing single 
source for each regulated pollutant, with an appropriate accounting for 
emissions variability. In other words, the best-performing unit was 
identified by ranking the units from lowest to highest for each 
subcategory and pollutant and selecting the unit with the lowest 3-run 
test average emissions test data for each pollutant. To determine the 
MACT floor for new sources, an UPL calculation similar to that for 
existing sources was conducted, except the best-performing unit's data 
within a subcategory were used to calculate the MACT floor emission 
limit for each pollutant. The best-performing unit was identified as 
the lowest emitting source with at least 3 test runs. In summary, the 
approach ranks individual SSI units based on actual performance and 
establishes MACT floors based on the best-performing source for each 
pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of emissions 
variability. In other words, the UPL was determined for the data set of 
individual test runs for the single best-performing source for each 
regulated pollutant from each subcategory. As discussed in IV.C.2, EPA 
is proposing 2 subcategories for new sources. However, we are proposing 
to require that all new sources meet the emission limits for the best-
performing FB incinerator. Table 6 of this preamble presents the 
analysis summaries and the new source MACT floor limits.

                Table 6--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for All New SSI Units (FB and MH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          All new SSI units (fluidized bed and multiple hearth)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
           Pollutant                      Units                                                 MACT floor limit
                                                           Avg of top 12%       99% of UPL            \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.............................  mg/dscm@7% O2.........            0.00017           0.000510            0.00051
CDD/CDF TEQ....................  ng/dscm@7% O2.........            0.00094            0.00213             0.0022
CDD/CDF TMB....................  ng/dscm@7% O2.........             0.0095             0.0226              0.024
CO.............................  ppmvd@7% O2...........                2.6               7.31                7.4
HCl............................  ppmvd@7% O2...........              0.044              0.111               0.12
Hg.............................  mg/dscm@7% O2.........            0.00036           0.000992             0.0010
NOX............................  ppmvd@7% O2...........               14.9               25.3                 26
Opacity........................  %.....................                  0                  0                  0
Pb.............................  mg/dscm@7% O2.........            0.00031           0.000527            0.00053
PM.............................  mg/dscm@7% O2.........                1.4               4.06                4.1
SO2............................  ppmvd@7% O2...........               0.62               1.99                2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures.

6. Assessment of PM2.5 Data
    EPA's collection of emissions information also included filterable 
PM2.5 measured using OTM 27 and condensable PM measured 
using OTM 28. Other Test Method 27 and OTM 28 are equivalent to the 
proposed revisions of Methods 201A and 202. Emissions information for 
PM2.5 and condensable PM was obtained from 5 FB incinerators 
and 6 MH incinerators. Other Test Method 27/OTM 28 combination testing 
can be used to determine primary PM2.5, which includes 
filterable PM from OTM 27 and condensibles from OTM 28. A

[[Page 63275]]

variability analysis was conducted on the data to calculate a MACT 
floor level of control, and the results are provided in Table 7 of this 
preamble.

                                   Table 7--Variability Calculation for PM2.5
                                                 [Mg/Dscm@7%O2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Subcategory                          Avg of top 12%       99% of UPL           Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing FB Incinerators...............................                4.2               11.7                 12
Existing MH Incinerators...............................                 17               57.6                 58
All New Units..........................................                1.5               2.29                2.3
Potential New MH Incinerators (See Discussion In                       2.6               10.7                 11
 IV.C.2)...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are potential concerns with the emissions data and whether it 
is appropriate to set PM2.5 standards for SSI units. Other 
Test Method 27 is not an appropriate test method for sizing particulate 
at 2.5 [mu]m when there are entrained water droplets in the stack gas, 
which will bias the measurements. All SSI units use wet scrubbers to 
control emissions, and water droplet entrainment may be an issue at 
some portion of these sources, resulting in them not being able to 
measure PM2.5 using OTM 27. A review of the temperature and 
moisture data collected during the PM2.5 emissions tests 
indicates that water droplet entrainment is not an issue with the 
emissions data collected from the sources tested. Other test reports, 
at sources with stack gas moisture levels in excess of the vapor 
capacity, and thus with entrained water droplets, did not provide 
PM2.5 information. Additional information on the emission 
characteristics would be necessary to make a conclusion about general 
stack gas parameters in the SSI source category.
    Because of this concern, we decided not to include PM2.5 
standards in this proposal. We are requesting comment on whether the 
PM2.5 limits in Table 6 of this preamble should be set for 
the promulgated rule, and whether the combination of OTM 27 and 28 are 
appropriate measurement techniques. We are also requesting additional 
PM2.5 emissions stack test data and supporting documentation 
for both MH and FB incinerators.

D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives

    As discussed above, EPA may adopt emission limitations and 
requirements that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-
the-floor). Unlike the MACT floor methodology, EPA must consider costs, 
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements 
when considering beyond-the-floor standards.
1. Beyond-the-Floor-Analysis for Existing Sources
    In order to identify beyond-the-floor options, we first identified 
control requirements for each pollutant that would be more stringent 
than required to meet the MACT floor level of control and determined 
whether they were technically feasible. If the more stringent controls 
were technically feasible, a cost and emission impacts analysis was 
conducted for applying them. The cost, emission reduction, and cost-
effectiveness of the technically feasible controls were reviewed, and 
controls that were relatively cost-effective in reducing emissions were 
selected as possible beyond-the-floor control options.
    The control technologies that would be needed to achieve the MACT 
floor levels (i.e., FF and packed bed scrubbers) are generally the most 
effective controls available for reducing PM, Cd, Pb, HCl and 
SO2. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor technologies were 
identified for these pollutants. We analyzed options of applying FF and 
packed bed scrubbers to units that did not have these controls already 
or did not need them to meet the MACT floor emissions limits. A 
preliminary cost and emission reduction analysis was performed for 
these options. The results indicate that the application of FF (to 
control Cd and Pb), or application of a packed bed scrubber (to control 
HCl and SO2), as a beyond-the-floor option results in high 
costs for the emission reduction achieved, and is not cost-effective. 
Consequently, the FF and packed bed beyond-the-floor options were not 
further analyzed. This analysis is documented in the memorandum 
``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' found in the SSI docket. We 
identified and analyzed impacts of beyond-the-floor technologies for 
the other pollutants (CO, NOX, Hg, and CDD/CDF). These 
analyses are summarized in the following paragraphs.
    As discussed in section IV.C.4 of this preamble, our analysis 
indicates that all existing FB and MH units would meet the MACT floor 
levels of control for NOX and CO without applying any 
additional control; therefore, no control technologies were costed for 
these pollutants at the MACT floor level. For the beyond-the-floor 
analysis, we analyzed applicable controls, as discussed below, to 
provide reductions of NOX and CO from all SSI units.
    For NOX, we reviewed add-on control technologies that 
achieve NOX reduction at other combustion sources, such as 
MWC units, CISWI units, and boilers. These include SCR, SNCR, and FGR. 
However, none of these technologies were determined to be appropriate 
for SSI units. To our knowledge, SSI units do not use SCR or SNCR. 
Additionally, we are not aware of any successful applications of SCR 
technology to waste combustion units. This may be due to the 
difficulties operating SCR where there is significant PM or sulfur 
loading in the gas stream. Application of SNCR also may not be 
technically feasible because the combustion mechanism of MH 
incinerators provides inadequate mixing of combustion gas and SNCR 
reagent. Additionally, SSI operating conditions (e.g., low temperatures 
and residence times for MH incinerators and low uncontrolled 
NOX emissions for FB incinerators) are not well suited for 
application of SNCR. Flue gas recirculation has been used on combustion 
devices to reduce NOX emissions. Emissions information 
collected by EPA contains data from one MH incinerator with FGR. 
However, its emission levels are similar to units without FGR. 
Therefore, no conclusion could be made on FGR performance. 
Additionally, there are no FB incinerators that currently use any add-
on NOX control because, due to their design, FB incinerators 
achieve low NOX emission levels without add-on controls.
    With regard to Hg and CDD/CDF, the most effective control 
technology to reduce these emissions is activated

[[Page 63276]]

carbon injection. We estimate that this source category is currently 
the sixth highest Hg emitting source category in the United States, 
emitting about 3.1 TPY of Hg (or about 3 percent of the total Hg 
emissions from anthropogenic sources in the United States). This 
category emits about 0.0001 TPY of dioxin (or 0.0000081 tons of dioxin 
TEQ), which is about 1 percent of the total estimated dioxin emissions 
in the U.S.
    Our analysis indicates that 53 SSI units would need to use 
activated carbon injection to meet the MACT floor level of control, so 
costs for activated carbon injection were included in the cost analysis 
for the MACT floor for such units. All of these units, except for two, 
are FB units. Control of the FB units at the MACT floor will result in 
estimated emissions reductions of about 0.06 tons of Hg and 0.0000065 
tons dioxins TEQ. However, the other units (especially the MH units) 
would not need additional control to meet the ``floor'' level of 
control. Additional beyond-the-floor reductions for the MH units would 
be achieved by applying activated carbon injection. Data gathered by 
EPA indicate that activated carbon injection applied to combustion 
sources with particulate control can achieve 85-95 percent reduction of 
Hg, depending on the type of particulate control, with higher 
reductions achieved by units with FF and lower reductions achieved by 
units with electrostatic precipitators or venturi scrubbers. Based on 
these data, a beyond-the-floor reduction of 88 percent for Hg was used 
for carbon injection applied to existing MH unit controls, resulting in 
an emission level of 0.02 mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 
Previous EPA studies also show that CDD/CDF can be reduced by as much 
as 98 percent using activated carbon injection.
    For CO, the MACT floor emission level for existing MH sources is 
3,900 ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen. An add-on combustion device, 
such as an afterburner, was analyzed as a more stringent control device 
that could be applied. Some units may use a RTO to comply with the CWA 
``503 Rule'' (40 CFR part 503). We request comment on the use of an 
afterburner or RTO as a means to control CO from MH SSI units. Carbon 
monoxide emissions data collected show that MH incinerators using an 
add-on afterburner or RTO can achieve CO emission levels less than 100 
ppmv. The CWA part 503 Rule limits SSI to 100 ppmv THC as propane, dry 
basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, averaged for 30 days. The CWA 
part 503 Rule allows substitution of 100 ppmv CO dry basis, corrected 
to 7 percent oxygen for the THC originally required. The 100 ppm CO 
level was selected because this level was determined to be a level that 
would be indicative of THC concentrations below 100 ppmv. This allows 
the use of a lower cost, easier to maintain CO monitor in place of the 
difficult to keep on-line THC monitor. Consistent with the CWA part 503 
regulations for disposal of sewage sludge, for the beyond-the-floor 
analysis, a value of 100 ppmv was used as the emission level that a MH 
incinerator with an afterburner could achieve. Although we do not have 
data to quantify the impacts, the afterburner is also expected to 
reduce emissions of organic compounds, such as 7-PAH. We also evaluated 
whether there were any beyond-the-floor options for CO for existing FB 
incinerators. The proposed SSI MACT floor CO level for existing FB 
incinerators (56 ppmv) is well below the 100 ppmv emission level of the 
CWA part 503 Rule. We determined that application of an afterburner to 
FB units would not achieve appreciable CO reduction from the proposed 
limit for the cost incurred. This analysis is documented in the 
memorandum ``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.'' Therefore, 
no beyond-the-floor CO limit was analyzed for the FB subcategory.
    Table 8 of this preamble summarizes the costs of the MACT floor 
emission level (referred to as option 1), and 2 beyond-the-floor 
options. Option 2 is the same as option 1 plus application of activated 
carbon injection with existing particulate control to reduce Hg 
emissions. Option 3 is the same as option 2 plus applying an 
afterburner to MH units to reduce CO emissions.

   Table 8--Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units To Comply With MACT
                         Control Options (2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total capital     Total annualized
              Option                    costs ($)       costs ($/Yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--MACT Floor.....................        220,000,000         73,000,000
2--Option 1 + Activated carbon            225,000,000        105,000,000
 injection........................
3--Option 2 + CO Afterburner......        370,000,000        148,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a 7 percent discount factor.

    Table 9 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions of each 
pollutant for the MACT control options.

  Table 9--Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units To Comply
                  With the MACT Control Options Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Emission reductions for each MACT
                                                option (TPY)
            Pollutant             --------------------------------------
                                     Option 1     Option 2     Option 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd...............................         1.41         1.41         1.41
CDD/CDF TEQ......................    0.0000065    0.0000078    0.0000078
CDD/CDF TMB......................     0.000079     0.000099     0.000099
CO...............................            0            0       25,691
HCl..............................           93           93           93
Hg...............................         0.09         2.71         2.71
NOX..............................          4.3          4.3          4.3
Pb...............................         2.63         2.63         2.63

[[Page 63277]]

PM...............................          318          318          318
SO2..............................        2,192        2,192        2,192
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results provided in Tables 8 and 9 of this preamble were 
calculated using data gathered for each source, as well as default 
emissions, sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate information for 
sources where data were unavailable. We estimate that applying 
activated carbon injection to all MH units to control Hg and CDD/CDF 
would result in total annualized costs of $32 million dollars (using a 
discount rate of 7 percent) and would achieve Hg reductions of 2.62 TPY 
and CDD/CDF reductions of 0.000020 TPY. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of adding activated carbon injection to all MH units is 
estimated to be $12 million per ton of pollutants (Hg and CDD/CDF) 
removed (or $6,000 per pound). More than 99.9 percent of these 
estimated reductions are for Hg, thus these cost estimates mainly 
reflect the costs of Hg removal (i.e., about $6,000 per pound of Hg 
removed). However, it is important to note that activated carbon 
injection cannot be applied alone. It requires particulate control 
devices to remove the carbon that is injected to adsorb the Hg. Based 
on our available data, all of these units have some type of PM control 
device in place so they would not need to install new PM control 
equipment. We believe this beyond-the-floor option is cost-effective 
for Hg, which is a persistent bio-accumulative toxic (PBT) pollutant. 
Thus, we are proposing this beyond-the-floor limit for Hg of 0.02 mg/
dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. Because more than 99.9 percent of 
the emissions reduction is associated with Hg, a specific beyond-the-
floor option of controlling CDD/CDF emissions using activated carbon 
injection was not further considered. However, co-control of CDD/CDF 
would occur from the option of applying activated carbon injection to 
meet the beyond-the-floor emission limit for Hg.
    Information collected by EPA shows that several FB units, but no MH 
units, currently use activated carbon injection. We believe activated 
carbon injection is applicable to both types of SSI combustors and do 
not know of any technical reason that activated carbon injection could 
not be applied to reduce Hg emissions at MH units. We are requesting 
comment and additional information on the feasibility of using this 
technology on MH units.
    Thus, given the factors discussed above, we are proposing limits 
for Hg based on the beyond-the-floor option described above. However, 
we are requesting comment on this approach and the beyond-the-floor 
limits for Hg at MH units and request information on other factors and 
any data available that we should consider in our final rulemaking.
    We also considered whether we should set beyond-the-floor emission 
limits for CO. The emissions reductions and cost associated with this 
are referred to as option 3 in Tables 8 and 9 of this preamble. We 
estimate that to apply MACT control option 3, which would require 
either the use of an afterburner or thermal oxidizer, could require as 
much as 1,700 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to be burned, 
resulting in NOX and CO emissions of 84 and 70 TPY, 
respectively. Therefore, given these factors, we are not recommending 
going beyond-the-floor with option 3. We are requesting comment on 
whether to require MH units to meet the 100 ppmv CO limit, considering 
the potential emissions of NOX and the cost impacts on 
municipalities of applying this option.
    The results of the beyond-the-floor analysis are documented in the 
memorandum ``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' found in the 
SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 1 in this preamble summarizes 
the proposed emissions limits for existing SSI units.
2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for New Sources
    We did not identify any technologies or methods to achieve emission 
limits more stringent than the MACT floor limits for new units based on 
the lowest emitting FB incinerators. The control technologies necessary 
to achieve the MACT floor levels are generally the most effective 
controls available: FF for PM, Cd and Pb control; packed bed scrubbers 
for SO2 and HCl control; afterburners for CO control; and 
activated carbon injection for CDD/CDF and Hg control. In addition, 
incremental additions of activated carbon have not been proven to 
achieve further reductions above the projected flue gas concentration 
estimated to achieve the limits for new sources. Data gathered do not 
indicate that any FB incinerators operate NOX controls, such 
as SNCR, SCR, or FGR because the NOX emissions are already 
low. In light of the technical feasibility, costs, energy, and nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts discussed in this section, we 
have determined it is not reasonable to establish beyond-the-floor 
limits for existing and new SSI units. Table 2 in this preamble 
summarizes the proposed emissions limits for new SSI units.

E. Rationale for Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    We are proposing that all new and existing SSI units meet the 
following requirements:

     Initial and annual emissions performance tests (or 
continuous emissions monitoring as an alternative).
     Annual inspections of scrubbers, FF, and other air 
pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission 
limits.
     Annual visual emissions test of ash handling 
procedures.
     Control device parameter monitoring for wet scrubbers, 
FF, ESP, activated carbon injection, and afterburners, and other 
approved control devices.
     Monitoring of bypass stack use if installed at an 
affected unit.
     Periodic performance evaluations of continuous 
monitoring systems.

    These proposed requirements were selected to provide additional 
assurance that sources continue to operate at the levels established 
during their initial performance test. The visual emissions test of ash 
handling procedures and annual control device inspections have been 
adopted for HMIWI, another CAA section 129 source category. Hospital, 
Medical, and Infectious Waste Incineration standards (74 FR 51367) 
contain these requirements to ensure that the ash which may contain 
metals, is not emitted to the atmosphere through fugitive emissions and 
that control devices are maintained properly.

[[Page 63278]]

The large and small MWC standards also have similar fugitive ash 
monitoring requirements. In addition, the CISWI rule requires a Method 
22 (of appendix A-7) visible emissions test of the ash handling 
operations to be conducted during the annual compliance test for all 
subcategories except waste-burning kilns, which do not have ash 
handling systems. We propose to require the fugitive ash monitoring 
provisions that are contained in the HMIWI, CISWI, and MWC rules. The 
HMIWI, CISWI, and MWC units are incineration devices combusting waste 
and have ash handling similar to SSI units. Consequently, we believe 
that the requirements for fugitive ash handling in the HMIWI and MWC 
standards can be applied to SSI units. We request comment on whether 
the ash handling requirements for MWC and HMIWI are appropriate for 
SSI, and if not, what requirements should be imposed.
    The proposed rules would allow sources to use the results of 
emissions tests conducted within the previous 2 years to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the proposed emission limits for all the CAA 
section 129 pollutants as long as the sources certify that the previous 
test results are representative of current operations. Such tests must 
have been conducted using the test methods specified in the SSI rules 
and must be the most recent tests performed on the unit. Those sources, 
whose previous emissions tests do not demonstrate compliance with 1 or 
more of the revised emission limits, would be required to conduct 
another emissions test for those pollutants. This allowance to use 
previous tests would minimize the burden to affected sources. 
Information collected by EPA shows tests have been conducted on SSI for 
Title V, State testing requirements, and OW 503 rule requirements for 
many of the CAA section 129 pollutants. We seek comment on the 
appropriateness of the use of previously-conducted performance tests.
    The proposed rule also would allow for reduced testing of PM, Cd, 
Pb, Hg, SO2, HCl, NOX and CO (for existing 
sources only). We are proposing to allow facilities with test data for 
listed pollutants that show emissions are less than 75 percent of the 
applicable emission limits to be able to qualify for testing for these 
pollutants once every 3 years. The reduced testing allowance and 
compliance margin provides flexibility and incentive to sources that 
operate well within the emission standard, and timelier follow-through 
on assuring that sources that are marginally in compliance will remain 
in compliance.
    The proposed rule would allow for the following optional CEMS use: 
CO CEMS for existing sources; and NOX CEMS, SO2 
CEMS, PM CEMS, HCl CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS, 
ISTMMS and ISTDMS for existing and new sources and COMS. Some existing 
SSI units may have CO CEMS, NOX CEMS, or SO2 CEMS 
already to meet other regulatory or permit requirements, and we propose 
to allow them to continue to use these monitors to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the SSI standards. The optional use of HCl 
CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS, ISTMMS, and ISTDMS would be 
available on the date a final PS for these monitoring systems is 
published in the Federal Register. The proposed monitoring provisions 
are discussed in more detail below.
    Monitoring Provisions for All Control Devices. The proposed rules 
would require monitoring the dry sludge feed rate, combustion chamber 
temperature (or afterburner temperature), and sludge moisture content 
to ensure that the incinerator operation parameters measured during the 
compliance test are continually maintained.
    Monitoring Provisions for Wet Scrubbers. The proposed rules would 
require monitoring the scrubber liquor flow rate and pH, and the 
minimum pressure drop across each scrubber (or amperage to each 
scrubber), to ensure that the scrubber operation parameters measured 
during the compliance test are continually maintained.
    Monitoring Provisions for Activated Carbon Injection (Hg sorbent 
injection). The proposed rules would require monitoring of activated 
carbon (i.e., Hg sorbent) injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 
carrier gas pressure drop) to ensure that the minimum sorbent injection 
rate, measured during the compliance test, is continually maintained.
    Monitoring Provisions for FF. The proposed rules would require bag 
leak detection system monitoring to ensure that the FF is operating 
properly and that leaks in the filter media are quickly identified and 
corrected on a continuous basis.
    Monitoring Provisions for Electrostatic Precipitators. The proposed 
rules would require monitoring of the secondary voltage and secondary 
amperage of the collection plates, calculating the secondary power 
input to the collection plates (voltage multiplied by amperage) per ESP 
section, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the ESP (for wet 
ESP) to ensure that the ESP operating parameters measured during the 
compliance test are maintained on a continuous basis.
    Monitoring Provisions for Afterburners. The proposed rules would 
require monitoring of the temperature of afterburners.CO CEMS. The 
proposed rules would require the use of CO CEMS on new SSI units. The 
proposed rules would allow the use of CO CEMS on existing sources. 
Owners and operators that use CO CEMS would be able to discontinue 
their annual CO compliance test. The continuous monitoring of CO 
emissions is an effective way of ensuring that the combustion unit is 
operating properly. The proposed rules incorporate the use of PS-4B 
Specifications and Test Procedures for Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen 
Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 
40 CFR part 60.
    The proposed CO emission limits are based on data from annual stack 
tests and compliance would be demonstrated by stack tests. The change 
to use continuously-operated CO CEMS for measurement and enforcement of 
the stack test-based emission limits must be carefully considered in 
relation to an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. In past 
EPA rulemakings for incineration units, EPA has selected averaging 
times between 4 hours and 24 hours based on statistical analysis of 
long-term CEMS data for a particular subcategory. Because CO CEMS data 
available for SSI to perform such an analysis are insufficient to 
determine an emission level that would correspond to a shorter 
averaging period, EPA is proposing the use of a 24-hour block average 
as appropriate to address potential changes in CO emissions. The 24-
hour block average would be calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 
12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. Existing 
facilities electing to use CO CEMS as an optional method would be 
required to notify EPA 1 month before starting use of CO CEMS and 1 
month before stopping use of the CO CEMS. In addition, EPA specifically 
requests comment on whether continuous monitoring of CO emissions 
should be required for all existing SSI.
    PM CEMS. The proposed rules would allow the use of PM CEMS as an 
alternative testing and monitoring method. Owners or operators who 
choose to rely on PM CEMS would be able to discontinue their annual PM 
compliance test. In addition, because units that demonstrate compliance 
with the PM emission limits with a PM CEMS would also be meeting the 
opacity standard, compliance demonstration with PM CEMS would be

[[Page 63279]]

considered a substitute for opacity testing or opacity monitoring. 
Owners and operators who use PM CEMS also would be able to discontinue 
their monitoring of ESP and scrubbers used to comply with the PM 
emission limit for the following operating parameters: Wet scrubber 
pressure drop, scrubber liquor flow rate, scrubber liquor pH, secondary 
voltage of ESP collection plates, secondary amperage of ESP collection 
plates, effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the ESP, and opacity 
monitoring or testing to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
opacity limits. These operating parameters may still need to be 
monitored to demonstrate compliance for other pollutants (e.g., HCl). 
These parameter monitoring requirements were designed to ensure the 
scrubber continues to operate in a manner that reduces PM emissions and 
would not be necessary if PM is directly measured on a continuous 
basis. The proposed amendments incorporate the use of PS-11 
(Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous 
Emissions Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 
CFR part 60 for PM CEMS and PS-11 QA Procedure 2 to ensure that PM CEMS 
are installed and operated properly and produce good quality monitoring 
data.
    The proposed PM emission limits are based on data from (normally 
distributed or transferred to be normally distributed) annual stack 
tests and compliance would generally be demonstrated by stack tests. 
The use of PM CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the same stack 
test-based emission limits must be carefully considered in relation to 
an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. Because PM CEMS 
data are unavailable for SSI, EPA is proposing that the use of a 24-
hour block average is appropriate to address potential changes in PM 
emissions that cannot be accounted for with short term stack test data. 
The 24-hour block average would be calculated using Equation 19-19 in 
section 12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. An 
owner or operator of a SSI unit who wishes to use PM CEMS would be 
required to notify EPA 1 month before starting use of PM CEMS and 1 
month before stopping use of the PM CEMS.
    Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems. EPA also is proposing the 
optional use of NOX CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS, 
multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS, ISTMMS, and ISTDMS as 
alternatives to the existing monitoring methods for demonstrating 
compliance with the NOX, SO2, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg, 
and CDD/CDF emission limits. Because CEMS data for SSI are unavailable 
for all subcategories for NOX, SO2, HCl and 
metals, EPA concluded that the use of a 24-hour block average was 
appropriate to address potential changes in emissions of 
NOX, SO2, HCl and metals that cannot be accounted 
for with short term stack test data. EPA has concluded that the use of 
24-hour block averages would be appropriate to address emissions 
variability, and EPA has included the use of 24-hour block averages in 
the proposed rule. The 24-hour block averages would be calculated using 
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A of 40 
CFR part 60. The proposed amendments incorporate the use of PS-2 of 
appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for NOX and SO2 
CEMS. Although final PS are not yet available for HCl CEMS and multi-
metals CEMS, EPA is considering development of PS. The proposed rule 
specifies that these options would be available to a facility on the 
date a final PS is published in the Federal Register.
    The use of HCl CEMS would allow the discontinuation of monitoring 
of the following operating parameters associated with scrubbers used to 
comply with the HCl emission limits: scrubber liquor flow rate, 
scrubber liquor pH, pressure drop across the scrubber (or amperage to 
the scrubber), and the annual testing requirements for HCl. However, 
some of these monitoring parameters may still be necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with other pollutant emission limits. These 
parameter monitoring requirements were designed to ensure the scrubber 
continues to operate in a manner that reduces HCl emissions and would 
not be necessary if HCl emissions are directly measured on a continuous 
basis. EPA has proposed PS-13 (Specifications and Test Procedures for 
Hydrochloric Acid Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) 
of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 and expects that PS-13 can serve as the 
basis for HCl CEMS use at SSI. The procedures used in proposed PS-13 
for the initial accuracy determination use the relative accuracy test, 
a comparison against a reference method. EPA is taking comment on an 
alternate initial accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one 
in section 11 of PS-15 (Performance Specification for Extractive FTIR 
Continuous Emissions Monitor Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix 
B of 40 CFR part 60 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
    EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can be used in many applications, 
including SSI. EPA has monitored side-by-side evaluations of multi-
metals CEMS with EPA Method 29 of appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 at 
industrial waste incinerators and found good correlation. EPA also 
approved the use of multi-metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring 
method at hazardous waste combustors. EPA believes that proposed PS-10 
(Specifications and Test Procedures for Multi-metals Continuous 
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 
60 or other EPA PS to allow the use of multi-metals CEMS at SSI is an 
appropriate alternative. We request comment on the appropriateness of 
using multi-metals CEMS as a substitute for Cd and Pb performance 
testing. The procedures used in proposed PS-10 for the initial accuracy 
determination use the relative accuracy test, a comparison against a 
reference method. EPA is taking comment on an alternate initial 
accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one in section 11 of 
PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
    EPA proposes the optional use of Hg CEMS (Performance Specification 
12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor Phase Mercury 
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) or 
ISTMMS (Performance Specification 12B--Specifications and Test 
Procedures for Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emissions 
Monitoring Systems from Stationary Sources Using a Sorbent Trap 
Monitoring System or Appendix K of part 75).\16\ An owner or operator 
of a SSI unit who wishes to use any CEMS or CASS would be required to 
notify EPA 1 month before starting use of the CEMS or CASS and 1 month 
before stopping use of the CEMS or CASS. The source would also have to 
perform the annual performance test within 60 days of ceasing to use 
the CEMS or CASS for compliance with the standard. Mercury sorbent flow 
rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) 
monitoring could be eliminated in favor of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg 
CEMS; however CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate and carrier gas monitoring 
would still be required as an indicator of CDD/CDF

[[Page 63280]]

control if ISTDMS or CDD/CDF CEMS are not used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA originally added PS-12A and PS-12B to Part 75 as part 
of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated CAMR on grounds 
unrelated to the PS. New Jersey v. EPA; 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008). 
The Court's decision did not, in any way, address the 
appropriateness of the procedures set forth in Appendix K. In 2009, 
as part of the Portland Cement MACT, EPA proposed amending part 75 
to add PS-12A and PS-12B. EPA currently intends to finalize those 
specifications at the same time it takes final action on the 
Portland cement MACT rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISTMMS would entail use of a CASS with analysis of the samples 
at set intervals using any suitable determinative technique that can 
meet appropriate criteria. The option to use a CASS would take effect 
on the date a final PS is published in the Federal Register. As with Hg 
and multi-metal CEMS, use of integrated sorbent trap monitoring would 
eliminate the requirement to monitor Hg sorbent injection rate but 
would not eliminate the requirement to monitor CDD/CDF sorbent 
injection rate because it also is an indicator of CDD/CDF control.
    The ISTDMS would entail use of a CASS and analysis of the sample 
according to EPA Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. 
The option to use a CASS would take effect on the date a final PS is 
published in the Federal Register. Dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate 
and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) monitoring and 
CDD/CDF annual testing could be eliminated in favor of ISTDMS, but Hg 
sorbent injection rate monitoring would not be eliminated because it 
also is an indicator of Hg control.
    If integrated sorbent trap monitoring of CDD/CDF as well as multi-
metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, or ISTMMS are used, both Hg sorbent injection 
rate monitoring and CDD/CDF sorbent injection rate monitoring could be 
eliminated. These parameter monitoring requirements were designed to 
ensure that control devices continue to be operated in a manner to 
reduce CDD/CDF, metals and Hg emissions, and corresponding monitoring 
is not needed if all of these pollutants are directly measured on an 
ongoing basis. EPA requests comment on other parameter monitoring 
requirements that could be eliminated upon use of any or all of the 
optional CEMS and CASS discussed above. Table 10 of this preamble 
presents a summary of the SSI operating parameters, the pollutants 
influenced by each parameter and alternative monitoring options for 
each parameter.

    Table 10--Summary of SSI Operating Parameters and Control Device
  Inspections, Pollutants Influenced by Each Parameter and Alternative
                  Monitoring Options for Each Parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Pollutants
  Operating parameter (control       influenced by
   device type associated with         operating          Alternative
     monitoring requirement)       parameter/control  monitoring options
                                        device
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sludge feed rate (All)..........  All...............  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sludge moisture level (All).....  All...............  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of combustion         All...............  None.
 chamber (or afterburner
 combustion chamber) (All).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate         CDD/CDF...........  ISTDMS or CDD/CDF
 (Activated carbon injection).                         CEMS.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier
 gas pressure drop (Activated
 carbon injection using CDD/CDF
 sorbent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg sorbent flow rate (Activated   Hg................  ISTMMS, Hg CEMS,
 carbon injection).                                    or multi-metals
                                                       CEMS.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier
 gas pressure drop (Activated
 carbon injection using Hg
 sorbent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber pressure drop from each  PM, Cd, Pb........  PM CEMS, Pb CEMS,
 scrubber (Wet scrubber).                              or Cd CEMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber liquor flow rate from    PM, Cd, Pb........  PM CEMS, multi-
 each scrubber (Wet scrubber).                         metals CEMS, Cd
                                                       CEMS, or Pb CEMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber liquor flow rate from    HCl, SO2..........  HCl CEMS or SO2
 each scrubber (Wet scrubber).                         CEMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber liquor pH from each      HCl, SO2..........  HCl CEMS or SO2
 scrubber (Wet scrubber).                              CEMS.
Secondary voltage and secondary   PM, Cd, Pb, Hg....  PM CEMS, Pb CEMS,
 amperage of collection plates                         or Cd CEMS.
 (All ESP).
Effluent flow rate (Wet ESP)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of afterburner......  CO................  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag leak detection monitoring     PM, Cd, Pb, Hg....  None.
 system alarm time (FF).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution control device      All...............  None.
 inspections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time of visible emissions from    PM................  None.
 ash handling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opacity from combustion stacks..  PM................  PM CEMS or COMS
                                                       (only if wet
                                                       scrubber is not
                                                       used).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 11 of this preamble presents a summary of the SSI test 
methods and approved alternative compliance methods.

[[Page 63281]]

                   Table 11--Summary of SSI Test Methods and Approved Alternative Test Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Approved Alternative
    Pollutant/parameter            Test Methods \1\               methods \1\                  Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.........................  Method 29 at 40 CFR part     Cd CEMS or Multi-metals     Cd CEMS or multi-metal
                              60, appendix A-8.            CEMS.                       CEMS are optional for all
                                                                                       sources in lieu of annual
                                                                                       Cd test.
CDD/CDF....................  Method 23 at 40 CFR part     ISTDMS....................  ISTDMS are optional for
                              60, appendix A-7.                                        all sources in lieu of
                                                                                       annual CDD/CDF testing.
CO.........................  CO CEMS (new sources) and    CO CEMS (for existing       CO CEMS are optional for
                              Method 10, 10A, or 10B at    sources).                   existing sources in lieu
                              40 CFR part 60 appendix A-                               of annual CO test; CO
                              4.                                                       CEMS are required for new
                                                                                       sources.
Flue and exhaust gas         Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR    ASME PTC 19.10-1981 part    ..........................
 analysis.                    part 60, appendix A-2.       10.
HCl........................  Method 26 or Method 26A at   HCl CEMS..................  HCl CEMS are optional for
                              40 CFR part 60, appendix A-                              all sources in lieu of
                              8.                                                       annual HCl test.
Hg.........................  Method 29 at 40 CFR part     Method 30B at 40 CFR part   Multi-metal CEMS, Hg CEMS,
                              60, appendix A-8.            60, appendix A (when        or ISTMMS are optional
                                                           published in the Federal    for all sources in lieu
                                                           Register); Multi-metals     of annual Hg test.
                                                           CEMS; Hg CEMS (PS-12A);
                                                           ISTMMS (PS-12B of
                                                           Appendix B of part 75);
                                                           or ASTM D6784-02,
                                                           Standard Test Method for
                                                           Elemental Oxidized,
                                                           Particle Bound and Total
                                                           Mercury in Flue Gas
                                                           Generated from Coal-fired
                                                           Stationary Sources
                                                           (Ontario Hydro Method).
NOX........................  Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR     NOX CEMS..................  NOX CEMS are optional for
                              part 60, appendix A-4.                                   all sources in lieu of
                                                                                       annual NOX test.
Opacity....................  Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60,  PM CEMS, COMS.............  PM CEMS and COMS are
                              appendix A-4.                                            optional for all sources
                                                                                       in lieu of annual opacity
                                                                                       testing.
Pb.........................  Method 29 at 40 CFR part     Pb CEMS or Multi-metals     PB CEMS or multi-metal
                              60, appendix A-8.            CEMS.                       CEMS are optional for all
                                                                                       sources in lieu of annual
                                                                                       Pb test.
PM.........................  Method 5, at 40 CFR part     PM CEMS...................  PM CEMS are optional for
                              60, appendix A-3; Method                                 all sources in lieu of
                              26A or 29 at 40 CFR part                                 annual PM test required.
                              60, appendix A-8.
PM, Pb, Cd, Hg.............  Bag leak detection system    ..........................  Bag leak detection systems
                              or PM CEMS.                                              are required for units
                                                                                       equipped with FF.
SO2........................  Method 6 or Method 6C at 40  HCl CEMS..................  SO2 CEMS are optional for
                              CFR part 60, appendix A-4.                               all sources in lieu of
                                                                                       annual SO2 test.
Visible emissions of         Method 22 of appendix A-7    None......................
 fugitive ash.                of this part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.

    This proposal contains no specific data availability requirements 
for continuous monitoring systems. Generally, monitoring must be 
conducted and emissions data must be collected at all times the SSI 
unit is operating, except for periods of monitoring system malfunction, 
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunction, and required 
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities. We 
seek comment on approaches to provide this data, e.g., redundant CEMS, 
prescribed missing data procedures, owner- or operator-developed 
missing data procedures, or parametric monitoring. EPA is considering 
changing the averaging times for all CEMS and CASS from 24-hour block 
averages to 12-hour rolling averages to be consistent with the 
averaging times of the PS tests. We are requesting comment on the 
change. Additionally, we seek comment on the proposed 4-hour rolling 
averaging time for compliance with operating limits.
    The proposed rules would require repeat performance tests and 
updates to the monitoring plan if any of the following process changes 
occur: (1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment 
facility that affects the SSI unit, (2) a change in the air pollution 
control devices used to comply with the emission limits and (3) an 
increase in the allowable wastewater received from an industrial source 
to the wastewater treatment facility. We are requesting comment on 
these requirements and on the designation of what a process change is 
at a SSI unit.
    The OW 503 standards allow compliance demonstration by analyzing 
the pollutant concentration in the sludge ensuring the concentrations 
are sufficiently low that emission limits may be met. We request 
comment on whether facilities should be allowed to comply with the EG 
and NSPS based on monitoring the content of the sludge entering the SSI 
unit.
    In previous CAA section 129 standards, a waste management plan was 
required to identify both the feasibility and the approach to 
separating certain components of solid waste from the waste stream to 
reduce the amount of toxic emissions from incinerated waste. Elements 
of the waste management plan included identifying reasonably available 
additional waste management measures, the cost and emission reductions 
of the additional measures and other associated environmental or energy 
impacts.
    As previously discussed, all SSI units are required to meet the 
EPA's OW part 503 standards. Part 503 establishes daily average 
concentration limits for Pb, Cd

[[Page 63282]]

and other metals in sewage sludge that is disposed of by incineration. 
Part 503 also requires that SSI units meet the National Emission 
Standards for Beryllium and Mercury in subparts C and E, respectively, 
of 40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 standards, 
facilities are already incorporating management practices and measures 
to reduce waste and limit the concentration of pollutants in the sludge 
sent to SSI units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated 
wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for 
non-domestic users discharging wastewater to POTW. We are requesting 
comment on the need for a waste management plan for SSI units in the 
promulgated rules.

F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Section 129 of the CAA requires the EPA to develop regulations that 
include requirements for reporting the results of testing and 
monitoring performed to determine compliance with the standards and 
guidelines. The requirements must specify the form and frequency of the 
reports demonstrating compliance. If there are no exceedances, 
compliance reports are submitted annually. However, if there is an 
exceedance, reports showing the exceedance of any standard or guideline 
must be submitted separately for review and potential enforcement 
action. Copies of testing and monitoring results must be maintained on 
file at the affected facility. Other types of records are necessary to 
ensure that all provisions of the standards or guidelines are being 
met. Examples include siting analyses and operator training and 
qualification records.

G. Rationale for Operator Training and Qualification Requirements

    The proposed standards and guidelines include operator training and 
qualification requirements for SSI unit operators. These requirements 
provide flexibility by allowing State approved training and 
qualification programs. Where there are no State approved programs, the 
proposed regulations include minimum requirements for training and 
qualification. The minimum requirements include completion of a 
training course covering specified topics.
    In developing these requirements, training and qualification 
programs currently proposed or promulgated for other types of solid 
waste incineration units were reviewed to develop requirements 
appropriate for the SSI source category.

H. Rationale for Siting Requirements

    Section 129 of the CAA states that performance standards for new 
solid waste incineration units must incorporate siting requirements 
that minimize, on a site-specific basis and to the maximum extent 
practicable, potential risks to public health or the environment. In 
accordance with section 129, the EPA is proposing site selection 
criteria for SSI units that commence construction on or after the date 
of proposal of this rule (i.e., ``new'' units). The siting requirements 
would not apply to existing SSI units.
    The siting requirements in this proposal would require the owner or 
operator of a new unit to prepare an analysis of the impacts of the new 
unit. The owner or operator 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. In considering such alternatives, the owner or operator 
may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts, or 
any other factors related to the practicability of the alternatives. To 
avoid duplication, analyses of facility impacts prepared to comply with 
State, local, or other Federal regulatory requirements may be used to 
satisfy this requirement, provided they include the consideration of 
air pollution control alternatives specified previously. Such State, 
local, or Federal requirements may include, but are not limited to, 
State-specific criteria or national criteria established by the 
National Environmental Policy Act or new source review permitting 
requirements. The owner or operator must submit the siting information 
to EPA prior to commencing construction of the facility.

I. What are the SSM provisions?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit vacated portions of 2 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 (DC 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 2 provisions exempt sources from the 
requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 
emission standard during periods of SSM. The Court found that the 
definition of ``emission standards,'' which appears at 42 U.S.C. 
7602(k), and which applies equally to sections 112 and 129, requires 
EPA to apply MACT emissions standards on a continuous basis, thereby 
precluding exemptions applied for malfunctions or other singular 
events.\17\ Thus, the legality of source category-specific SSM 
exemptions in rules promulgated pursuant to section 129 is 
questionable. Therefore, consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is 
proposing that the standards in this rule apply at all times. EPA has 
attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into proposed 
regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, 
or redundant in the absence of a SSM exemption. We are specifically 
seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions that we have 
inadvertently incorporated or overlooked. If we receive relevant data 
that would warrant different standards, we may set those standards in 
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 551 F.3d at 1027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60 include 
provisions that are inconsistent with the proposed requirement that the 
SSI emissions standards apply at all times. For example, the General 
Provisions states that exceedances during periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction are generally not considered violations of the 
standards.\18\ To avoid confusion between the General Provisions and 
the SSI emissions regulations, we are proposing that, in circumstances 
where the requirements of the General Provisions are inconsistent with 
the requirements of the SSI emissions regulations, the provisions in 
the SSI regulations will control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 40 CFR 60.8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the standards in this rule, 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 proposing 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

[[Page 63283]]

are also generally lower than emissions during normal operations 
because the materials in the incinerator would be almost fully 
combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for 
establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units 
based on actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with an 
appropriate accounting of emissions variability. Because we accounted 
for emissions variability, we believe we have adequately addressed any 
minor variability that may potentially occur during startup or 
shutdown.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, 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 63.2). 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. It is reasonable to interpret section 
129 as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 
emissions standards. For example, we note that section 129 uses the 
concept of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the level of 
stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the concept 
of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning presents 
significant difficulties. The goal of best performing sources is to 
operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units.
    Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating 
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into 
account in setting CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above, 
by definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, and it 
would be difficult to set a standard that takes into account the myriad 
different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in 
the category. Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and 
duration, further complicating standard setting.
    For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be reported in 
deviation reports. We will then review the deviation reports to 
determine if the deviation is a violation of the standards.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 129 standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would 
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the 
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the 
CAA section 129 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, 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.\20\ EPA is 
therefore proposing to add to the final rule an affirmative defense to 
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by 
malfunctions.\21\ We also added other regulatory provisions to specify 
the elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; 
the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has 
met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 40 CFR 
60.5180. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available 
only where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit 
meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor 
maintenance and or careless operation). The criteria also are designed 
to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize 
emissions in accordance with section 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL and 40 
CFR part 60 subpart MMMM and to prevent future malfunctions. 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 Clean Air Act (see also 40 CFR Part 22.77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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).
    \21\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Delegation of Authority To Implement and Enforce These Provisions

    We are proposing a section on delegation of authority to clarify 
which authorities can be delegated or transferred to State, local, and 
tribal air pollution control agencies in this rulemaking and which are 
retained by EPA. For previous rules, there has been some confusion 
about what authority can be delegated to and exercised by State, local, 
and tribal air pollution control agencies and what authority must be 
retained by EPA. In some cases, State, local, and tribal air pollution 
control agencies were making decisions, such as allowing waivers of 
some provisions of this subpart, which cannot be delegated to those 
agencies.
    In the proposed SSI NSPS, the authorities that would be retained by 
EPA are listed in 40 CFR 60.4785 of subpart LLLL. They include 
authorities that must be retained by EPA for all NSPS: Approval of 
alternatives to the emission limits, approval of major alternatives to 
test methods, or monitoring and approval of major alternatives to 
recordkeeping and reporting. The list also specifically includes 
establishment of operating limits for control devices other than those 
listed in the rule per proposed 40 CFR 60.4855; and review of status 
reports submitted when no qualified operators are available per 
proposed 40 CFR 60.4835(b)(2). It also includes the approval of 
performance test and data reduction waivers under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 
preconstruction siting analysis in proposed 40 CFR 60.4800. These 
authorities may affect the stringency of the emission standards or 
limitations, which can only be amended by Federal rulemaking; thus they 
cannot be transferred to State, local, or tribal air pollution control 
agencies. We are also including 40 CFR 60.5050 in the proposed EG to 
make the provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement 
authorities in both subparts LLLL and MMMM consistent. We are seeking 
comment on whether these or other authorities should be retained by EPA 
or delegated to State, local, or tribal air pollution control agencies.

K. State Plans

    We are proposing regulatory language to clarify how states and 
eligible tribes can fulfill their obligation under CAA section 129 
(b)(2) in lieu of submitting a State plan for review and approval. We 
are adding proposed 40 CFR 60.5045 that will clarify how states and 
eligible tribes can fulfill the obligation under

[[Page 63284]]

CAA section 129 (b)(2) by submitting an acceptable, as specified in 40 
CFR 60.2541, written request for delegation of the Federal plan. 
Proposed 40 CFR 60.5045 lists specific requirements, such as a 
demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to implement 
and enforce the Federal plan, that must be met in order to receive 
delegation of the Federal plan. We are seeking comment on this 
provision.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Action

A. Impacts of the Proposed 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 proposed emission limits. Table 
12 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT 
compliance for each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the 
memorandum ``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.''

  Table 12--Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI Units If All
            Entities Comply With the Proposed Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Reductions achieved
                                    through meeting MACT by
                                       subcategory (TPY)        Total
            Pollutant             --------------------------  reductions
                                    Fluidized     Multiple      (TPY)
                                       bed         hearth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd...............................       0.0010          1.4          1.4
CDD/CDF TEQ......................    0.0000065    0.0000013    0.0000078
CDD/CDF TMB......................     0.000079     0.000020     0.000099
CO...............................            0            0            0
HCl..............................          1.5           92           93
Hg...............................        0.058          2.7          2.7
NOX..............................            0          4.3          4.3
Pb...............................       0.0053          2.6          2.6
PM...............................           41          278          319
SO2..............................           60        2,100        2,200
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................          102        2,510        2,610
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    We anticipate affected sources would 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 346 million gallons per year of 
additional wastewater would be generated as a result of operating 
additional controls or increased sorbents.
    Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls 
already in place would increase the amount of particulate collected 
that would require disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon injection 
may be utilized by some sources, which would result in additional solid 
waste needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that would 
require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 364 TPY from PM 
capture and 11,400 TPY from activated carbon injection. The analysis is 
documented in the memorandum ``Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 
Incineration Source Category.''
3. What are the energy impacts?
    The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed 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. We anticipate that an additional 
33,800 megawatt-hours per year would be required for the additional and 
improved control devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 
``Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 
Category.''
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
    For SSI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission limits, 
we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel 
needed to generate additional electricity would yield slight increases 
in emissions, including NOX, CO, PM and SO2 and 
an increase in CO2 emissions. Since NOX and 
SO2 are covered by capped emissions trading programs, and 
methodological limitations prevent us from quantifying the change in CO 
and PM, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for 
this rule from additional electricity demand.
5. What are the cost and economic impacts?
    We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add 
the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with Option 2 
(i.e., the proposed SSI standards). Based on this analysis, we 
anticipate an overall total capital investment of $225 million with an 
associated total annualized cost of $105 million, in 2008 dollars (and 
using a discount rate of 7 percent), as shown in Table 13 of this 
preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will need to install 1 or 
more air pollution control devices for 214 of the 218 affected units to 
meet the proposed emission limits. We are requesting comment on whether 
there are space constraints at wastewater treatment facilities that 
would affect the feasibility and cost of installing air pollution 
control devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 
``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.''

[[Page 63285]]

 Table 13--Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities Comply With
                        Proposed Emission Limits
                           [Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annualized cost
            Subcategory              Capital cost ($     ($ million/yr)
                                         million)             \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluidized Bed.....................               86.7               32.3
Multiple Hearth...................              138.0               72.7
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................              224.7              105.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent.

    Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. We have also 
evaluated the possibility that existing SSI owners would dispose of 
sewage sludge through alternative methods rather than incineration, 
such as landfilling, land application, or sending sewage sludge to 
another SSI unit. The alternative method we analyzed was landfilling, 
which is generally more expensive than land application, but would 
provide a more conservative estimate of the cost of alternative 
disposal.
    We conducted this analysis by determining the cost of landfilling 
and then subtracting the existing cost of operating the SSI unit 
(because this cost would no longer be incurred). The cost of 
landfilling sewage sludge included landfill tipping fees as well as 
transportation costs. The cost of storing dewatered sewage sludge on-
site for up to four days was also included in the landfilling cost. 
Sewage sludge incineration unit operating costs were obtained from ICR 
questionnaires sent to 9 facilities. These costs are discussed in more 
detail in the memorandum ``Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 
Floor Level of Control,'' which is in the SSI docket. We request 
comment on the assumptions and cost estimates used for the landfilling 
option. The results of the analysis shows that, for most facilities, 
landfilling sewage sludge is a more economically advantageous disposal 
option than continuing to operate their SSI unit. It was assumed that 
smaller sources presented with the option of applying MACT controls or 
landfilling would select landfilling because the analysis shows a cost 
savings, even when not considering the additional cost of MACT 
controls. If the cost of the MACT controls were also included, it would 
be even more advantageous to landfill.
    However, there are several uncertainties with the analysis that may 
significantly impact the results. These include:

     The operating cost information was based on only the 9 
ICR respondents, which are larger units. Smaller units may have 
lower or different operating costs that are not captured in the 
operating cost factors or different capacity utilizations or 
operating hours.
     For some SSI units, the nearest landfill accepting 
sewage sludge may be farther than assumed in the analysis.

    To confirm the results of the analysis, we contacted 9 owners of 
wastewater treatment facilities that would be considered small 
entities, that is, the population of the municipalities or regional 
authorities that own the facility were less than or equal to 50,000 
people. We also reviewed company Web sites for other small entities to 
find the status of the SSI units. The results of the data collection 
showed that the majority of small entities have shut down their SSI 
unit and are either land applying or landfilling. Others are planning 
on landfilling in the future. The data collection, as well as the cost 
estimate for the landfilling option is discussed in the memorandum, 
``Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control.''
    While we are able to confirm this analysis for smaller entities, we 
were unable to conduct it for larger entities. We also believe that 
facilities that use larger SSI units may have more difficulty in 
landfilling sewage sludge due to potential capacity issues at 
landfills. This may result in higher tipping fees and transportation 
costs to find landfills with available capacity. As a result of these 
concerns, we do not believe that larger entities would necessarily find 
it more advantageous to landfill sewage sludge.
    We believe that smaller entities (i.e., with populations less than 
50,000 people) are likely to landfill. This would result in lowered 
costs of compliance with the MACT for existing sources, as well as 
minor changes in the emission reductions achieved. We also believe that 
based on our estimates there will be no increased cost to small 
entities using this alternative option. However, it does not change the 
result that option 2 (MACT floor levels plus meeting the beyond-the-
floor Hg limit of 0.02 mg/dscm) would be appropriate due to the 
significant Hg emissions reductions that would still occur for larger 
sources. The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Analysis of 
Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls 
for Existing SSI Units.''
    Table 14 of this preamble summarizes the costs associated with 
small entities landfilling and large entities complying with the MACT 
control levels. For the option selected, we estimate that 196 (90%) of 
the affected units will need to install 1 or more air pollution control 
devices.

   Table 14--Summary of Costs for Existing SSI Units If Large Entities
   Comply With the Proposed Emission Limits and Small Entities Utilize
                  Alternative Disposal (i.e., Landfill)
                           [Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Annualized cost
            Subcategory               Capital cost ($    ($ million/yr)
                                          million)             \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluidized Bed......................               70.0              26.2
Multiple Hearth....................              130.9              62.5
                                    ------------------------------------
    Total..........................              200.9              88.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent.

[[Page 63286]]

    We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be 
realized through implementation of the proposed emission limits. For 
the case where small entities choose to landfill, some emission 
reductions are offset by emissions resulting from hauling, landfill gas 
generation, and flaring. The estimation of these emissions is 
documented in the memorandum ``Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 
Floor Level of Control.'' Emissions from landfilling are subtracted 
from the total reductions resulting from units complying or shutting 
down. Table 15 of this preamble summarizes the net emission reductions 
for each pollutant.

 Table 15--Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI If Large Entities Comply With the Emission Limits and
                          Small Entities Utilize Alternative Disposal (i.e., Landfill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reductions achieved
                                                  through meeting MACT by   Emissions    Emissions
                                                     subcategory (TPY)         from         from        Total
                   Pollutant                    --------------------------   hauling      landfill    reductions
                                                  Fluidized     Multiple      (TPY)      and flare      (TPY)
                                                     bed         hearth                    (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.............................................       0.0028         1.55            0            0          1.6
CDD/CDF TEQ....................................    0.0000065    0.0000013            0            0    0.0000078
CDD/CDF TMB....................................     0.000080     0.000020            0            0     0.000099
CO.............................................           19        3,100          6.0          240        2,900
HCl............................................          1.8           95            0         0.38           96
Hg.............................................        0.061          2.7            0   0.00000023          2.8
Pb.............................................         0.15          3.0            0            0          3.0
PM.............................................           43          350          1.3         0.90          390
NOX............................................         53.0          794           22          2.1          823
SO2............................................           77        2,200        0.052         0.75        2,300
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................          190        6,410           30          244        6,330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to water and solid waste impacts in the case where 
large entities comply and small entities landfill, we estimate an 
annual requirement of 319 million gallons per year of additional 
wastewater would be generated as a result of operating additional 
controls or increased sorbents for the units that add controls to 
comply with the rule. Additionally, the annual amounts of solid waste 
that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 324 TPY 
from PM capture and 10,000 TPY from activated carbon injection. The 
largest impact on solid waste, however, would come from small entities 
choosing to discontinue the use of their SSI and instead send the waste 
to a landfill. We estimate approximately 359,000 TPY of waste would be 
diverted to landfills. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 
``Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 
Category.'' We request comment on whether landfilling is more 
advantageous environmentally than the incineration of sewage sludge.
    As described in section V.A.3 of this preamble, the energy impacts 
associated with meeting the proposed emission limits would consist 
primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or improved air 
pollution control devices. For the scenario where only large entities 
comply, we anticipate that an additional 29,200 megawatt-hours per year 
would be required for the additional and improved control devices. The 
analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Secondary Impacts for the 
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
    For SSI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission limits, 
we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. As previously noted, in 
the case where small entities choose to landfill, there would be 
additional air impacts due to emissions generated by trucks hauling 
waste and emissions from landfill gas and flaring. Table 16 of this 
preamble summarizes the estimated results.

  Table 16--Summary of Secondary Impacts for Existing Sources If Large
  Entities Comply With the Proposed Emission Limits and Small Entities
              Utilize Alternative Disposal (i.e., Landfill)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Secondary air impacts from
                                  diverting SSI waste to
                                      landfills (TPY)           Total
           Pollutant           ----------------------------   secondary
                                   Waste-                      impacts
                                   hauling    Landfill gas    (ton/yr)
                                  vehicles      and flare
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd............................            --            --            --
CDD/CDF, TEQ..................            --            --            --
CO............................          6.03         240.2        246.23
HCl...........................            --          0.38          0.38
Hg............................            --   0.000000233   0.000000233
NOX...........................         21.84          2.11         23.95
Pb............................            --            --            --
PM............................          1.30          0.90          2.20
PM2.5.........................          1.12            --          1.12
SO2...........................          0.05          0.75          0.80
                               -----------------------------------------

[[Page 63287]]

    Total.....................         30.35         244.3        274.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the proposed regulatory option affects governmental 
entities (96 of the 97 owners are governmental entities) providing 
services not provided in a market, the economic analysis focused on the 
comparison of control cost to total governmental revenue. (See Table 17 
of this preamble.) Table 17 sets forth the overall costs to large and 
small municipalities and shows that there will be no increased costs to 
small municipalities and a net, relatively small, increase for large 
municipalities.

Table 17--Revenue Tests for Government Entities If Large Entities Comply
With the Emission Limits and Small Entities Utilize Alternative Disposal
                            (i.e., Landfill)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Sample statistic for cost-revenue-ratios         Small      Large
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean..............................................      -0.6%       0.2%
Median............................................      -0.2%       0.1%
Minimum...........................................      -2.6%       0.0%
Maximum...........................................       0.7%       1.0%
Number of Entities................................         18         79
Number of Entities >1%............................          0          0
Number of Entities >3%............................          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than 1 percent.

B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units

    As discussed in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, 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 proposed emission limits on 2 
new FB incinerators potentially being constructed in the next 5 years. 
Table 18 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT 
compliance for each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the 
memorandum ``Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 
Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS.''

 Table 18--Emission Reductions for 2 New SSI Units (i.e., Fluidized Bed
                        Incinerators) Constructed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Emission
                         Pollutant                            reduction
                                                                (TPY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.........................................................      0.00047
CDD/CDF, TEQ...............................................   0.00000038
CDD/CDF, TMB...............................................    0.0000044
CO.........................................................        3.022
HCl........................................................        0.033
Hg.........................................................       0.0036
NOX........................................................         1.07
Pb.........................................................       0.0031
PM.........................................................         2.43
PM2.5......................................................         2.76
SO2........................................................         1.01
                                                            ------------
Total......................................................        10.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed emission limits. These controls may 
utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. 
We estimate an annual requirement of 18.2 million gallons per year of 
additional wastewater would be generated as a result of operating 
additional controls or increased sorbents for the 2 new units expected 
to come online in the next 5 years. The analysis is documented in the 
memorandum ``Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration 
Source Category Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 
Incineration Source Category.''
    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 would 
require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 4 TPY from PM 
capture and 97 TPY from activated carbon injection for the 2 units.
3. What are the energy impacts?
    The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed emission 
limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run 
added or improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased 
scrubber pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 
consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise require 
electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate 
that an additional 1,350 megawatt-hours

[[Page 63288]]

per year would be required for the additional and improved control 
devices for the 2 new units modeled to come online in the next 5 years. 
The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Analysis of Secondary 
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category Analysis of 
New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
    For SSI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission limits, 
we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The analysis is 
documented in the memorandum ``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 online 
in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on a model plant, the 
assumption that 2 new units will come online and will add the necessary 
controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements to comply with the proposed SSI standards. Based 
on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital investment of 
$7.81 million (2008$) with an associated total annualized cost of $2.70 
million (2008$ and using a 7 percent discount rate). This analysis 
assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB incinerators, as 
discussed in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.

C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and EG

    We estimate the monetized benefits of this proposed regulatory 
action to be $130 million to $320 million (2008$, 3 percent discount 
rate) in the implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the 
proposed regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $120 
million to $290 million (2008$). These estimates reflect energy 
disbenefits valued at $0.5 million. Using alternate relationships 
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, 
higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the 
expert-based estimates fall between these 2 estimates.\22\ A summary of 
the monetized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 
percent is in Table 19 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in 
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

          Table 19--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for New and Existing SSI Units in 2015
                                             [Millions of 2008$] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Estimated
                                            emission     Total  monetized  benefits   Total  monetized  benefits
               Pollutant                   reductions        (3% discount rate)           (7% discount rate)
                                              (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5..................................             254  $58 to $140...............  $52 to $130.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Precursors:
    SO2................................           2,298  $68 to $170...............  $61 to $150.
    NOX................................             824  $4.0 to $9.8..............  $3.6 to $8.8.
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ..............  $130 to $320..............  $120 to $290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to 2 significant figures so numbers may
  not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton
  estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
  PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to
  come online by 2015, and the assumption that some small entities will landfill. These estimates do not include
  the energy disbenefits valued at $0.5 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits
  were calculated using the social cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA.

    These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health 
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 2015 from 
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these 
standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the monetized 
value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with 
reducing a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 
emissions. To estimate human health benefits derived from reducing 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we utilized 
the general approach and methodology laid out in Fann et al. 
(2009).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence 
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos 
Health. (2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to 
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another 
model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that 
change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were 
divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton 
estimates. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 
their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature 
mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would 
support the development of differential effects estimates by particle 
type. Directly emitted PM, SO2, and NOX are the 
primary PM2.5 precursors affected by this rule. Even though 
we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the 
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of 
precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5. 
For example, SO2 has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate than 
direct PM2.5 because it does not form as much 
PM2.5, thus the exposure would be lower, and the monetized 
health benefits would be lower.
    For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for 
premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of 
assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical 
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific 
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between 
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this 
proposed rule, we cite two key

[[Page 63289]]

empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort 
study \24\ and the extended Six Cities cohort study.\25\ In the RIA for 
this proposed rule, which is available in the docket, we also include 
benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Pope et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary 
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association. 287:1132-
1141.
    \25\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and 
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA strives to use the best available science to support our 
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science 
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. After 
reviewing the scientific literature and recent scientific advice, we 
have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing 
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent advice, we are 
replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new 
``LML'' assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into 
the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA 
does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-
related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality 
concentrations.
    Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule would accrue 
to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the 
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed at 
or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006) 
study, 40 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 
[mu]g/m\3\. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence 
in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major 
cohort studies. This fact is important, because as we estimate PM-
related mortality among populations exposed to levels of 
PM2.5 that are successively lower, our confidence in the 
results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that the great majority 
of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty 
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack 
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits 
model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for 
this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis \26\ 
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various 
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 
Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates 
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit 
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects, 
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing HAP have not been 
monetized in this analysis, including reducing 2,900 tons of CO, 96 
tons of HCl, 3.0 tons of Pb, 1.6 tons of Cd, 5,500 pounds of Hg and 78 
grams of total CDD/CDF each year. Although we do not have sufficient 
information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for 
this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health 
effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this proposed rule, 
which is available in the docket.
    In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 19 
do not reflect the disbenefits associated with increased electricity 
and fuel consumption to operate the control devices. We estimate that 
the increases in emissions of CO2 would have disbenefits 
valued at $0.5 million for the proposed option assuming that small 
entities landfill at a 3 percent discount rate. CO2-related 
disbenefits were calculated using the social cost of carbon, which is 
discussed further in the RIA. However, these disbenefits do not change 
the rounded total monetized benefits of the proposed option, which are 
still $130 million to $320 million and $120 million to $290 million, at 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
    The social costs of this proposed rulemaking are estimated to be 
$92 million (2008$) in the implementation year and the monetized 
benefits including energy disbenefits are $130 million to $320 million 
(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) for that same year. The monetized 
benefits including energy disbenefits at a 7 percent discount rate are 
$120 million to $290 million (2008$). Thus, net benefits of this 
rulemaking including energy disbenefits estimated at $37 million to 
$220 million (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and $26 million to $190 
million (2008$, 7 percent discount rate).

VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to CAA Sections 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B)(ii)

    Clean Air Act sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) instruct EPA to 
identify and list area source categories representing at least 90 
percent of the emissions of the 30 ``listed'' HAP (64 FR 38706, July 
19, 1999), that are, or will be, subject to standards under section 
112(d) of the CAA. The 30 HAP are the result of emissions from area 
sources that pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest 
number of urban areas. Under the provisions of section 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA, SSI was added to the inventory. Each of the 
source categories added, including SSI, contributes a certain 
percentage of the total area source emissions for at least 1 of the 30 
area source HAP and makes progress towards meeting our requirement to 
address 90 percent of the emissions of each of the 30 area source HAP.
    As required by the statute, the CAA section 129 SSI standards 
include numeric emission limits for the 9 pollutants specified in 
section 129(a)(4) and opacity. The combination of wastewater 
pretreatment, good combustion practices and add-on air pollution 
control devices (e.g., FF, scrubbers, activated carbon injection, 
afterburners) effectively reduces emissions of the pollutants for which 
emission limits are required under CAA section 129: Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, 
HCl, Hg, Pb, NOX, PM and SO2.
    Although, CAA section 129 standards for SSI will not set separate 
specific numerical emission limits for sections 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B)(ii) urban air HAP, the SSI standards will result in 
substantial reductions of 7-PAH, Cr, Mn, Ni, and PCB. These additional 
emission reductions are due to co-control of pollutants by the same air 
pollution control devices used to comply with the CAA section 129 SSI 
standard. Air pollution control devices are necessary to comply with 
the requirements of the SSI NSPS and EG. Add-on air pollution control 
devices to control PM will also reduce emissions of compounds that 
coalesce to form on PM (e.g., Mn, Ni, Cr, etc.). The addition of any 
post-combustion device to control organics such as CO and CDD/CDF will 
also reduce emissions for any byproducts of incomplete combustion such 
as additional organic pollutants (e.g., 7-PAH and PCB). The addition of 
wet scrubbers will also reduce emissions of compounds that are water 
soluble. Additionally, the NSPS emission limits will promote the 
construction of new FB incinerators rather than MH incinerators. 
Fluidized bed incinerators have significantly lower emissions of all 
organic compounds and NOX.
    While the proposed rule does not identify specific numerical 
emission limits for 7-PAH, Cr, Mn, Ni and PCB,

[[Page 63290]]

emissions of those pollutants are for the reasons noted above, 
nonetheless, subject to regulation for the purposes of section 
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA. In lieu of establishing 
numerical emission limits for pollutants such as PCB and 7-PAH, CAA 
section 129 (a)(4) allows EPA to regulate surrogate substances. While 
we have not identified specific numerical limits for 7-PAH or PCB, we 
believe CO serves as an effective surrogate of those pollutants, 
because CO, like 7-PAH and PCB, is formed as a byproduct of combustion. 
We believe that CDD/CDF also serve as an effective surrogate for PCB, 
because the compounds act similarly and, thus, are expected to be 
controlled similarly using SSI emission control devices (e.g., wet 
scrubbers, FF, activated carbon injection).

VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Other SSI Rules for the Use 
or Disposal of Sewage Sludge

    Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, as amended 33 
U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated regulations on February 19, 
1993, at 40 CFR part 503 designed to protect public health and the 
environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain 
pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 503 
regulations establish requirements for the final use and disposal of 
sewage sludge when: (1) The sludge is applied to the land for a 
beneficial use (e.g., for use in home gardens); (2) the sludge is 
disposed on land by placing it on surface disposal sites; and (3) the 
sewage sludge is incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate 
or treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who uses or 
disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment works.
    The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in a SSI are in 
subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E includes general requirements; 
pollutant limits; operational standards; management practices; and 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
    These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the National 
Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E, 
respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The regulations also require that the 
allowable concentration of 5 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 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 proposed rule, EPA is establishing limits for 3 of 
the inorganic pollutants covered by the current part 503 regulations 
(Cd, Pb and Hg) and the following 7 additional pollutants: HCl, CO, 
opacity, NOX, SO2, PM, and total CDD/CDF. Besides 
the pollutants covered here, there are other differences between the 
part 503 regulations and this proposed rule. 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 this proposed rule cover the same 
universe of facilities, there are certain issues that arise in terms of 
potential impacts to current SSI facilities. First, we expect that the 
regulation of sewage sludge under CAA section 129 under the proposed 
rule would result in stricter emission standards than under the current 
CWA rule. Consequently, a potential impact of this rule is that some of 
the estimated 112 facilities that operate SSI as the primary means of 
disposal could discontinue this practice and would instead landfill 
their sewage sludge (see earlier discussion in section V of this 
preamble on the analysis of alternative sewage sludge disposal). 
Second, one must consider the available capacity of surface disposal 
sites to receive additional sewage sludge and the potential for added 
costs if the use of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI would be subject to 
2 different sets of requirements (numeric standards, operational 
standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) under the 2 
different statutes if the proposed rule is implemented, creating an 
additional burden to these facilities unless alternative regulatory 
approaches are implemented. EPA plans to evaluate the requirements 
under both statutes once this proposed rule is finalized to determine 
what changes, if any, should be made to the part 503 regulations. EPA 
requests comments on other potential impacts of this proposed rule on 
SSI.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant 
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 
action to the OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action. In addition, EPA prepared a RIA of the 
potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
    When estimating the PM2.5- and ozone-related human 
health benefits and compliance costs in Table 20 below, EPA applied 
methods and assumptions consistent with the State-of-the-science for 
human health impact assessment, economics, and air quality analysis. 
EPA applied its best professional judgment in performing this analysis 
and believes that these estimates provide a reasonable indication of 
the expected benefits and costs to the nation of this rule. The RIA 
available in the docket describes in detail the empirical basis for 
EPA's assumptions and characterizes the various sources of 
uncertainties affecting the estimates below.
    When characterizing uncertainty in the PM-mortality relationship, 
EPA has historically presented a sensitivity analysis applying 
alternate assumed thresholds in the PM concentration-response 
relationship. In its synthesis of the current State of the PM science, 
EPA's ``2009 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate 
Matter'' concluded that a no-threshold log-linear model most adequately 
portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. In the 
RIA accompanying this rule, rather than segmenting out impacts 
predicted to be associated levels above and below a `bright line' 
threshold, EPA includes a ``LML'' that illustrates the increasing 
uncertainty that characterizes exposure attributed to levels of 
PM2.5 below the LML for each study. Figures provided in the 
RIA show the distribution of baseline exposure to PM2.5, as 
well as the lowest air quality levels measured in each of the 
epidemiology cohort studies. This

[[Page 63291]]

information provides a context for considering the likely portion of 
PM-related mortality benefits occurring above or below the LML of each 
study; in general, our confidence in the size of the estimated 
reduction PM2.5-related premature mortality diminishes as 
baseline concentrations of PM2.5 are lowered. Using the 
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed to 
annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/
m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006) study, 40 percent of the 
population is exposed above the LML of 10 [mu]g/m\3\. While the LML 
analysis provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 
estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a 
threshold and continues to quantify PM-related mortality impacts using 
a full range of modeled air quality concentrations.
    A summary of the monetized benefits, social costs and net benefits 
for the proposed option, as well as a less stringent option and more 
stringent option, at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in 
Table 18 of this preamble.

    Table 20--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs and Net
             Benefits for New and Existing SSI Units in 2015
                         [Millions of 2008$] \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   3% Discount rate    7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Proposed: Option 2 MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Controls for Hg and
                                 CDD/CDF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $120 to $310......  $110 to $280.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $92...............  $92.
Net Benefits....................  $33 to $220.......  $23 to $190.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  2,900 tons of CO.
                                  96 tons of HCl.
                                  5,500 pounds of Hg.
                                  1.6 tons of Cd.
                                  3.0 tons of Pb.
                                  90 grams of CDD/CDF.
                                  Health effects from NOX and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Option 1 MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $120 to $310......  $110 to $280.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $63...............  $63.
Net Benefits....................  $62 to $240.......  $52 to $220.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  2,900 tons of CO.
                                  96 tons of HCl.
                                  820 pounds of Hg.
                                  1.6 tons of Cd.
                                  3.0 tons of Pb.
                                  74 grams of CDD/CDF.
                                  Health effects from NOX and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Option 3 MACT Floor, Beyond-the-Floor Controls for Hg and CDD/CDF, and
                    Beyond-the-Floor Controls for CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $120 to $300......  $110 to $280.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $132..............  $132.
Net Benefits....................  -$9.6 to $170.....  -$18 to $150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  26,000 tons of CO.
                                  96 tons of HCl.
                                  5,500 pounds of Hg.
                                  1.6 tons of Cd.
                                  3.0 tons of Pb.
                                  90 grams of CDD/CDF.
                                  Health effects from NOX and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded
  to 2 significant figures. These results include 2 new FB incinerators
  anticipated to come on-line by 2015 and the assumption that small
  entities will landfill.
\2\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits
  associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of
  directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is
  important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all
  health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a
  range from Pope, et al., (2002) to Laden, et al., (2006). These models
  assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical
  composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
  there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the
  development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These
  results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to come online by
  2015, as well as energy disbenefits of $4.5 to $9.7 million.
\3\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the
  multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social
  costs for both discount rates.

[[Page 63292]]

    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the 
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
The ICR documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number 
2369.01 for subpart LLLL, and 2403.01 for subpart MMMM.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule 
would be 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 proposed action result in industry 
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review of the 
amendments for all SSI and initial and annual compliance with the 
emission limits using EPA approved emissions test methods. The burden 
also includes continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission 
limits. Operators are required to obtain qualification and complete 
annual training. New units are also required to submit a report prior 
to construction, including a siting analysis.
    The annual average burden associated with the EG over the first 3 
years following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated to be 
$14.2 million. This includes 21,900 hours at a total annual labor cost 
of $1.2 million and total annualized capital/startup and O&M costs of 
$13 million per year, associated with the monitoring requirements, 
storage of data and reports and photocopying and postage over the 3-
year period of the ICR. The annual inspection costs are included under 
the recordkeeping and reporting labor costs.
    The annual average burden associated with the NSPS over the first 3 
years following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated to 
involve 518 hours at a total annual labor cost of $29,000. The total 
annualized capital/startup costs are estimated at $292,000 per year. 
This gives a cumulative annual burden of $321,000 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after October 14, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by November 15, 2010. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

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 proposed action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small government 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the 
18 small entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than 1 percent. Thus, 
this is not considered to be a significant impact.
    Although the proposed 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

    Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal 
agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of 
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and 
the private sector. This rule contains a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 
year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a 
written statement that is summarized in this section of the preamble. A 
copy of the UMRA written statement can be found in the docket. The UMRA 
written statement further describes EPA's statutory authority, a 
qualitative and quantitative cost-benefits assessment, and a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with elected 
representatives (or their designated authorized employees) of the 
affected State, local, and tribal governments, and a summary of their 
oral or written comments and concerns and EPA's evaluation of them.
    EPA's statutory authority for this action is contained in CAA 
section 129, as described in section II.C of this preamble and in the 
UMRA written statement in the docket. These emission standards are also 
needed as part of EPA's fulfillment of its obligations under CAA 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii). Regarding the cost-benefits 
assessment, the RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the EPA's 
assessment of costs and benefits, 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 proposed rule and the predicted change in prices 
and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs 
of the proposed rule are $92 million (2008$). The estimated costs 
account for 18 small

[[Page 63293]]

entities choosing alternative disposal methods to SSI.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA has initiated consultations with 
governmental entities affected by this proposed rule. EPA invited 10 
organizations of elected State and local officials who have been 
identified by EPA as the ``Big 10'' organizations appropriate to 
contact for purposes of consultation with elected officials. The 
following national organizations representing State and local officials 
attended a meeting held on May 27, 2010, in Washington, DC: (1) 
National Governors' Association, (2) National Conference of State 
Legislatures, (3) National League of Cities, (4) U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, (5) National Association of Counties, (6) Association of State 
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, (7) Council of State 
Governments and (8) Environmental Council of the States, to inform them 
and seek their input for this rulemaking. Two of the Big 10 
organizations were unable to attend. Additionally, the National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National Association of Clean 
Air Agencies and the Association of State and Interstate Water 
Pollution Control Administrators participated, to serve as technical 
advisors to the national organizations during this consultation.
    The purpose of the consultation was to provide general background 
on the proposal, answer questions, and solicit input from State and 
local governments. Prior to the meeting, EPA provided the officials 
with a copy of the SSI inventory and presentation. During the meeting, 
officials expressed uncertainty with regards to how EPA calculated the 
costs to comply with the standard. Officials also expressed uncertainty 
with regards to how viable the alternative to the standard is with 
respect to small governments and entities located in certain geographic 
regions. Technical memoranda, which can be found in the docket, 
document EPA's cost analysis, beyond-the-floor options, and the 
regulatory impacts analysis. EPA determined that the alternative to the 
standard is a viable option for some entities.
    Consistent with section 205 of the UMRA, EPA has identified and 
considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Incineration 
continues to be used to dispose of sewage sludge, but is increasingly 
becoming less common. Additional pollution controls will increase costs 
for facilities that continue to use the incineration disposal method. 
If the additional costs are high enough, many POTW may choose to adopt 
alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface disposal in landfills or 
other beneficial land applications). However, the use of alternative 
disposal methods may be limited in some areas because of landfill 
capacity constraints, local geography, or other legal or economic 
constraints.
    One alternative option is landfilling. Landfilling, in some cases, 
provides a simple and low-cost option for sewage sludge disposal. 
Sewage sludge may be placed in landfills used for other municipal solid 
waste or in landfills constructed specifically for sewage sludge. The 
landfill disposal option is attractive for low-volume incinerators; 
landfill capacity constraints limit disposal opportunities for large 
sludge volumes.
    Land application is a second alternative. Sewage sludge that has 
undergone treatment to make it safe for use on other land application 
(e.g., fertilizer) is commonly referred to as biosolids. Biosolids can 
be sold to agricultural or landscaping entities for land application, 
so the organic material in biosolids is reused to contribute to crop 
production. Land application has also been used in mine reclamation to 
re-establish vegetation.
    Further analysis can be found in the ``Regulatory Impacts 
Analysis.'' The regulatory alternative selected is landfilling. EPA 
recognizes that the landfilling option may be utilized by some 
facilities but not all depending on a number of factors such as cost, 
geographic location, and State regulations.
    This proposed 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. While some small 
governments may have SSI units that would be affected by this rule, 
EPA's analysis shows that for the more likely scenario that small 
governmental entities switch to landfilling, none of the ratios was 
greater than 1 percent. Because the proposed 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

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on 
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This proposed rule will have federalism implications, as defined by 
Agency guidance for implementing the Order, due to substantial direct 
compliance costs on State or local governments. As specified by the 
Order, EPA must consult 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, to formally 
request their comments and input on the action. Please reference the 
UMRA discussion above for further details regarding the Big 10 
consultation.
    The Big 10 is currently in the process of providing EPA with 
feedback on its proposed standards and EG for SSI units. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA is not 
aware of any SSI owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials in the proposal period via the National 
Tribal Air Association and other mechanisms.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is 
not subject to Executive Order

[[Page 63294]]

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 a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in 
this proposed action would cause most SSI to modify existing air 
pollution control devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet 
scrubbers) or install and operate new control devices, resulting in 
approximately 29,200 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity 
being used.
    Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from 
this proposed action, EPA does not expect any significant price 
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should 
not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would 
not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any 
impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse 
outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be 
significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any 
adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, they would 
be minimal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its regulatory activities unless to 
do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    EPA conducted searches for the ``Standards of Performance for New 
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage 
Sludge Incineration Units'' through the Enhanced National Standards 
Service Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted VCS 
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to 
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for 
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of 
the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable 
alternatives to EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the 
ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental, 
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' is an acceptable 
alternative to Method 29 and 30B. The EPA has also decided to use EPA 
Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 22, 23, 26A, 29 and 30B. No 
VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 22.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the 
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are 
similar to EPA's reference method, the 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 which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting 
alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence 
to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider 
determinations of impracticality when additional information is 
available for particular VCS.
    The search identified 23 other VCS that were potentially applicable 
for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the 
available standards, EPA determined that 23 candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-
1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSIIASME PTC PTC[not]38-1980 
(1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSIIASME 
PTC 19-10-1981, ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 
(2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 7934:1998, 
ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 (2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-
MI983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), 
EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-
MI987) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, 
and other important technical and policy considerations.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may 
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, PS, or procedures in the final rule and any amendments.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and 
specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS 
and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs Federal 
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on 
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this proposed 
rule to determine if there was existing disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of 
demographic data 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.
    In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities 
near affected sources, EPA used census data at the block group level to 
identify demographics of the populations considered to be living near 
affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to current 
emissions from these sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the 
distributions of

[[Page 63295]]

different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected 
emission reductions from this rule. The review identified those census 
block groups within a circular distance of a half, 3, and 5 miles of 
affected sources and determined the demographic and socio-economic 
composition (e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block 
groups. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) has been 
used in other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential 
sources.27-30 EPA's demographic analysis has shown that 
these areas in aggregate have similar proportions of American Indians, 
African-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and ``Other and Multi-racial'' 
populations, and similar proportions of families with incomes below the 
poverty level as the national average.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \28\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research.'' Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \29\ Mennis J. ``Using Geographic Information Systems to Create 
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for 
Environmental Justice Analysis.'' Social Science Quarterly, 
2002;83(1):281-297.
    \30\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March 2007.
    \31\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts,'' June 2010, a copy of 
which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed action establishes national emission standards for 
new and existing SSI units. The EPA estimates that there are 
approximately 218 such units covered by this rule. The proposed rule 
will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this source. 
This includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, Hg, and CDD/CDF. Adverse health 
effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of the lungs, 
skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous system and 
damage to the kidneys and acute health disorders. The rule will also 
result in substantial reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, 
NOX, PM and PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur 
dioxide and NOX are precursors for the formation of 
PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions will reduce ozone 
and PM2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as 
adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma and 
other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. For additional 
information, please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this 
rulemaking. EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To 
promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communication and 
outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to 
this proposed rule, are aware of its content and have an opportunity to 
comment during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA will 
publicize the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, tribal newsletters, EJ 
listservs, and the Internet, including the 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 EJ community groups and conduct conference calls with 
interested communities. In addition, State and Federal permitting 
requirements will provide State and local governments and members of 
affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit 
conditions associated with permitting the sources affected by this 
rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 30, 2010.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be 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. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and MMMM to read as 
follows:

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge 
Incineration Units

Sec.

Introduction

60.4760 What does this subpart do?
60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

Applicability and Delegation of Authority

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration 
unit?
60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?
60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from this 
subpart?
60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.4790 How are these new source performance standards structured?
60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source performance 
standards apply at the same time?

Preconstruction Siting Analysis

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
60.4805 What is a siting analysis?

Operator Training and Qualification

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 
requirements?
60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not 
accessible?
60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and how often 
must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge incineration unit 
operators and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 
according to the provisions of Sec.  60.4835(a)?

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.4850 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a wet 
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated 
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to 
comply with the emission limits?
60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and operating 
limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for exceedance of an 
emission limit or standard during malfunction?

Initial Compliance Requirements

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limits and standards?
60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution 
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my 
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by 
what date must I conduct an initial performance

[[Page 63296]]

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?

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 New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New 
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Summary of Reporting 
Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Introduction

Sec.  60.4760  What does this subpart do?

    This subpart establishes new source performance standards for 
sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the extent any requirement 
of this subpart is inconsistent with the requirements of subpart A of 
this part, the requirements of this subpart will apply.

Sec.  60.4765  When does this subpart become effective?

    This subpart takes effect on [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 an SSI unit and must be 
completed even before construction is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e., 
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec.  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

Sec.  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 [THE 
DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as defined in Sec.  60.4930.
    (c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under Sec.  60.4780.

Sec.  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 [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.

Sec.  60.4780  What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from 
this subpart?

    This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge 
that are located at an industrial or commercial facility subject to 
subpart CCCC of this part, provided the owner or operator of such a 
combustion unit notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim under 
this section.

Sec.  60.4785  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the 
Administrator, as defined in Sec.  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 (8) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards 
in Table 1 to this subpart and operating limits established under Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.4855.
    (6) The requirements in Sec.  60.4835(b)(2).
    (7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.  
60.8(b).
    (8) Preconstruction siting analysis in Sec.  60.4800 and Sec.  
60.4805.

Sec.  60.4790  How are these new source performance standards 
structured?

    These new source performance standards contain the nine major 
components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
    (a) Preconstruction siting analysis.
    (b) Operator training and qualification.
    (c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
    (d) Initial compliance requirements.
    (e) Continuous compliance requirements.
    (f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
    (g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
    (h) Definitions.
    (i) Tables.

Sec.  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.

[[Page 63297]]

Preconstruction Siting Analysis

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing 
construction.

Operator Training and Qualification

Sec.  60.4810  What are the operator training and qualification 
requirements?

    (a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and 
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or 
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI 
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct 
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you 
must follow the procedures in Sec.  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 (3) of this section.
    (1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
through (x) of this section.
    (i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions.
    (ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion.
    (iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by 
the operator, including proper startup, sewage sludge feeding, and 
shutdown procedures.
    (iv) Combustion controls and monitoring.
    (v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors 
affecting performance (if applicable).
    (vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air 
pollution control devices.
    (vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that 
may lead to malfunctions.
    (viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures.
    (ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards.
    (x) Pollution prevention.
    (2) An examination designed and administered by the State-approved 
program.
    (3) Written material covering the training course topics that may 
serve as reference material following completion of the course.

Sec.  60.4815  When must the operator training course be completed?

    The operator training course must be completed by the later of the 
two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
    (b) The date before an employee assumes responsibility for 
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the 
operation of the SSI unit.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4810(c)(2).

Sec.  60.4825  How do I maintain my operator qualification?

    To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or 
refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in 
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) Update of regulations.
    (b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown 
procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash handling.
    (c) Inspection and maintenance.
    (d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to 
malfunction.
    (e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.

Sec.  60.4830  How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

    You must renew a lapsed operator qualification 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 Sec.  60.4825.
    (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial 
qualification requirements in Sec.  60.4820(a).

Sec.  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 who 
have completed a review of the information specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (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.

[[Page 63298]]

    (i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue 
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue 
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
    (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is 
accessible as required under Sec.  60.4810(a) and you notify the 
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having 
a qualified operator accessible.

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4835(a)?

    (a) You must maintain at the facility the documentation of the 
operator training procedures specified under Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified incinerator operator 
and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the 
provisions of Sec.  60.4835(a), according to the following schedule:
    (1) The initial review of the information listed in Sec.  
60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the effective 
date of this subpart or prior to an employee's assumption of 
responsibilities for operation of the SSI unit, whichever date is 
later.
    (2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in Sec.  
60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 months following the 
previous review.

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits

Sec.  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 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, including, and not limited to, 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The emission limits and 
standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage 
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit.

Sec.  60.4850  What operating limits must I meet and by when?

    You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The operating parameters are 
listed in Table 2 to this subpart. The operating limits apply at all 
times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including periods of 
malfunction.
    (a) You must meet site-specific operating limits for maximum dry 
sludge feed rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of 
the combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) that you 
establish in Sec.  60.4870.
    (b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator, or 
activated carbon injection to comply with an emission limit, you must 
meet the site-specific operating limits that you establish in Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.4870.
    (d) You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (c) 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.
    (e) For the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, you may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to 
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point 
forward. You must confirm or reestablish operating limits during:
    (1) Annual performance tests required under Sec.  60.4885(a).
    (2) Performance tests required under Sec.  60.4885(a)(2).
    (3) Periodic performance evaluations required under Sec.  
60.4885(b)(6) to meet the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section.

Sec.  60.4855  How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a 
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated 
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to 
comply with the emission limits?

    If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet 
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated 
carbon injection, or limit emissions in some other manner (e.g., 
materials balance) to comply with the emission limits in Sec.  60.4845, 
you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section.
    (a) Establish an operating limit each for maximum dry sludge feed 
rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of the 
combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) according to 
Sec.  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 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.
    (2) Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (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.

Sec.  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, including 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The operating limits 
apply at all times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including 
periods of malfunction.

Sec.  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 standards set forth in 
paragraph Sec.  60.4845 you may assert an affirmative defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by malfunction, as defined in Sec.  60.2. Appropriate penalties 
may be assessed; however, if the respondent

[[Page 63299]]

fails to meet its burden of proving all of the requirements in the 
affirmative defense, then 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 (9) of this 
section are met.
    (1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable 
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance.
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs.
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions.
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage.
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health.
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible.
    (7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent 
with good practices for minimizing emissions.
    (9) You have prepared a written root cause analysis to determine, 
correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The 
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and 
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (b) If your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its emission 
limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the Administrator by 
telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 
later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of the 
malfunction, if you wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to 
civil penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to assert an 
affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report to the 
Administrator within 30 days of the initial occurrence of the 
exceedance of the standard in Sec.  60.4845 to demonstrate, with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that you have met the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec.  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 to this subpart, use the procedures specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen 
chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
cadmium, lead, opacity, 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, 
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity. 
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 Sec.  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 to this subpart.
    (a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test 
required in Sec.  60.8. You must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets 
the emission limits and standards specified in Table 1 to this subpart 
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, 
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, 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 
to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 
calibration requirements specified in Sec.  60.4900(a).
    (b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous emissions 
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous 
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.  
60.4900(b)(6) and use the following procedures:
    (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon monoxide 
emission limit, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous emissions 
monitoring system specified in Sec.  60.4900(b).
    (2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for 
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans total mass, 
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, 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 
(except opacity) in lieu of conducting the initial performance test for 
that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (ii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may 
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of 
conducting the initial opacity and particulate matter performance tests 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iii) You may substitute the use of a continuous particulate matter 
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial opacity performance 
test in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iv) 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 paragraph 
(b)(1) or (2) of this section, you must use the continuous emissions 
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in

[[Page 63300]]

Sec.  60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec.  60.13 
to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen 
(or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a 
24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission 
concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of 
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to 
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, you must:
    (i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.  
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.  
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
    (A) Use the procedures specified in Sec.  60.58b(p) to calculate 
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (B) Use the procedures specified in Sec.  60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (ii) Comply with the provisions in Sec.  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 1 of appendix F of this part.
    (5) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to 
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity 
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.4900(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages 
as specified in Sec.  60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you 
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must 
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
    (6) 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, 
continuous opacity monitoring systems, and continuous automated 
sampling systems no later than 60 days after the date of initial 
startup of the affected SSI unit, as specified under Sec.  60.8. Your 
performance evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 
acceptance criteria specified in Sec.  60.4880(a)(3).
    (c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic 
equivalency emission limit in either 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-congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7.
    (2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener 
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply 
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency 
factor specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans 
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
    (d) You must submit an initial compliance report, as specified in 
Sec.  60.4915(c).
    (e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a performance test 
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the provisions of 
this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, 
or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 
majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as specified in 
Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.4870  How do I establish my operating limits?

    (a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified 
in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section during the initial 
performance tests and performance evaluations required in Sec.  60.4865 
and the most recent performance tests and performance evaluations 
required in Sec.  60.4885. Follow the data measurement and recording 
frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 2 to this 
subpart and follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration 
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4900 and 60.4905. You are not 
required to establish operating limits for the operating parameters 
listed in Table 2 to this subpart for a control device if you use a 
continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart for the applicable 
pollutants, as follows:
    (1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of hydrogen 
chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an 
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber (or 
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH 
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.  
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 
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH 
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.  
60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead.
    (3) You are not required to establish an operating limit and 
monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage 
of the collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 
the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring 
system specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or 
lead.
    (4) You are not required to establish an operating limit and 
monitor mercury sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 
carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system 
specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limit for mercury.
    (5) You are not required to establish an operating limit and 
monitor dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate 
(or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring 
system specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limits for dioxins/furans.
    (b) For each operating parameter specified in paragraphs (c) 
through (k) of this section, determine the average operating parameter 
level during the initial or most recent performance test or performance 
evaluation for the applicable pollutant(s) according to the procedures 
specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as 
applicable.

[[Page 63301]]

    (1) For continuous monitoring systems that collect multiple data 
points each hour. (i) Collect the incremental data for the operating 
parameter (e.g., scrubber liquor flow rate) for each of the three 
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g., 
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride). For each applicable performance 
test run period, calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter 
level.
    (ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of 
the applicable performance test run periods specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section represents the average operating parameter 
level (e.g., average scrubber liquor flow rate) during the performance 
test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average operating 
parameter level to establish the respective operating limit, as 
specified in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
    (2) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on an 
hourly basis. (i) Collect the hourly data for the operating parameter 
(e.g., mercury sorbent injection rate) for each of the three 
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g., 
mercury). For each applicable performance test run period, calculate 
the arithmetic average operating parameter level.
    (ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of 
the applicable performance test runs specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) 
of this section represents the average operating parameter level (e.g., 
average mercury sorbent injection rate) during the performance test(s) 
for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average operating parameter 
level to establish the respective operating limit, as specified in 
paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
    (3) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on a daily 
basis. Collect the daily data for the operating parameter (e.g., sludge 
moisture content) for each day that a performance test is conducted for 
the applicable pollutant(s). The highest daily arithmetic average 
operating parameter level for the applicable performance tests 
represents the average operating parameter level (e.g., average sludge 
moisture content) during the performance test(s) for the applicable 
pollutant(s). Use this average operating parameter level to establish 
the respective operating limit, as specified in paragraphs (c) through 
(k) of this section.
    (c) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber, calculated as 
90 percent of the average pressure drop across each wet scrubber, 
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (d) Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate (measured at the inlet to the 
wet scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor flow 
rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (e) Minimum scrubber liquor pH (measured at the inlet to the wet 
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor pH, 
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (f) Minimum combustion chamber temperature (or minimum afterburner 
temperature), calculated as 90 percent of the average combustion 
chamber temperature (or afterburner temperature), determined according 
to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (g) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator 
collection plates, calculated as 90 percent of the average power input. 
Average power input must be calculated as the product of the average 
secondary voltage and average secondary amperage to the electrostatic 
precipitator, both determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (h) Maximum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 
electrostatic precipitator, calculated as 70 percent of the average 
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 
precipitator, determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (i) For activated carbon injection:
    (1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90 
percent of the average mercury sorbent injection rate, determined 
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90 
percent of the average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, determined 
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure 
drop, as follows:
    (i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, calculated as 90 percent of the 
average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section.
    (ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, calculated as 90 percent of 
the average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (j) Maximum dry sludge feed rate, calculated as 110 percent of the 
average dry sludge feed rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section.
    (k) Sludge moisture content, measured on a daily basis as a 
percentage, must be no less than 10 percent less than and no more than 
10 percent greater than the average sludge moisture content, determined 
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For example, if your 
average sludge moisture content is measured as 20 percent, your sludge 
moisture level must be greater than or equal to 18 percent and less 
than or equal to 22 percent.

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4900(c) within 60 days of achieving the maximum 
feed rate at which the affected SSI unit will be operated or within 180 
days of initial startup of the SSI unit, whichever comes first. For air 
pollution control devices installed after the SSI unit achieves the 
maximum feed rate at which it will be operated, you must conduct the 
air pollution control device inspection within 60 days after 
installation of the control device or within 180 days of initial 
startup of the SSI unit, whichever comes later.
    (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.

Sec.  60.4880  How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my 
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by what 
date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 
monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

    You must develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a 
site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system 
required under this subpart, according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. This requirement also 
applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative 
monitoring parameters under Sec.  60.13(i) and paragraph (d) of this 
section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system to comply 
with the mercury or dioxin/furan emission limits, you must develop your 
monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  60.58b(q), and you are not 
required to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section. You must submit your monitoring plan at least 60 days before 
your initial performance evaluation of your continuous monitoring 
system(s), as specified in paragraph (c) of this

[[Page 63302]]

section. You must update your monitoring plan as specified in paragraph 
(e) of this section.
    (a) For each continuous monitoring system, your monitoring plan 
must address the elements and requirements specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe 
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected 
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of 
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control 
device).
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer 
and the data collection and reduction systems.
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
    (i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your performance 
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to, 
the following:
    (A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring 
systems specified in Sec.  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.
    (ii) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, your performance 
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to, 
the following:
    (A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring 
systems specified in Sec.  60.13.
    (B) Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part.
    (iii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, your performance 
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but not be limited to, 
the associated performance specifications and quality assurance 
procedures.
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  60.11(d).
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  60.13.
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  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 in any one of paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A), (a)(7)(i)(B), or 
(a)(7)(i)(C) of this section are met.
    (A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level 
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift 
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the 
relevant standard.
    (B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fails a performance 
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, 
relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit.
    (C) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift 
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification 
in the relevant standard.
    (ii) When the continuous emissions monitoring system is out of 
control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you must 
take the necessary corrective action and must repeat all necessary 
tests that indicate that the system is out of control. You must take 
corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance 
requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-
of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance check (e.g., 
calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance 
requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control 
period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and 
successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable 
limits.
    (8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance 
evaluations of your continuous monitoring systems in accordance with 
your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your monitoring plan 
must include a description of the following items:
    (1) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established.
    (3) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (4) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including 
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (5) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored.
    (c) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each 
continuous monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as 
applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan, and within 60 days 
of installation of the continuous monitoring system and bag leak 
detection system, as applicable.
    (d) 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 
(d)(1) through (d)(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 during the performance test 
over any increment of time equivalent to the time required to conduct 
three runs of the performance test.
    (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 (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(iii) of this section:
    (i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the 
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the 
required approach.
    (ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring 
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the 
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit, 
and how the limit is to be calculated.
    (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative 
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of 
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
    (4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of 
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original 
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary 
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an 
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or 
better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. 
Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the 
Administrator will provide the following:

[[Page 63303]]

    (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.
    (e) You must update your monitoring plan if there are any changes 
in your monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 
defined in Sec.  60.4930.

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec.  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 to this subpart, use the procedures 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter, 
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 
dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, 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, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
cadmium, lead, and opacity. 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 Sec.  60.4900(a) and (b).
    (a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test. 
Within 10 to 12 months following the initial performance test (except 
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section), demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 1 to this 
subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, and 
fugitive emissions from ash handling using a performance test. The 
performance test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging 
methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 1 
to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 
calibration requirements specified in Sec.  60.4900(a). Conduct 
subsequent annual performance tests within 10 to 12 months following 
the previous one.
    (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 Sec.  60.4930.
    (3) You have the option to perform less frequent testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead emission 
limits.
    (i) To perform less frequent testing, you must meet the following 
requirements:
    (A) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive years.
    (B) The test data results for particulate matter, hydrogen 
chloride, carbon monoxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
cadmium, or lead are less than 75 percent of the applicable emission 
limits.
    (C) There are no changes in the operation of the SSI unit 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 36 months following the previous 
performance test.
    (ii) If your SSI unit continues to emit less than 75 percent of the 
emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, 
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, carbon monoxide, or lead and 
there are no changes in the operation of the SSI unit or air pollution 
control equipment that could increase emissions, you may choose to 
conduct performance tests for these pollutants every third year, but 
each test must be within 36 months of the previous performance test.
    (iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent or 
greater of the emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen 
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, carbon 
monoxide, or lead, you must conduct annual performance tests for that 
pollutant until all performance tests over the next 3-year period are 
within 75 percent of the applicable emission limit.
    (b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions 
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous 
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.4900(b).
    (2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits 
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans total mass, 
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, 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 (except opacity) 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) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may 
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of 
conducting the annual opacity and particulate matter performance tests 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iii) You may substitute the use of a particulate matter continuous 
emissions monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual opacity 
performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iv) 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 (2) of this section, you must use the continuous 
emissions monitoring system and follow the requirements

[[Page 63304]]

specified in Sec.  60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to 
Sec.  60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial 
compliance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 
average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in 
section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
    (4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to 
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, you must:
    (i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.  
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.  
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
    (A) Use the procedures specified in Sec.  60.58b(p) to calculate 
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (B) Use the procedures specified in Sec.  60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  60.4880(e). 
For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use 
Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 1 
of appendix F of this part.
    (5) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to 
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity 
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.4900(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages 
as specified in Sec.  60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you 
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must 
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
    (6) 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, 
continuous opacity 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, you must complete the initial 
performance evaluation required in your monitoring plan in Sec.  
60.4880 for the continuous monitoring system within 60 days of 
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous emissions 
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring, or continuous 
automated sampling system. Your performance evaluation must be 
conducted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 
Sec.  60.4880(a)(3).
    (c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic 
equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you 
must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
    (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through 
octachlorinated-congener emitted using EPA Method 23.
    (2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener 
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply 
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency 
factor specified in Table 3 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 Sec.  
60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation report specified in Sec.  
60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet each emission limit 
in Table 1 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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.4890  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 
operating limits?

    You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section, according to the monitoring and calibration requirements 
in Sec.  60.4905.
    (a) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section using the 
continuous monitoring equipment and according to the procedures 
specified in Sec.  60.4905, except as provided in Sec.  60.4855. Four-
hour rolling average values are used to determine compliance (except 
for sludge moisture content and alarm time of the baghouse leak 
detection system) unless a different averaging period is established 
under Sec.  60.4855 for an air pollution control device other than a 
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated 
carbon injection. A daily average must be used to determine compliance 
for sludge moisture content.
    (1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating 
limits established according to Sec. Sec.  60.4855 and 60.4870 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous compliance.

[[Page 63305]]

Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.4900(c), within 10 to 12 months following the previous annual 
air pollution control device inspection.
    (b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control 
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless you 
obtain written approval from the Administrator establishing a date 
whereby all necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be 
completed.

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements

Sec.  60.4900  What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and 
standards?

    You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing requirements 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the monitoring requirements 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control 
device inspections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    (a) Performance testing requirements. (1) All performance tests 
must consist of a minimum of three test runs conducted under conditions 
representative of normal operations, as specified in Sec.  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.
    (ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the sewage sludge 
burned during the performance test.
    (3) All performance tests must be conducted using the test methods, 
minimum sampling volume, observation period, and averaging methods 
specified in Table 1 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, except for opacity, must be 
adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC10.001

Where:

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 
oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis.
(20.9-7) = 20.9 percent oxygen-7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen 
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 
percent.

    (7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in 
accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in this 
subpart unless the Administrator does one of the following.
    (i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a method 
with minor changes in methodology.
    (ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
    (iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the results of 
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a 
specific source is in compliance.
    (iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests because you have 
demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
the affected SSI unit is in compliance with the standard.
    (v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when 
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this 
paragraph is construed to abrogate the Administrator's authority to 
require testing under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
    (8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior 
notice of any performance test, except as specified under other 
subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an 
observer present. If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled 
performance test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) 
in conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify the 
Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the original test 
date, either by providing at least 7 days prior notice of the 
rescheduled date of the performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled 
date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.
    (9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing 
facilities as follows:
    (i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods applicable to the 
SSI unit, as follows:
    (A) Constructing the air pollution control system such that 
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately 
determined by applicable test methods and procedures.
    (B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during 
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and 
procedures.
    (ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
    (iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
    (iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
    (10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each performance 
test must consist of three separate runs using the applicable test 
method. Each run must be conducted for the time and under the 
conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each 
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.
    (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 to this 
subpart. The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for

[[Page 63306]]

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 or 
continuous opacity monitoring system instead of conducting annual 
performance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (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 
mercury or 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 or continuous opacity 
monitoring system.
    (2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use 
of the continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity 
monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance 
test within 60 days of 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 or opacity in accordance with the following:
    (i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
    (ii) The following performance specifications of appendix B of this 
part, as applicable:
    (A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11 of 
appendix B of this part.
    (B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 15 of appendix 
B of this part.
    (C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B of appendix B 
of this part.
    (D) [Reserved]
    (E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of appendix B of 
this part.
    (F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B 
of this part.
    (G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B 
of this part.
    (H) [Reserved]
    (I) [Reserved]
    (J) For opacity, Performance Specification 1 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 (I) of this section. For each 
pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system 
is two times the applicable emission limit, expressed as a 
concentration.
    (A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F of this part.
    (B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part 
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 
1 shall be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of 
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B 
of this part.
    (C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
    (D) [Reserved]
    (E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of this part.
    (F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
    (G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
    (H) [Reserved]
    (I) [Reserved]
    (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 monitors and the 
test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (viii) of this 
section. Relative accuracy testing must be at normal operating 
conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
    (i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used.
    (ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-8, shall be used.
    (iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-4, shall be used.
    (iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, 
shall be used.
    (v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02, shall be used.
    (vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-4, shall be used.
    (vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-4, or as an alternative American National Standards 
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981 Flue 
and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 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 paragraph 
(a)(2)(v) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-2, or as an alternative American National Standards Institute/
American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and 
Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as 
applicable, must be used.
    (5) You may request that compliance with the emission limits 
(except opacity) 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 (iv) of this section. This relationship 
may be re-established during subsequent performance compliance tests.
    (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-2 must be used to determine the relationship between oxygen 
and carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National Standards 
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.-10-1981--
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], 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.

[[Page 63307]]

    (6) You must collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 
follows:
    (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at 
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals 
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods 
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring 
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance 
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) You must collect continuous opacity monitoring system data in 
accordance with Sec.  60.13(e)(1), and you must collect continuous 
emissions monitoring system data in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be 
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system 
malfunction, as defined in Sec.  60.4930, constitute a deviation from 
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
    (v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except 
those periods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (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-specific monitoring 
plan developed in Sec.  60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), 
and (q).
    (ii) Collect data according to Sec.  60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph 
(b)(6) of this section.
    (c) Air pollution control device inspections. You must conduct air 
pollution control device inspections that include, at a minimum, the 
following:
    (1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation, 
if applicable.
    (2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed 
systems, and any other monitoring equipment.
    (3) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    (4) Ensure that the air pollution control device meets manufacturer 
recommendations.
    (d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that sewage 
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an emissions standards 
deviation for all pollutants listed in Table 1 to this subpart. The use 
of the bypass stack during a performance test invalidates the 
performance test.

Sec.  60.4905  What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for 
compliance with my operating limits?

    (a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the 
continuous parameter monitoring systems for measuring flow, pressure, 
pH, and temperature according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section:
    (1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, pressure, pH, 
and temperature measurement devices:
    (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at 
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals 
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods 
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring 
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance 
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring system data 
in accordance with Sec.  60.13(e)(2).
    (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, 
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required 
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be 
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation report.
    (iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system 
is out of control as specified in Sec.  60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be 
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system 
malfunction, as defined in Sec.  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 (iv) of this 
section in assessing the operation of the control device and associated 
control system.
    (vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all recorded readings, 
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (vii) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (2) Meet the following requirements for each type of measurement 
device:
    (i) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow 
measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
    (A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow.
    (B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent 
of the flow rate.
    (C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi-annually.
    (E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated carbon 
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.  
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 
percent accuracy, according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 
of this chapter.
    (ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a 
pressure measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
    (A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of the pressure.
    (B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of 
water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the 
pressure range.
    (D) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (E) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon 
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.  
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 
percent accuracy.
    (iii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH 
measurement

[[Page 63308]]

device, you must meet the following requirements:
    (A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
    (B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (C) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 
hours of process operation.
    (iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a 
temperature measurement device, you must meet the following 
requirements:
    (A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary equipment in 
a position that provides a representative temperature.
    (B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3 
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the 
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic temperature 
range.
    (C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3 
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the 
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a cryogenic temperature 
range.
    (D) Conduct a temperature measurement device calibration check at 
least every 3 months.
    (b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the 
continuous parameter monitoring systems for voltage, amperage, mass 
flow rate, and bag leak detection system as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of 
equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary amperage (or power 
input) of an electrostatic precipitator, you must use secondary voltage 
and secondary amperage monitoring equipment to measure secondary 
voltage and secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator.
    (2) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of 
equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent injection (e.g., weigh 
belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet 
the following requirements:
    (i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a 
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
    (ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with 
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with 
the manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the requirements of 
this subpart, you must:
    (i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your bag leak 
detection system as follows:
    (A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for 
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
    (B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, operated, 
calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in 
accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 
1997.
    (C) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
    (D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
    (E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative 
particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm 
must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
    (G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct 
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a bag leak detection 
system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
    (H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in 
continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under 
Sec.  60.4880.
    (ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every 
alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you must alleviate the cause of 
the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective 
action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 
limited to the following:
    (A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
particulate matter emissions.
    (B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing 
the control device.
    (D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
    (E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (F) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
    (c) You must operate and maintain the continuous parameter 
monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 
in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required 
under Sec.  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

Sec.  60.4910  What records must I keep?

    You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs 
(a) through (m) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All 
records must be available on site in either paper copy or computer-
readable format that can be printed upon request, unless an alternative 
format is approved by the Administrator.
    (a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
    (b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result of the siting 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.4800 and 60.4805.
    (c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training 
procedures and records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (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 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.

[[Page 63309]]

    (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4810, met 
the criteria for qualification under Sec.  60.4820, and maintained or 
renewed their qualification under Sec.  60.4825 or Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 log of the quantity of sewage sludge 
burned during the performance tests, as required in Sec.  
60.4900(a)(2).
    (4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that the performance 
test was conducted under conditions representative of normal 
operations.
    (f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as 
applicable:
    (1) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, all 6-minute average 
and 1-hour block average levels of opacity.
    (2) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 1-hour average 
concentrations of particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon 
monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
cadmium, and lead emissions.
    (3) For continuous automated sampling systems, all average 
concentrations measured for mercury and dioxins/furans at the 
frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
    (4) For continuous parameter monitoring systems:
    (i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the following operating 
parameters, as applicable:
    (A) Dry sludge feed rate and combustion chamber temperature (or 
afterburner temperature).
    (B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the rule, pressure 
drop across the wet scrubber system, liquor flow rate to the wet 
scrubber, and liquor pH as introduced to the wet scrubber.
    (C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to comply with the 
rule, voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates or 
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, and 
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrostatic 
precipitator.
    (D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule, 
mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop, 
as applicable.
    (ii) Daily average values and composite sample values for sludge 
moisture content.
    (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 Sec.  60.4850(b).
    (iv) For other control devices for which you must establish 
operating limits under Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.4900(b)(5) that 
compliance with the emission limits (except opacity) 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 Sec.  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) Calibration of monitoring devices. Records of calibration of 
any monitoring devices as required under Sec. Sec.  60.4900 and 
60.4905.
    (k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for continuous 
monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plan required under Sec.  
60.4880, and records of performance evaluations required under Sec.  
60.4885(b)(6).
    (l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that 
your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent testing under Sec.  
60.4885(a)(3).
    (m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass 
stack, including dates, times, and durations as required under Sec.  
60.4905(c).

Sec.  60.4915  What reports must I submit?

    You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) 
of this section. See Table 4 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 (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 Sec.  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 maximum dry sludge feed rate.
    (3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits 
specified in Sec.  60.4855.

[[Page 63310]]

    (4) The anticipated date of initial startup.
    (5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under Sec.  60.4880, 
at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation of your 
continuous monitoring system.
    (c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following 
information 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) The complete test report for the initial performance test 
results obtained by using the test methods specified in Table 1 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 Sec. Sec.  60.4850 and 60.4855 and the calculations and 
methods 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 Sec.  60.4850(b).
    (8) The results of the initial air pollution control device 
inspection required in Sec.  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 (15) 
of this section for the reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section. You must submit your first annual compliance report no 
later than 12 months following the submission of the initial compliance 
report in paragraph (c) of this section. You must submit subsequent 
annual compliance reports no more than 12 months following the previous 
annual compliance report. (If the unit is subject to permitting 
requirements under title V of the Clean Air Act, you may be required by 
the permit to submit these reports more frequently.)
    (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 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 the method used to 
establish each operating limit, including calculations.
    (ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test, 
include the type of activated carbon used.
    (5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a 
continuous monitoring system, the highest recorded 3-hour average and 
the lowest recorded 3-hour average during the reporting period, as 
applicable.
    (6) If there are no deviations during the reporting period from any 
emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to 
you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission 
limits, emission standard, or operating limits.
    (7) Information for bag leak detection systems recorded under Sec.  
60.4910(f)(4)(iii).
    (8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system 
was conducted, the results of that performance evaluation. If new 
operating limits were established during the performance evaluation, 
include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
    (9) If you met the requirements of Sec.  60.4885(a)(3) and did not 
conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you must 
include the dates of the last three performance tests, a comparison of 
the emission level you achieved in the last three performance tests to 
the 75 percent emission limit threshold specified in Sec.  
60.4885(a)(3)(i)(B), 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 Sec.  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 systems were 
out of control.
    (14) If there were no operator training deviations, a statement 
that there were no such deviations during the reporting period.
    (15) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring 
plan during the reporting period, a statement that you did not make any 
revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan during the reporting 
period. If you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 
during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan.
    (e) Deviation reports. (1) You must submit a deviation report if:
    (i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average parameter level is above 
the maximum operating limit or below the minimum operating limit 
established under this subpart.
    (ii) Any recorded daily average sludge moisture content is outside 
the allowable range.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5 
percent of the operating time for the 6-month reporting period.
    (iv) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average emissions level is above 
the emission limit, if a continuous monitoring system is used to comply 
with an emission limit.
    (v) Any opacity level recorded under Sec.  60.4865(b)(5) that is 
above the opacity limit, if a continuous opacity monitoring system is 
used.
    (vi) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash 
conveying system for more than 5 percent of the hourly observation 
period.
    (vii) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any 
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (viii) A continuous monitoring system was out of control.
    (ix) 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 (viii) of 
this section.
    (i) Company name and 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

[[Page 63311]]

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 had a malfunction or was out of control, you must include the 
following information for each deviation from an emission limit or 
operating limit:
    (A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level 
checks.
    (C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was out of control, including start and end dates and hours and 
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction, during 
a period when the system as out of control, or during another period.
    (E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
    (G) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system 
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of 
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total 
operating time of the SSI unit at which the continuous monitoring 
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
    (H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was 
monitored at the SSI unit.
    (I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
    (J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (L) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (4) For each deviation where you are not using a continuous 
monitoring system to comply with the associated emission limit or 
operating limit, report the following items:
    (i) Company name and 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 standard, 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)(viii) 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 (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 (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 (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4900(a)(8), you must notify the 
Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled 
performance test for which notification was previously made in 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (i) Report submission form. (1) Submit initial, annual, and 
deviation reports electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or 
before the submittal due dates.
    (2) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance evaluation or performance test conducted to 
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative 
accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity, to 
EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically into EPA's 
Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic

[[Page 63312]]

Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
    (j) Changing report dates. If the Administrator agrees, you may 
change the semi-annual or annual reporting dates. See Sec.  60.19(c) 
for procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.

Title V Operating Permits

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4780.

Sec.  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 (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 [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 [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operation as a new SSI 
unit until after [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 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

Sec.  60.4930  What definitions must I know?

    Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean 
Air Act and Sec.  60.2.
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
    Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, fuel 
oil, or diesel fuel.
    Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of 
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak 
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 
other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases 
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other 
equipment.
    Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on January 1 and 
ending on December 31.
    Co-fired combustor means a unit combusting sewage sludge or 
dewatered sludge pellets with other fuels or wastes (e.g., coal, clean 
biomass, municipal solid waste, commercial or institutional waste, 
hospital medical infectious waste, unused pharmaceuticals, other solid 
waste) and subject to an enforceable requirement limiting the unit to 
combusting a fuel feed stream, 10 percent or less of the weight of 
which is comprised, in aggregate, of sewage sludge.
    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-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, continuous opacity 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., 
temperature, pressure, and power).
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, operating 
limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
    Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
    Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic precipitator means 
an air pollution control device that uses both electrical forces and, 
if applicable, water to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage 
sludge incinerator stack.
    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.

[[Page 63313]]

    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. 
Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless 
operation are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the 
operator shall operate within established emissions and operating 
limits and shall continue monitoring of all applicable operating 
parameters until all waste has been combusted or until the malfunction 
ceases, whichever comes first.
    Maximum feed rate means 110 percent of the highest 3-hour average 
dry charge rate measured during the most recent performance test 
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits or 
standards.
    Modification means a change to an SSI unit later than [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 (SSI) unit means an 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.
    Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission 
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
    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 that any of the following have occurred:
    (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).
    (3) An allowable increase in the quantity of wastewater received 
from an industrial source by the wastewater treatment facility.
    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.
    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 [deg]F (20 [deg]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 congener 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 3 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 liquor 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 Sec.  60.4770.

[[Page 63314]]

   Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Using these averaging
                                  You must meet this          methods and minimum     And determining compliance
    For the air pollutant         emission limit \a\          sampling volumes or          using this method
                                                                   durations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter..........  4.1 milligrams per dry      3-run average (collect a    Performance test (Method 5
                               standard cubic meter.       minimum volume of 3 dry     at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           standard cubic meters per   appendix A-3; Method 26A
                                                           run).                       or Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                                                                       part 60, appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride...........  0.12 parts per million by   3-run average (For Method   Performance test (Method
                               dry volume.                 26, collect a minimum       26 or 26A at 40 CFR part
                                                           volume of 200 liters per    60, appendix A-8).
                                                           run. For Method 26A,
                                                           collect a minimum volume
                                                           of 3 dry standard cubic
                                                           meters per run).
Carbon monoxide.............  7.4 parts per million by    4-hour rolling average      Continuous emissions
                               dry volume.                 (using 1-hour averages of   monitoring system.
                                                           data).
Dioxins/furans (total mass    0.024 nanograms per dry     3-run average (collect a    Performance test (Method
 basis).                       standard cubic meter.       minimum volume of 3 dry     23 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           standard cubic meters per   appendix A-7).
                                                           run).
Dioxins/furans (toxic         0.0022 nanograms per dry    3-run average (collect a    Performance test (Method
 equivalency basis).           standard cubic meter.       minimum volume of 3 dry     23 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           standard cubic meters per   appendix A-7).
                                                           run).
Mercury.....................  0.0010 milligrams per dry   3-run average (For Method   Performance test (Method
                               standard cubic meter.       29 and ASTM D6784-02,       29 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           collect a minimum volume    appendix A-8; Method 30B
                                                           of 3 dry standard cubic     at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           meters per run. For         appendix A (when
                                                           Method 30B, collect a       published in the Federal
                                                           minimum sample as           Register); or ASTM D6784-
                                                           specified in Method 30B     02, Standard Test Method
                                                           at 40 CFR part 60,          for Elemental, Oxidized,
                                                           appendix A).                Particle Bound and Total
                                                                                       Mercury in Flue Gas
                                                                                       Generated from Coal-Fired
                                                                                       Stationary Sources
                                                                                       (Ontario Hydro Method).
Oxides of nitrogen..........  26 parts per million by     3-run average (Collect      Performance test (Method 7
                               dry volume.                 sample for a minimum        or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           duration of one hour per    appendix A-4).
                                                           run).
Sulfur dioxide..............  2.0 parts per million by    3-run average (For Method   Performance test (Method 6
                               dry volume.                 6, collect a minimum        or 6C at 40 CFR part 40,
                                                           volume of 200 liters per    appendix A-4; or ANSI/
                                                           run. For Method 6C,         ASME PTC-19.10-1981 Flue
                                                           collect sample for a        and Exhaust Gas Analysis
                                                           minimum duration of one     [Part 10, Instruments and
                                                           hour per run).              Apparatus]).
Cadmium.....................  0.00051 milligrams per dry  3-run average (collect a    Performance test (Method
                               standard cubic meter.       minimum volume of 3 dry     29 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           standard cubic meters per   appendix A-8).
                                                           run).
Lead........................  0.00053 milligrams per dry  3-run average (collect a    Performance test (Method
                               standard cubic meter.       minimum volume of 3 dry     29 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                           standard cubic meters per   appendix A-8).
                                                           run).
Opacity.....................  0 percent.................  6-minute averages, three 1- Performance test (Method 9
                                                           hour observation periods.   at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                                       appendix A-4).
Fugitive emissions from ash   Visible emissions of        Three 1-hour observation    Visible emission test
 handling.                     combustion ash from an      periods.                    (Method 22 of appendix A-
                               ash conveying system                                    7 of this part).
                               (including conveyor
                               transfer points) for no
                               more than 5 percent of
                               the hourly observation
                               period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

                         Table 2--to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         And monitor using these minimum frequencies
                                       You must establish these    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For these operating parameters           operating limits                                                                       Averaging time for
                                                                          Data measurement            Data recording \b\              compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      All SSI units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry sludge feed rate..............  Maximum dry sludge feed rate..  Continuous..................  Hourly....................  4-hour rolling.\c\
Combustion chamber temperature or   Minimum combustion temperature  Continuous..................  Every 15 minutes..........  4-hour rolling.\c\
 afterburner temperature.            or afterburner temperature.
Sludge moisture content...........  Range of moisture content       Composite of three samples    Daily.....................  Daily.
                                     (percent).                      taken 6 hours apart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63315]]

                                                                        Scrubber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure drop across each wet       Minimum pressure drop or        Continuous..................  Every 15 minutes..........  4-hour rolling.\c\
 scrubber or amperage to each wet    minimum amperage.
 scrubber.
Scrubber liquor flow rate.........  Minimum flow rate.............  Continuous..................  Every 15 minutes..........  4-hour rolling.\c\
Scrubber liquor pH................  Minimum pH....................  Continuous..................  Every 15 minutes..........  4-hour rolling.\c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fabric Filter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time of the bag leak          Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in Sec.   60.4850 and is
 detection system alarm.                                                  not established on a site-specific basis)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Electrostatic precipitator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage of the            Minimum power input to the      Continuous..................  Hourly....................  4-hour rolling.\c\
 electrostatic precipitator          electrostatic precipitator
 collection plates.                  collection plates.
Secondary amperage of the
 electrostatic precipitator
 collection plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the     Maximum effluent water flow     Hourly......................  Hourly....................  4-hour rolling.\c\
 outlet of the electrostatic         rate at the outlet of the
 precipitator.                       electrostatic precipitator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Activated carbon injection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury sorbent injection rate....  Minimum mercury sorbent         Hourly......................  Hourly....................  4-hour rolling.\c\
                                     injection rate.
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection      Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent
 rate.                               injection rate.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier    Minimum carrier gas flow rate   Continuous..................  Every 15 minutes..........  4-hour rolling.\c\
 gas pressure drop.                  or minimum carrier gas
                                     pressure drop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As specified in Sec.   60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous automated
  sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits.
\b\ This recording time refers to the frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data recorded
  every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters except sludge moisture content, you use hourly averages to
  calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
\c\ Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating hours.

     Table 3--to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Toxic
                   Dioxin/furan congener                     equivalency
                                                               factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.................        1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin...............        1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin..............        0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin..............        0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin..............        0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin...........        0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin..........................        0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran.....................        0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran...................        0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran...................        0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran..................        0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran..................        0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran..................        0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran..................        0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran...............        0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran...............        0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran..............................        0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 4--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          Statement of                 Sec.
                                           construction.               intent to construct.           60.4915(a)
                                                                       Anticipated date
                                                                       of commencement of
                                                                       construction.

[[Page 63316]]

                                                                       Documentation for
                                                                       siting requirements.
                                                                       Anticipated date
                                                                       of initial startup.
Notification of initial startup.........  Prior to initial startup..   Maximum design               Sec.
                                                                       dry sewage sludge burning      60.4915(b)
                                                                       capacity.
                                                                       Anticipated
                                                                       maximum feed rate.
                                                                       If applicable,
                                                                       the petition for site-
                                                                       specific operating limits.
                                                                       Anticipated date
                                                                       of initial startup.
                                                                       Site-specific
                                                                       monitoring plan.
Initial compliance report...............  No later than 60 days        Company name and             Sec.
                                           following the initial       address.                       60.4915(c)
                                           performance test.           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 for
                                                                       the site-specific
                                                                       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.
Annual compliance report................  No later than 12 months      Company name and       Sec.  Sec.
                                           following the submission    address.                       60.4915(d)
                                           of the initial compliance   Statement and
                                           report; subsequent          signature by responsible
                                           reports are to be           official.
                                           submitted no more than 12   Date and
                                           months following the        beginning and ending
                                           previous report.            dates of report.
                                                                       If a performance
                                                                       test was conducted during
                                                                       the reporting period, the
                                                                       results of the test,
                                                                       including any new
                                                                       operating limits and
                                                                       associated calculations
                                                                       and the type of activated
                                                                       carbon used, if
                                                                       applicable.
                                                                       For each
                                                                       pollutant and operating
                                                                       parameter recorded using
                                                                       a CMS, the highest
                                                                       recorded 3-hour average
                                                                       and the lowest recorded 3-
                                                                       hour average, as
                                                                       applicable.
                                                                       If no deviations
                                                                       from emission limits,
                                                                       emission standards, or
                                                                       operating limits
                                                                       occurred, a 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 Sec.
                                                                       60.4885(a)(3) and did not
                                                                       conduct a performance
                                                                       test, include the dates
                                                                       of the last three
                                                                       performance tests, a
                                                                       comparison to the 75
                                                                       percent emission limit
                                                                       threshold of the emission
                                                                       level achieved in the
                                                                       last three performance
                                                                       tests, and a statement as
                                                                       to whether there have
                                                                       been any process changes.
                                                                       Documentation of
                                                                       periods when all
                                                                       qualified SSI unit
                                                                       operators were
                                                                       unavailable for more than
                                                                       8 hours but less than 2
                                                                       weeks.

[[Page 63317]]

                                                                       Results of annual
                                                                       pollutions control device
                                                                       inspections, including
                                                                       description of repairs.
                                                                       If there were no
                                                                       periods during which your
                                                                       CMSs had malfunctions, a
                                                                       statement that there were
                                                                       no periods during which
                                                                       your CMSs had
                                                                       malfunctions.
                                                                       If there were no
                                                                       periods during which your
                                                                       CMSs were out of control,
                                                                       a statement that there
                                                                       were no periods during
                                                                       which your CMSs were out
                                                                       of control.
                                                                       If there were no
                                                                       operator training
                                                                       deviations, a statement
                                                                       that there were no such
                                                                       deviations.
                                                                       Information on
                                                                       monitoring plan
                                                                       revisions, including a
                                                                       copy of any revised
                                                                       monitoring plan.
Deviation report (deviations from         By August 1 of a calendar   If using a CMS:                       Sec.
 emission limits, emission standards, or   year for data collected     Company name and       60.4915(e)
 operating limits, as specified in Sec.    during the first half of    address..
  60.4915(e)(1)).                          the calendar year; by       Statement by a
                                           February 1 of a calendar    responsible official..
                                           year for data collected     The calendar
                                           during the second half of   dates and times your unit
                                           the calendar year.          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
                                                                       Sec.
                                                                       60.4915(e)(3)(viii).
                                                                      If not using a CMS:
                                                                       Company name and
                                                                       address.
                                                                       Statement by a
                                                                       responsible official.
                                                                       The total
                                                                       operating time of each
                                                                       affected SSI.
                                                                       The calendar
                                                                       dates and times your unit
                                                                       deviated from the
                                                                       emission limits, emission
                                                                       standard, or operating
                                                                       limits.
                                                                       The averaged and
                                                                       recorded data for those
                                                                       dates.
                                                                       Duration and
                                                                       cause of each deviation.
                                                                       A copy of any
                                                                       performance test report
                                                                       that showed a deviation
                                                                       from the emission limits
                                                                       or standards.
                                                                       A brief
                                                                       description of any
                                                                       malfunction, a
                                                                       description of actions
                                                                       taken during the
                                                                       malfunction to minimize
                                                                       emissions, and corrective
                                                                       action taken.
Notification of qualified operator        Within 10 days of            Statement of                 Sec.
 deviation (if all qualified operators     deviation.                  cause of deviation.            60.4915(f)
 are not accessible for 2 weeks or more).                              Description of
                                                                       actions taken to ensure
                                                                       that a qualified operator
                                                                       will be available.
                                                                       The date when a
                                                                       qualified operator will
                                                                       be accessible.
Notification of status of qualified       Every 4 weeks following      Description of               Sec.
 operator deviation.                       notification of deviation.  actions taken to ensure        60.4915(f)
                                                                       that a qualified operator
                                                                       is accessible.
                                                                       The date when you
                                                                       anticipate that a
                                                                       qualified operator will
                                                                       be accessible.
                                                                       Request for
                                                                       approval to continue
                                                                       operation.

[[Page 63318]]

Notification of resumed operation         Within 5 days of obtaining   Notification that            Sec.
 following shutdown (due to qualified      a qualified operator and    you have obtained a            60.4915(f)
 operator deviation and as specified in    resuming operation.         qualified operator and
 Sec.   60.4835(b)(2)(i).                                              are resuming operation.
Notification of a force majeure.........  As soon as practicable       Description of               Sec.
                                           following the date you      the force majeure event.       60.4915(g)
                                           first knew, or through      Rationale for
                                           due diligence should have   attributing the delay in
                                           known that the event may    conducting the
                                           cause or caused a delay     performance test beyond
                                           in conducting a             the regulatory deadline
                                           performance test beyond     to the force majeure.
                                           the regulatory deadline;    Description of
                                           the notification must       the measures taken or to
                                           occur before the            be taken to minimize the
                                           performance test deadline   delay.
                                           unless the initial force    Identification of
                                           majeure or a subsequent     the date by which you
                                           force majeure event         propose to conduct the
                                           delays the notice, and in   performance test.
                                           such cases, the
                                           notification must occur
                                           as soon as practicable.
Notification of intent to start or stop   1 month before starting or   Intent to start              Sec.
 use of a CMS.                             stopping use of a CMS.      or stop use of a CMS.          60.4915(h)
Notification of intent to conduct a       At least 30 days prior to    Intent to conduct
 performance test.                         the performance test.       a performance test to
                                                                       comply with this subpart.
Notification of intent to conduct a       At least 7 days prior to     Intent to conduct
 rescheduled performance test.             the date of a rescheduled   a rescheduled performance
                                           performance test.           test to comply with this
                                                                       subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections 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

Table of Contents

Introduction

Sec.
60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?
60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
60.5010 Is a State plan required for all states?
60.5015 What must I include in my State plan?
60.5020 Is there an approval process for my State plan?
60.5025 What if my State plan is not approvable?
60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration 
letter?
60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my State plan?
60.5040 Are there any State plan requirements for this subpart that 
apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
60.5045 In lieu of a State plan submittal, are there other 
acceptable option(s) for a State to meet its section 111(d)/
129(b)(2) obligations?
60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies?
60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners and 
operators in my State?

Applicability of State Plans

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my State plan?
60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my State plan?

Use of Model Rule

60.5070 What is the ``model rule'' in this subpart?
60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required elements of 
my State plan?
60.5080 What are the principal components of the model rule?

Model Rule--Increments of Progress

60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of progress 
and achieving final compliance?
60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?
60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of achievement of 
increments of progress?
60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of 
increments of progress?
60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?
60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal 
of a control plan?
60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving 
final compliance?
60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then restart it?
60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my SSI unit 
and not restart it?

Model Rule--Operator Training and Qualification

60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 
requirements?
60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not 
accessible?
60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and how often 
must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators and other plant 
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of 
Sec.  60.5155(a)?

Model Rule--Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits

60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.5170 What operating limits 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

[[Page 63319]]

inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my 
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by 
what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my 
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

Model Rule--Continuous Compliance Requirements

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limits and standards?
60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my operating 
limits?
60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control 
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?

Model Rule--Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 
Requirements

60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and 
standards?
60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for 
compliance with my operating limits?

Model Rule--Recordkeeping and Reporting

60.5230 What records must I keep?
60.5235 What reports must I submit?

Model Rule--Title V Operating Permits

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating 
permit for my existing SSI unit?
60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application for my 
existing SSI unit?

Model Rule--Definitions

60.5250 What definitions must I know?

TABLES

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of 
Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage Sludge 
Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and 
Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration 
Units
Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and 
Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incineration 
Units
Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Operating Parameters 
for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency 
Factors
Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Summary of Reporting 
Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Introduction

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 [THE DATE 12 MONTHS 
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER].

Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5015  What must I include in my State plan?

    (a) You must include the nine items described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (9) of this section in your State plan.
    (1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those that have 
ceased operation but have not been dismantled.
    (2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in your State.
    (3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit.
    (4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and 
qualification requirements, and operating limits for affected SSI units 
that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 
this subpart.
    (5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
    (6) Certification that the hearing on the State plan was held, a 
list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, 
appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each 
presentation or written submission.
    (7) Provision for State progress reports to EPA.
    (8) Identification of enforceable State mechanisms that you 
selected for implementing the emission guidelines of this subpart.
    (9) Demonstration of your State's legal authority to carry out the 
sections 111(d) and 129 State plan.
    (b) Your State plan may deviate from the format and content of the 
emission guidelines contained in this subpart. However, if your State 
plan does deviate in content, you must demonstrate that your State plan 
is at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this 
subpart. Your State plan must address regulatory applicability, 
increments of progress for retrofit, operator training and 
qualification, emission limits and standards, performance testing, 
operating limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting.
    (c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of this part 
(Adoption and Submittal of State plans for Designated Facilities) in 
your State plan.

Sec.  60.5020  Is there an approval process for my State plan?

    Yes. The EPA will review your State plan according to Sec.  60.27.

Sec.  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 [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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5030  Is there an approval process for a negative declaration 
letter?

    No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative declaration 
letters. Once your negative declaration letter has been received, EPA 
will place a copy in the public docket and publish a notice in the 
Federal Register. If, at a later date, an SSI unit for which 
construction commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your 
State, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines contained 
in this subpart would automatically apply to that SSI unit until your 
State plan is approved.

[[Page 63320]]

Sec.  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 (2) of this 
section.
    (1) [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.
    (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 Sec.  
60.5090.

Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.5035. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less 
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies 
instead of the requirement of Sec.  60.24(e)(1) that would require a 
State plan to include all five increments of progress for all SSI 
units.

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5015(a)(1), (2), and (7).
    (3) Certification that the hearing on the State delegation request, 
similar to the hearing for a State plan submittal, was held, a list of 
witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at 
the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or 
written submission.
    (4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the 
Regional Administrator that sets forth the terms, conditions, and 
effective date of the delegation and that serves as the mechanism for 
the transfer of authority. Additional guidance and information is given 
in EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and Enforcement 
of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) Federal plans.
    (b) A State with an already approved SSI Clean Air Act section 
111(d)/129 State plan is not precluded from receiving EPA approval of a 
delegation request for the revised Federal plan, provided the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met, and at the time 
of the delegation request, the State 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.

Sec.  60.5050  What authorities will not be delegated to State, local, 
or tribal agencies?

    The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this 
section.
    (a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards 
in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and operating limits established 
under Sec.  60.5175 or Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5175.
    (f) The requirements in Sec.  60.5155(b)(2).
    (g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.  
60.8(b).

Sec.  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 [THE DATE 1 YEAR 
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], EPA will implement and enforce a Federal plan, as provided 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.5035.

Applicability of State Plans

Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.5250.
    (3) SSI units not exempt under Sec.  60.5065.
    (b) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes changes that meet 
the definition of modification after [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.
    (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 [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.

Sec.  60.5065  What SSI units are exempt from my State plan?

    This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge 
that are located at an industrial or commercial facility subject to 
subpart CCCC of this part, provided the owner or operator of such a 
combustion unit notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim under 
this section.

[[Page 63321]]

Use of Model Rule

Sec.  60.5070  What is the ``model rule'' in this subpart?

    (a) The model rule is the portion of these emission guidelines 
(Sec. Sec.  60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the regulatory 
requirements applicable to SSI units. The model rule provides these 
requirements in regulation format. You must develop a State plan that 
is at least as protective as the model rule. You may use the model rule 
language as part of your State plan. Alternative language may be used 
in your State plan if you demonstrate that the alternative language is 
at least as protective as the model rule contained in this subpart.
    (b) In the model rule of Sec. Sec.  60.5085 through 60.5250, 
``you'' and ``Administrator'' have the meaning specified in Sec.  
60.5250.

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5015(a)(3) through (5).

Sec.  60.5080  What are the principal components of the model rule?

    The model rule contains the nine major components listed in 
paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
    (a) Increments of progress toward compliance.
    (b) Operator training and qualification.
    (c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
    (d) Initial compliance requirements.
    (e) Continuous compliance requirements.
    (f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
    (g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
    (h) Definitions.
    (i) Tables.

Model Rule--Increments of Progress

Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5090  When must I complete each increment of progress?

    Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for each 
increment of progress.

Sec.  60.5095  What must I include in the notifications of achievement 
of increments of progress?

    Your notification of achievement of increments of progress must 
include the three items specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section.
    (a) Notification that the increment of progress has been achieved.
    (b) Any items required to be submitted with each increment of 
progress.
    (c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI unit.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 (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 Sec.  60.5175.
    (b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control plan.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5120  What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then restart 
it?

    (a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it prior to the 
final compliance date in your State plan, you must meet the increments 
of progress specified in Sec.  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.

Sec.  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

Sec.  60.5130  What are the operator training and qualification 
requirements?

    (a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and 
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or 
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI 
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct 
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you 
must follow the procedures in Sec.  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 (3) of this section.
    (1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
through (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.

[[Page 63322]]

    (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.

Sec.  60.5135  When must the operator training course be completed?

    The operator training course must be completed by the later of the 
three dates specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) The final compliance date (Increment 2).
    (b) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
    (c) Six months after an employee assumes responsibility for 
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the 
operation of the SSI unit.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5130(c)(2).

Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5150  How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

    You must renew a lapsed operator qualification 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 Sec.  60.5145.
    (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial 
qualification requirements in Sec.  60.5140(a).

Sec.  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 who 
have completed a review of the information specified in Sec.  60.5160 
within the past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 
qualified operator was not accessible and include this deviation in the 
annual report as specified under Sec.  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 (2) of this section.
    (1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10 
days. In the notice, State what caused this deviation, what you are 
doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you 
anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible.
    (2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks 
outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is 
accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will 
be accessible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to 
continue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first status 
report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue 
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue 
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
    (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is 
accessible as required under Sec.  60.5130(a) and you notify the 
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having 
a qualified operator accessible.

Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.5155(a)?

    (a) You must maintain at the facility the documentation of the 
operator training procedures specified under Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified incinerator operator 
and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the 
provisions of Sec.  60.5155(a), according to the following schedule:
    (1) The initial review of the information listed in Sec.  
60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the effective 
date of this subpart or prior to an employee's assumption of 
responsibilities for operation of the SSI unit, whichever date is 
later.
    (2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in Sec.  
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

Sec.  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, 
including, and not limited to, periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. The emission limits and standards apply to emissions from 
a bypass stack or vent while sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI 
unit.

Sec.  60.5170  What operating limits must I meet and by when?

    You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The operating parameters are 
listed in Table 4 to this subpart. The operating limits apply at all 
times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including periods of 
malfunction.
    (a) You must meet site-specific operating limits for maximum dry 
sludge feed rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of

[[Page 63323]]

the combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) that you 
establish in Sec.  60.5190.
    (b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator, 
activated carbon injection, or afterburner to comply with an emission 
limit, you must meet the site-specific operating limits that you 
establish in Sec.  60.5190 for each operating parameter associated with 
each air pollution control device.
    (c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits, 
you must install the bag leak detection system specified in Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.5190.
    (d) You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section by the final compliance date under the 
approved State plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable.
    (e) For the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b), 
you may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to establish new 
values for the operating limits to apply from that point forward. You 
must confirm or reestablish operating limits during:
    (1) Annual performance tests required under Sec.  60.5205(a).
    (2) Performance tests required under Sec.  60.5205(a)(2).
    (3) Periodic performance evaluations required under Sec.  
60.5205(b)(5) to meet the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section.

Sec.  60.5175  How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a 
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated 
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit emissions in some other 
manner, to comply with the emission limits?

    If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet 
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated carbon 
injection, or afterburner, or limit emissions in some other manner 
(e.g., materials balance) to comply with the emission limits in Sec.  
60.5165, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section.
    (a) Establish an operating limit each for maximum dry sludge feed 
rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of the 
combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) according to 
Sec.  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 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.
    (2) Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (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.

Sec.  60.5180  Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 
operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction?

    The emission limits and standards apply at all times, including 
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The operating limits 
apply at all times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including 
periods of malfunction.

Sec.  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 standards set forth in 
paragraph Sec.  60.5165 you may assert an affirmative defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by malfunction, as defined in Sec.  60.2. Appropriate penalties 
may be assessed; however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of 
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, then 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 (9) of this 
section are met.
    (1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable 
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance.
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs.
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions.
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage.
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health.
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible.
    (7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent 
with good practices for minimizing emissions.
    (9) You have prepared a written root cause analysis to determine, 
correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The 
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and 
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (b) If your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its emission 
limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify

[[Page 63324]]

the Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon 
as possible, but no later than 2 business days after the initial 
occurrence of the malfunction, if you wish to avail yourself of an 
affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. If you 
seek to assert an affirmative defense, you must also submit a written 
report to the Administrator within 30 days of the initial occurrence of 
the exceedance of the standard in Sec.  60.5165 to demonstrate, with 
all necessary supporting documentation, that you have met the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

Model Rule--Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec.  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, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity. 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 Sec.  
60.5220(a) and (b).
    (a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test 
required in Sec.  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, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 
lead, opacity, 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 
Sec.  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 demonstrated compliance with the 
emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. However, 
you must continue to meet the operating limits established during the 
most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the 
emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The 
performance test must have used the test methods specified in Table 2 
or 3 to this subpart.
    (b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous emissions 
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous 
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.  
60.5220(b)(6) and use the following procedures:
    (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for 
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 
total mass, dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, you may substitute the use 
of a continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial 
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
    (i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring 
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
(except opacity) 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 total hydrocarbon continuous 
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial carbon monoxide 
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may 
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of 
conducting the initial opacity and particulate matter performance tests 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iv) You may substitute the use of a particulate matter continuous 
emissions monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial opacity 
performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (v) 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 Sec.  
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.  
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
    (A) Use the procedures specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission 
limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
    (ii) Comply with the provisions in Sec.  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 1 of appendix F of this part.
    (4) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to 
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity 
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages 
as specified in Sec.  60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you 
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must 
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
    (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 systems, 
continuous opacity 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 Sec.  60.5200(a)(3).

[[Page 63325]]

    (c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic 
equivalency emission limit in either 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-congener emitted using EPA Method 23.
    (2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener 
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply 
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency 
factor specified in Table 5 to this subpart.
    (3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans 
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
    (d) You must submit an initial compliance report, as specified in 
Sec.  60.5235(b).
    (e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a performance test 
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the provisions of 
this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, 
or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 
majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as specified in 
Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5190  How do I establish my operating limits?

    (a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified 
in paragraphs (c) through (l) of this section during the initial 
performance tests and performance evaluations required in Sec.  60.5185 
and the most recent performance tests and performance evaluations 
required in Sec.  60.5205. Follow the data measurement and recording 
frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 4 to this 
subpart and follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration 
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  60.5220 and 60.5225. You are not 
required to establish operating limits for the operating parameters 
listed in Table 4 to this subpart for a control device if you use a 
continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for the applicable 
pollutants, as follows:
    (1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of hydrogen 
chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an 
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber (or 
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH 
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.  
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 
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH 
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.  
60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead.
    (3) You are not required to establish an operating limit and 
monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage 
of the collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 
the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring 
system specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, lead, or 
cadmium.
    (4) You are not required to establish an operating limit and 
monitor mercury sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 
carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system 
specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limit for mercury.
    (5) You are not required to establish an operating limit and 
monitor dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate 
(or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring 
system specified in Sec. Sec.  60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limits for dioxins/furans.
    (b) For each operating parameter specified in paragraphs (c) 
through (k) of this section, determine the average operating parameter 
level during the initial or most recent performance test or performance 
evaluation for the applicable pollutant(s) according to the procedures 
specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as 
applicable:
    (1) For continuous monitoring systems that collect multiple data 
points each hour. (i) Collect the incremental data for the operating 
parameter (e.g., scrubber liquor flow rate) for each of the three 
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g., 
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride). For each applicable performance 
test run period, calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter 
level.
    (ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of 
the applicable performance test run periods specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section represents the average operating parameter 
level (e.g., average scrubber liquor flow rate) during the performance 
test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average operating 
parameter level to establish the respective operating limit, as 
specified in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
    (2) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on an 
hourly basis. (i) Collect the hourly data for the operating parameter 
(e.g., mercury sorbent injection rate) for each of the three 
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g., 
mercury). For each applicable performance test run period, calculate 
the arithmetic average operating parameter level.
    (ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of 
the applicable performance test run periods specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) of this section represents the average operating parameter 
level (e.g., average mercury sorbent injection rate) during the 
performance test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average 
operating parameter level to establish the respective operating limit, 
as specified in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
    (3) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on a daily 
basis. Collect the daily data for the operating parameter (e.g., sludge 
moisture content) for each day that a performance test is conducted for 
the applicable pollutant(s). The highest daily arithmetic average 
operating parameter level for the applicable performance tests 
represents the average operating parameter level (e.g., average sludge 
moisture content) during the performance test(s) for the applicable 
pollutant(s)). Use this average operating parameter level to establish 
the respective operating limit, as specified in paragraphs (c) through 
(k) of this section.
    (c) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber, calculated as 
90 percent of the average pressure drop across each wet scrubber 
determined

[[Page 63326]]

according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (d) Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate (measured at the inlet to the 
wet scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor flow rate 
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (e) Minimum scrubber liquor pH (measured at the inlet to the wet 
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor pH determined 
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (f) If you do not use an afterburner to comply with the 
requirements of this rule, minimum combustion chamber temperature, 
calculated as 90 percent of the average combustion chamber temperature 
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (g) If you use an afterburner to comply with the requirement of 
this rule, minimum afterburner combustion chamber temperature, 
calculated as 90 percent of the average afterburner combustion chamber 
temperature determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (h) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator 
collection plates, calculated as 90 percent of the average power input. 
Average power input must be calculated as the product of the average 
secondary voltage and average secondary amperage to the electrostatic 
precipitator, both determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (i) Maximum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 
electrostatic precipitator, calculated as 70 percent of the average 
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 
precipitator determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (j) For activated carbon injection:
    (1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90 
percent of the average mercury sorbent injection rate, determined 
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90 
percent of the average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, determined 
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure 
drop, as follows:
    (i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, calculated as 90 percent of the 
average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section.
    (ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, calculated as 90 percent of 
the average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (k) Maximum dry sludge feed rate, calculated as 110 percent of the 
average dry sludge feed rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section.
    (l) Sludge moisture content, measured on a daily basis as a 
percentage, must be no less than 10 percent less than and no more than 
10 percent greater than the average sludge moisture content determined 
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For example, if your 
average sludge moisture content is measured as 20 percent, your sludge 
moisture level must be greater than or equal to 18 percent and less 
than or equal to 22 percent.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5200  How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my 
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by what 
date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 
monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

    You must develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a 
site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system 
required under this subpart, according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. This requirement also 
applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative 
monitoring parameters under Sec.  60.13(i) and paragraph (d) of this 
section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system to comply 
with the mercury or dioxin/furan emission limits, you must develop your 
monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  60.58b(q), and you are not 
required to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section. You must submit your monitoring plan at least 60 days before 
your initial performance evaluation of your continuous monitoring 
system(s), as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. You must 
update your monitoring plan as specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (a) For each continuous monitoring system, your monitoring plan 
must address the elements and requirements specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe 
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected 
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of 
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control 
device).
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer 
and the data collection and reduction systems.
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
    (i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your performance 
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to, 
the following:
    (A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring 
systems specified in Sec.  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.
    (ii) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, your performance 
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to, 
the following:
    (A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring 
systems specified in Sec.  60.13.
    (B) Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part.
    (iii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, your performance 
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but not be limited to, 
the associated performance specifications and quality assurance 
procedures.
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  60.11(d).
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  60.13.
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4), 
(d), (e), (f), and (g).

[[Page 63327]]

    (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 in any one of paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of 
this section are met.
    (A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level 
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift 
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the 
relevant standard.
    (B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fails a performance 
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, 
relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit.
    (C) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift 
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification 
in the relevant standard.
    (ii) When the continuous emissions monitoring system is out of 
control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you must 
take the necessary corrective action and must repeat all necessary 
tests that indicate that the system is out of control. You must take 
corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance 
requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-
of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance check (e.g., 
calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance 
requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control 
period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and 
successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable 
limits.
    (8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance 
evaluations of your continuous monitoring systems in accordance with 
your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your monitoring plan 
must include a description of the following items:
    (1) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established.
    (3) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (4) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including 
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (5) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored.
    (c) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each 
continuous monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as 
applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan and within 60 days 
of installation of the continuous monitoring system and bag leak 
detection system, as applicable.
    (d) 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 
(d)(1) through (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 during the performance test 
over any increment of time equivalent to the time required to conduct 
three runs of the performance test.
    (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 (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the 
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the 
required approach.
    (ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring 
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the 
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit, 
and how the limit is to be calculated.
    (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative 
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of 
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
    (4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of 
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original 
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary 
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an 
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or 
better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. 
Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the 
Administrator will provide the following:
    (i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended 
disapproval is based.
    (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.
    (e) You must update your monitoring plan if there are any changes 
in your monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 
defined in Sec.  60.5250.

Model Rule--Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec.  60.5205  How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 
the emission limits and standards?

    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and 
standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the procedures 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the 
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you have the 
option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen 
chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity. 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 Sec.  
60.5220(a) and (b).
    (a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test. 
Within 10 to 12 months following the initial performance test (except 
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section), demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 
or 3

[[Page 63328]]

to this subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon 
monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
cadmium, lead, and opacity using a performance test. The performance 
test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging methods, and 
minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 
subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration 
requirements specified in Sec.  60.5220(a). Conduct subsequent annual 
performance tests within 10 to 12 months following the previous one.
    (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 Sec.  60.5250.
    (3) You have the option to perform less frequent testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead emission 
limits.
    (i) To perform less frequent testing, you must meet the following 
requirements:
    (A) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive years.
    (B) The test data results for particulate matter, hydrogen 
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead 
are less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limits.
    (C) There are no changes in the operation of the SSI unit 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 36 months following the previous 
performance test.
    (ii) If your SSI unit continues to emit less than 75 percent of the 
emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, 
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead and there are no 
changes in the operation of the SSI unit or air pollution control 
equipment that could increase emissions, you may choose to conduct 
performance tests for these pollutants every third year, but each test 
must be within 36 months of the previous performance test.
    (iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent or 
greater of the emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen 
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead, 
you must conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all 
performance tests over the next 3-year period are within 75 percent of 
the applicable emission limit.
    (b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions 
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous 
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.  
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, dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen 
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, 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 (except opacity) specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section in lieu of conducting the annual performance test for 
that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (ii) You may substitute the use of a total hydrocarbon continuous 
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the carbon monoxide annual 
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may 
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of 
conducting the annual opacity and particulate matter performance tests 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iv) You may substitute the use of a particulate matter continuous 
emissions monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual opacity 
performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (v) 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 Sec.  
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.  
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
    (A) Use the procedures specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission 
limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
    (ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  60.4880(e). 
For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use 
Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 1 
of appendix F of this part.
    (4) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to 
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity 
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages 
as specified in Sec.  60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you 
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must 
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
    (5) 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, 
continuous opacity 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, you must complete the initial 
performance evaluation required under your monitoring plan in Sec.  
60.5200 for the continuous monitoring system within 60 days of 
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous emissions 
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring, or

[[Page 63329]]

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance evaluation must 
be conducted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 
Sec.  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-congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7.
    (2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener 
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply 
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency 
factor specified in Table 3 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 
Sec.  60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation report as specified in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.5210  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 
operating limits?

    You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section, according to the monitoring and calibration requirements 
in Sec.  60.5225.
    (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 Sec.  60.5225, except as provided in Sec.  60.5175. Four-
hour rolling average values are used to determine compliance (except 
for sludge moisture content and alarm time of the baghouse leak 
detection system) unless a different averaging period is established 
under Sec.  60.5175 for an air pollution control device other than a 
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated 
carbon injection, or afterburner. A daily average must be used to 
determine compliance for sludge moisture content.
    (1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating 
limits established according to Sec. Sec.  60.5175 and 60.5190 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous compliance.

Sec.  60.5215  By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control 
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?

    (a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution 
control device used to comply with the emission limits, according to 
Sec.  60.5220(c), within 10 to 12 months following the previous annual 
air pollution control device inspection.
    (b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control 
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless you 
obtain written approval from the Administrator establishing a date 
whereby all necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be 
completed.

Model Rule--Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 
Requirements

Sec.  60.5220  What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and 
standards?

    You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing requirements 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the monitoring requirements 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control 
device inspections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    (a) Performance testing requirements. (1) All performance tests 
must consist of a minimum of three test runs conducted under conditions 
representative of normal operations, as specified in Sec.  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.
    (ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the sewage sludge 
burned during the performance test.
    (3) All performance tests must be conducted using the test methods, 
minimum sampling volume, observation period, and averaging method 
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
    (4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be used to select 
the sampling location and number of traverse points.
    (5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used 
for gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen 
concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be 
used simultaneously with each method.

[[Page 63330]]

    (6) All pollutant concentrations, except for opacity, must be 
adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC10.002

Where:

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 
oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis.
(20.9-7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen 
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 
percent.

    (7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in 
accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in this 
subpart unless the Administrator does one of the following.
    (i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a method 
with minor changes in methodology.
    (ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
    (iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the results of 
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a 
specific source is in compliance.
    (iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests because you have 
demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
the affected SSI unit is in compliance with the standard.
    (v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when 
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this 
paragraph is construed to abrogate the Administrator's authority to 
require testing under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
    (8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior 
notice of any performance test, except as specified under other 
subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an 
observer present. If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled 
performance test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) 
in conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify the 
Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the original test 
date, either by providing at least 7 days prior notice of the 
rescheduled date of the performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled 
date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.
    (9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing 
facilities as follows:
    (i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods applicable to the 
SSI unit, as follows:
    (A) Constructing the air pollution control system such that 
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately 
determined by applicable test methods and procedures.
    (B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during 
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and 
procedures.
    (ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
    (iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
    (iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
    (10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each performance 
test must consist of three separate runs using the applicable test 
method. Each run must be conducted for the time and under the 
conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each 
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.
    (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 or continuous opacity monitoring system instead of conducting 
annual performance testing, you must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (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 mercury or 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 or continuous opacity 
monitoring system.
    (2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use 
of the continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity 
monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance 
test within 60 days of 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 or opacity in accordance with the following:
    (i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
    (ii) The following performance specifications of appendix B of this 
part, as applicable:
    (A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11 of 
appendix B of this part.
    (B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 15 of appendix 
B of this part.
    (C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B of appendix B 
of this part.
    (D) [Reserved]
    (E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of appendix B of 
this part.
    (F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B 
of this part.
    (G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B 
of this part.
    (H) [Reserved]
    (I) [Reserved]
    (J) For opacity, Performance Specification 1 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 (I) 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

[[Page 63331]]

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.
    (H) [Reserved]
    (I) [Reserved]
    (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 paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this 
section. Relative accuracy testing must be at normal operating 
conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
    (i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used.
    (ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-8, shall be used.
    (iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-4, shall be used.
    (iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, 
shall be used.
    (v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02, shall be used.
    (vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-4, shall be used.
    (vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-4, or as an alternative American National Standards 
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981 Flue 
and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 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 (a)(2)(v) of 
this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, or as 
an alternative American National Standards Institute/American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis 
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as applicable, must be used.
    (5) You may request that compliance with the emission limits 
(except opacity) be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 
corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon dioxide is 
selected for use in diluent corrections, the relationship between 
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be established during the initial 
performance test according to the procedures and methods specified in 
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. This 
relationship may be re-established during subsequent performance 
compliance tests.
    (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-2 must be used to determine the relationship between oxygen 
and carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National Standards 
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.-10-1981-- 
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as 
applicable, must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 
same location as the carbon dioxide monitor.
    (ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
    (iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.
    (iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed.
    (6) You must collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 
follows:
    (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at 
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals 
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods 
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring 
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance 
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) You must collect continuous opacity monitoring system data in 
accordance with Sec.  60.13(e)(1), and you must collect continuous 
emissions monitoring system data in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be 
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system 
malfunction as defined in Sec.  60.5250, constitute a deviation from 
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
    (v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except 
those periods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of 
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and 
associated control system.
    (7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system 
instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous 
automated sampling system according to the site-specific monitoring 
plan developed in Sec.  60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), 
and (q).
    (ii) Collect data according to Sec.  60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph 
(b)(6) of this section.
    (c) Air pollution control device inspections. You must conduct air 
pollution control device inspections that include, at a minimum, the 
following:
    (1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation, 
if applicable.
    (2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed 
systems, and any other monitoring equipment.
    (3) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    (4) Ensure that the air pollution control device meets manufacturer 
recommendations.
    (d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that sewage 
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is 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.

Sec.  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

[[Page 63332]]

parameter monitoring systems for measuring flow, pressure, pH, and 
temperature according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(a)(2) of this section:
    (1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, pressure, pH, 
and temperature measurement devices:
    (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at 
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals 
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods 
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring 
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance 
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring system data 
in accordance with Sec.  60.13(e)(2).
    (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, 
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required 
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be 
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation report.
    (iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system 
is out of control as specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5250, constitute a deviation from 
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
    (v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except 
those periods specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of 
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and 
associated control system.
    (vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all recorded readings, 
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (vii) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (2) Meet the following requirements for each type of measurement 
device:
    (i) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow 
measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
    (A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow.
    (B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent 
of the flow rate.
    (C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi-annually.
    (E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated carbon 
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.  
60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 
percent accuracy, according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 
of this chapter.
    (ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a 
pressure measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
    (A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of the pressure.
    (B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of 
water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the 
pressure range.
    (D) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (E) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon 
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.  
60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 
percent accuracy.
    (iii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH 
measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
    (A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
    (B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (C) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 
hours of process operation.
    (iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a 
temperature measurement device, you must meet the following 
requirements:
    (A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary equipment in 
a position that provides a representative temperature.
    (B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3 
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the 
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic temperature 
range.
    (C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3 
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the 
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a cryogenic temperature 
range.
    (D) Conduct a temperature measurement device calibration check at 
least every 3 months.
    (b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the 
continuous parameter monitoring systems for voltage, amperage, mass 
flow rate, and bag leak detection system as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
    (1) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of 
equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary amperage (or power 
input) of an electrostatic precipitator, you must use secondary voltage 
and secondary amperage monitoring equipment to measure secondary 
voltage and secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator.
    (2) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of 
equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent injection (e.g., weigh 
belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet 
the following requirements:
    (i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a 
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
    (ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with 
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with 
the manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the requirements of 
this subpart, you must:
    (i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your bag leak 
detection system as follows:
    (A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for 
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
    (B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, operated, 
calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in 
accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 
1997.
    (C) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
concentrations of

[[Page 63333]]

10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
    (D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
    (E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative 
particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm 
must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
    (G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct 
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a bag leak detection 
system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
    (H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in 
continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under 
Sec.  60.5200.
    (ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every 
alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you must alleviate the cause of 
the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective 
action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 
limited to the following:
    (A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
particulate matter emissions.
    (B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing 
the control device.
    (D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
    (E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (F) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter 
emissions.
    (c) You must operate and maintain the continuous parameter 
monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 
in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required 
under Sec.  60.5200.
    (d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install, 
calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a 
device or method for measuring the use of the bypass stack including 
date, time, and duration.

Model Rule--Recordkeeping and Reporting

Sec.  60.5230  What records must I keep?

    You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs 
(a) through (m) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All 
records must be available on site in either paper copy or computer-
readable format that can 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 Sec.  60.5250.
    (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 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5130, met 
the criteria for qualification under Sec.  60.5140, and maintained or 
renewed their qualification under Sec.  60.5145 or Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including 
any required maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days 
of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
    (e) Performance test reports.
    (1) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent 
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 
limits and standards and/or to establish operating limits, as 
applicable.
    (2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test report, 
including calculations.
    (3) Keep a record of the log of the quantity of sewage sludge 
burned during the performance tests, as required in Sec.  
60.5220(a)(2).
    (4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that the performance 
test was conducted under conditions representative of normal 
operations.
    (f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as 
applicable:
    (1) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, all 6-minute average 
and 1-hour block average levels of opacity.
    (2) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 1-hour average 
concentrations of particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon 
monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 
cadmium, and lead emissions.
    (3) For continuous automated sampling systems, all average 
concentrations measured for mercury and dioxins/furans at the 
frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.

[[Page 63334]]

    (4) For continuous parameter monitoring systems:
    (i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the following operating 
parameters, as applicable:
    (A) Dry sludge feed rate and combustion chamber temperature (or 
afterburner temperature).
    (B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the rule, pressure 
drop across the wet scrubber system, liquor flow rate to the wet 
scrubber, and liquor pH as introduced to the wet scrubber.
    (C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to comply with the 
rule, voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates or 
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, and 
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrostatic 
precipitator.
    (D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule, 
mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop, 
as applicable.
    (ii) Daily average values and composite sample values for sludge 
moisture content.
    (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 Sec.  60.5170(b).
    (iv) For other control devices for which you must establish 
operating limits under Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.5220(b)(5) that 
compliance with the emission limits (except opacity) 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 Sec.  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) Calibration of monitoring devices. Records of calibration of 
any monitoring devices as required under Sec. Sec.  60.5220 and 
60.5225.
    (k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for continuous 
monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plan required under Sec.  
60.5200, and records of performance evaluations required under Sec.  
60.5205(b)(5).
    (l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that 
your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent testing under Sec.  
60.5205(a)(3).
    (m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass 
stack, including dates, times, and durations as required under Sec.  
60.5225(c).

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  60.5085(a) and 
60.5110.
    (2) You must submit your notification of achievement of increments 
of progress no later than 10 business days after the compliance date 
for the increment as specified in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 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) The complete test report for the initial performance test 
results obtained by using the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to 
this subpart.
    (5) If an initial performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring 
system was conducted, the results of that initial performance 
evaluation.
    (6) The values for the site-specific operating limits established 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  60.5170 and 60.5175 and the calculations and 
methods 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 Sec.  60.5170(b).
    (8) The results of the initial air pollution control device 
inspection required in Sec.  60.5195, including a description of 
repairs.
    (c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an annual compliance 
report that includes the items listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(c)(15) of this section for the reporting period specified in paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section. You must submit your first annual compliance 
report no later than 12 months following the submission of the initial 
compliance report in paragraph (b) of this section. You must submit 
subsequent annual compliance reports no more than 12 months following 
the previous annual compliance report. (If the unit is subject to 
permitting requirements under title V of the Clean Air Act, you may be 
required by the permit to submit these reports more frequently.)
    (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 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 the method used to 
establish each operating limit, including calculations.
    (ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test, 
include the type of activated carbon used.
    (5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a 
continuous monitoring system, the highest recorded 3-hour average and 
the lowest recorded 3-hour average during the reporting period, as 
applicable.
    (6) If there are no deviations during the reporting period from any 
emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to 
you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission 
limits, emission standard, or operating limits.
    (7) Information for bag leak detection systems recorded under Sec.  
60.5230(f)(4)(iii).

[[Page 63335]]

    (8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system 
was conducted, the results of that performance evaluation. If new 
operating limits were established during the performance evaluation, 
include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
    (9) If you met the requirements of Sec.  60.5205(a)(3) and did not 
conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you must 
include the dates of the last three performance tests, a comparison of 
the emission level you achieved in the last three performance tests to 
the 75 percent emission limit threshold specified in Sec.  
60.5205(a)(3)(i)(B), 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 Sec.  60.5230(d) for the reporting period, including a 
description of repairs.
    (12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your 
continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction, a statement that there 
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems had a 
malfunction.
    (13) If there were no periods during the reporting period when a 
continuous monitoring system was out of control, a statement that there 
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems were 
out of control.
    (14) If there were no operator training deviations, a statement 
that there were no such deviations during the reporting period.
    (15) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring 
plan during the reporting period, a statement that you did not make any 
revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan during the reporting 
period. If you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 
during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan.
    (d) Deviation reports.
    (1) You must submit a deviation report if:
    (i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average parameter level is above 
the maximum operating limit or below the minimum operating limit 
established under this subpart.
    (ii) Any recorded daily average sludge moisture content is outside 
the allowable range.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5 
percent of the operating time for the 6-month reporting period.
    (iv) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average emissions level is above 
the emission limit, if a continuous monitoring system is used to comply 
with an emission limit.
    (v) Any opacity level recorded under Sec.  60.5185(b)(5) that is 
above the opacity limit, if a continuous opacity monitoring system is 
used.
    (vi) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash 
conveying system for more than 5 percent of the hourly observation 
period.
    (vii) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any 
emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
    (viii) A continuous monitoring system was out of control.
    (ix) 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 and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's 
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of 
the report.
    (iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the 
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
    (iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
    (v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
    (A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your 
corrective actions.
    (B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
    (vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents.
    (vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each 
deviation and any test report that documents the emission levels.
    (viii) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring 
system had a malfunction or was out of control, you must include the 
following information for each deviation from an emission limit or 
operating limit:
    (A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level 
checks.
    (C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was out of control, including start and end dates and hours and 
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction, during 
a period when the system was out of control, or during another period.
    (E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
    (G) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system 
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of 
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total 
operating time of the SSI unit at which the continuous monitoring 
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
    (H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was 
monitored at the SSI unit.
    (I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
    (J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (L) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (4) For each deviation where you are not using a continuous 
monitoring system to comply with the associated emission limit or 
operating limit, report the following items:
    (i) Company name and 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.

[[Page 63336]]

    (v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
    (vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
    (A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your 
corrective actions.
    (B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
    (vii) A copy of any performance test report that showed a deviation 
from the emission limits or standards.
    (viii) A brief description of any malfunction reported in paragraph 
(d)(1)(viii) of this section, including a description of actions taken 
during the malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction.
    (e) Qualified operator deviation.
    (1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 2 weeks or 
more, you must take the two actions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 
(e)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 days that 
includes the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through 
(e)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
    (A) A statement of what caused the deviation.
    (B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified 
operator is accessible.
    (C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be 
available.
    (ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks that 
includes the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) through 
(e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified 
operator is accessible.
    (B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be 
accessible.
    (C) Request for approval from the Administrator to continue 
operation of the SSI unit.
    (2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, under the 
provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming 
operation.
    (f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force majeure is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim 
of force majeure:
    (1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon as 
practicable following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence, should have known that the event may cause or caused a delay 
in conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but 
the notification must occur before the performance test deadline unless 
the initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays 
the notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as soon as 
practicable.
    (2) You must provide to the Administrator a written description of 
the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in 
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the 
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct the 
performance test.
    (g) Other notifications and reports required. You must submit other 
notifications as provided by Sec.  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 Sec.  60.5220(a)(8), you must notify the 
Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled 
performance test for which notification was previously made in 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (h) Report submission form.
    (1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports electronically or 
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
    (2) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance evaluation or performance test conducted to 
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative 
accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity, to 
EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically into EPA's 
Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/).
    (i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator agrees, you may 
change the semiannual or annual reporting dates. See Sec.  60.19(c) for 
procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.

Model Rule--Title V Operating Permits

Sec.  60.5240  Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 
operating permit for my existing SSI unit?

    Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved and effective 
Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal plan or an applicable 
and effective Federal plan, you are required to apply for and obtain a 
title V operating permit for your existing SSI unit unless you meet the 
relevant requirements for an exemption specified in Sec.  60.5065.

Sec.  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) [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 months after the 
promulgation of this subpart applies regardless of whether or when any 
applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable 
Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal plan is approved by 
EPA and becomes effective.
    (c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a result of some 
triggering requirement(s) other than those specified in paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this section (for example, a unit may be a major source or 
part of a major source), then your unit may be required to apply for a 
title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraphs (a) and 
(b). If more than one requirement triggers a source's obligation to 
apply for a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V 
permit application is triggered by the requirement which first causes 
the source to be subject to title V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean 
Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 
71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
    (d) A ``complete'' title V permit application is one that has been 
determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority 
under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 
CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the 
relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in 
compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the

[[Page 63337]]

Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)

Model Rule--Definitions

Sec.  60.5250  What definitions must I know?

    Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean 
Air Act and Sec.  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.
    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.
    Co-fired combustor means a unit combusting sewage sludge or 
dewatered sludge pellets with other fuels or wastes (e.g., coal, clean 
biomass, municipal solid waste, commercial or institutional waste, 
hospital medical infectious waste, unused pharmaceuticals, other solid 
waste) and subject to an enforceable requirement limiting the unit to 
combusting a fuel feed stream, 10 percent or less of the weight of 
which is comprised, in aggregate, of sewage sludge.
    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-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, continuous opacity 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., 
temperature, pressure, and power).
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, operating 
limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
    Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
    Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic precipitator means 
an air pollution control device that uses both electrical forces and, 
if applicable, water to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage 
sludge incinerator stack.
    Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a sewage sludge 
incineration unit the construction of which is commenced on or before 
October 14, 2010.
    Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to 
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter 
media, also known as a baghouse.
    Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in which organic 
matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge are combusted in a bed of 
particles suspended in the combustion chamber gas.
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. 
Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless 
operation are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction, the 
operator shall operate within established emissions and operating 
limits and shall continue monitoring all applicable operating 
parameters until all waste has been combusted or until the malfunction 
ceases, whichever comes first.
    Maximum feed rate means 110 percent of the highest 3-hour average 
dry charge rate measured during the most recent performance test 
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits and 
standards.
    Modification means a change to an SSI unit later than [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 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.
    Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission 
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
    Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the 
following midnight during which any

[[Page 63338]]

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 that any of the following have occurred:
    (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).
    (3) An allowable increase in the quantity of wastewater received 
from an industrial source by the wastewater treatment facility.
    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.
    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 [deg]F (20 [deg]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 congener 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 liquor 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 discretion of the State.
\b\ The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of
  State plan approval or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
  OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that
  commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010.

 Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage
                                            Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Using these averaging
                                          You must meet this      methods and minimum        And determining
        For the air pollutant             emission limit \a\      sampling volumes or     compliance using this
                                                                       durations                  method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter...................  12 milligrams per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 5 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-3;
                                                                 meters sample per run).  Method 26A or Method
                                                                                          29 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                                          appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride....................  0.49 parts per million   3-run average (For       Performance test
                                        by dry volume.           Method 26, collect a     (Method 26 or 26A at
                                                                 minimum volume of 200    40 CFR part 60,
                                                                 liters per run. For      appendix A-8).
                                                                 Method 26A, collect a
                                                                 minimum volume of 3
                                                                 dry standard cubic
                                                                 meters per run).
Carbon monoxide......................  56 parts per million by  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              sample for a minimum     (Method 10, 10A, or
                                                                 duration of one hour     10B at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)....  0.61 nanograms per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 23 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-
                                                                 meters per run).         7).

[[Page 63339]]

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.056 nanograms per dry  3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 23 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-
                                                                 meters per run).         7).
Mercury..............................  0.0033 milligrams per    3-run average (For       Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       Method 29 and ASTM       (Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                        meter.                   D6784-02, collect a      part 60, appendix A-8;
                                                                 minimum volume of 3      Method 30B at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A
                                                                 meters per run. For      (when published in the
                                                                 Method 30B, collect a    Federal Register); or
                                                                 minimum sample as        ASTM D6784-02,
                                                                 specified in Method      Standard Test Method
                                                                 30B at 40 CFR part 60,   for Elemental,
                                                                 appendix A).             Oxidized, Particle
                                                                                          Bound and Total
                                                                                          Mercury in Flue Gas
                                                                                          Generated from Coal-
                                                                                          Fired Stationary
                                                                                          Sources (Ontario Hydro
                                                                                          Method).
Oxides of nitrogen...................  63 parts per million by  3-run average (Collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              sample for a minimum     (Method 7 or 7E at 40
                                                                 duration of one hour     CFR part 60, appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  22 parts per million by  3-run average (For       Performance test
                                        dry volume.              Method 6, collect a      (Method 6 or 6C at 40
                                                                 minimum volume of 200    CFR part 40, appendix
                                                                 liters per run. For      A-4; or ASNI/ASME PTC-
                                                                 Method 6C, collect       19.10-1981 Flue and
                                                                 sample for a minimum     Exhaust Gas Analysis
                                                                 duration of one hour     [Part 10, Instruments
                                                                 per run).                and Apparatus]).
Cadmium..............................  0.0019 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 3    (Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-
                                                                 meters per run).         8).
Lead.................................  0.0098 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 3    (Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-8.
                                                                 meters sample per run).
Opacity..............................  0 percent..............  6-minute averages,       Performance test
                                                                 three 1-hour             (Method 9 at 40 CFR
                                                                 observation periods.     part 60, appendix A-
                                                                                          4).
Fugitive emissions from ash handling.  Visible emissions of     Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        combustion ash from an   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        ash conveying system                              A-7 of this part).
                                        (including conveyor
                                        transfer points) for
                                        no more than 5 percent
                                        of the hourly
                                        observation period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

   Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth
                                        Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Using these averaging
                                          You must meet this      methods and minimum        And determining
        For the air pollutant             emission limit \a\      sampling volumes or     compliance using this
                                                                       durations                  method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter...................  80 milligrams per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 5 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-3;
                                                                 meters per run).         Method 26A or Method
                                                                                          29 at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                                          appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride....................  1.0 parts per million    3-run average (For       Performance test
                                        by dry volume.           Method 26, collect a     (Method 26 or 26A at
                                                                 minimum volume of 200    40 CFR part 60,
                                                                 liters per run. For      appendix A-8).
                                                                 Method 26A, collect a
                                                                 minimum volume of 3
                                                                 dry standard cubic
                                                                 meters per run).
Carbon monoxide......................  3,900 parts per million  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        by dry volume.           sample for a minimum     (Method 10, 10A, or
                                                                 duration of one hour     10B at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)....  5.0 nanograms per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 23 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-
                                                                 meters per run).         7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.32 nanograms per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 23 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-
                                                                 meters per run).         7).

[[Page 63340]]

Mercury..............................  0.02 milligrams per dry  3-run average (For       Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    Method 29 and ASTM       (Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                                                 D6784-02, collect a      part 60, appendix A-8;
                                                                 minimum volume of 3      Method 30B at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A
                                                                 meters per run. For      (when published in the
                                                                 Method 30B, collect a    Federal Register); or
                                                                 minimum sample as        ASTM D6784-02,
                                                                 specified in Method      Standard Test Method
                                                                 30B at 40 CFR part 60,   for Elemental,
                                                                 appendix A).             Oxidized, Particle
                                                                                          Bound and Total
                                                                                          Mercury in Flue Gas
                                                                                          Generated from Coal-
                                                                                          Fired Stationary
                                                                                          Sources (Ontario Hydro
                                                                                          Method).
Oxides of nitrogen...................  210 parts per million    3-run average (Collect   Performance test
                                        by dry volume.           sample for a minimum     (Method 7 or 7E at 40
                                                                 duration of one hour     CFR part 60, appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  26 parts per million by  3-run average (For       Performance test
                                        dry volume.              Method 6, collect a      (Method 6 or 6C at 40
                                                                 minimum volume of 200    CFR part 40, appendix
                                                                 liters per run. For      A-4; or ASNI/ASME PTC-
                                                                 Method 6C, collect       19.10-1981 Flue and
                                                                 sample for a minimum     Exhaust Gas Analysis
                                                                 duration of one hour     ([Part 10, Instruments
                                                                 per run).                and Apparatus]).
Cadmium..............................  0.095 milligrams per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 3    (Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-
                                                                 meters per run).         8).
Lead.................................  0.30 milligrams per dry  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 3    (Method 29 at 40 CFR
                                                                 dry standard cubic       part 60, appendix A-8.
                                                                 meters per run).
Opacity..............................  10 percent.............  6-minute averages,       Performance test
                                                                 three 1-hour             (Method 9 at 40 CFR
                                                                 observation periods.     part 60, appendix A-
                                                                                          4).
Fugitive emissions from ash handling.  Visible emissions of     Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        combustion ash from an   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        ash conveying system                              A-7 of this part).
                                        (including conveyor
                                        transfer points) for
                                        no more than 5 percent
                                        of the hourly
                                        observation period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

  Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Operating Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incine ration
                                                    Units \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              And monitor using these minimum frequencies
                                  You must establish -----------------------------------------------------------
 For these operating parameters     these operating                                           Averaging time for
                                        limits         Data measurement   Data recording \b\      compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      All sewage sludge incineration units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry sludge feed rate............  Maximum dry sludge  Continuous........  Hourly............  4-hour rolling.\c\
                                   feed rate.
Combustion chamber temperature    Minimum combustion  Continuous........  Every 15 minutes..  4-hour rolling.\c\
 (not required if afterburner      temperature.
 temperature is monitored).       or afterburner
                                   temperature.
Sludge moisture content.........  Range of moisture   Composite of three  Daily.............  Daily.
                                   content (%).        samples taken 6
                                                       hours apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Scrubber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure drop across each wet     Minimum pressure    Continuous........  Every 15 minutes..  4-hour rolling.\c\
 scrubber or amperage to each      drop or minimum
 wet scrubber.                     amperage.
Scrubber liquor flow rate.......  Minimum flow rate.  Continuous........  Every 15 minutes..  4-hour rolling.\c\
Scrubber liquor pH..............  Minimum pH........  Continuous........  Every 15 minutes..  4-hour rolling.\c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fabric filter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time of the bag leak           Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating
 detection system alarm.           limit is provided in Sec.   60.4850 and is not established on a site-specific
                                                                       basis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63341]]

                                           Electrostatic precipitator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage of the          Minimum power       Continuous........  Hourly............  4-hour rolling.\c\
 electrostatic precipitator        input to the
 collection plates.                electrostatic
                                   precipitator
                                   collection plates.
Secondary amperage of the
 electrostatic precipitator
 collection plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the   Maximum effluent    Hourly............  Hourly............  4-hour rolling.\c\
 outlet of the electrostatic       water flow rate
 precipitator.                     at the outlet of
                                   the electrostatic
                                   precipitator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Activated carbon injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury sorbent injection rate..  Minimum mercury     Hourly............  Hourly............  4-hour rolling.\c\
                                   sorbent injection
                                   rate.
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection    Minimum dioxin/
 rate.                             furan sorbent
                                   injection rate.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier  Minimum carrier     Continuous........  Every 15 minutes..  4-hour rolling.\c\
 gas pressure drop.                gas flow rate or
                                   minimum carrier
                                   gas pressure drop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Afterburner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of the afterburner    Minimum             Continuous........  Every 15 minutes..  4-hour rolling.\a\
 combustion chamber.               temperature of
                                   the afterburner
                                   combustion
                                   chamber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As specified in Sec.   60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity
  monitoring system, or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits.
\b\ This recording time refers to the frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially
  records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all
  parameters except sludge moisture content, you use hourly averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to
  demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
\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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toxic
                  Dioxin/furan congener                     equivalency
                                                              factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin...............               1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............               1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.........            0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........................          0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran...................             0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran.................             0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran.................            0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran.............            0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran.............            0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran............................          0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Summary of Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge
                                             Incineration Units \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Report                            Due date                    Contents              Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increments of progress report...........  No later than 10 business    Final control                Sec.
                                           days after the compliance   plan including air             60.5235(a)
                                           date for the increment.     pollution control device
                                                                       descriptions, process
                                                                       changes, type of waste to
                                                                       be burned, and the
                                                                       maximum design sewage
                                                                       sludge burning capacity.

[[Page 63342]]

                                                                       Notification of
                                                                       any failure to meet an
                                                                       increment of progress.
                                                                       Notification of
                                                                       any closure.
Initial compliance report...............  No later than 60 days        Company name and             Sec.
                                           following the initial       address.                       60.5235(b)
                                           performance test.           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 for
                                                                       the site-specific
                                                                       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.
Annual compliance report................  No later than 12 months      Company name and             Sec.
                                           following the submission    address.                       60.5235(c)
                                           of the initial compliance   Statement and
                                           report; subsequent          signature by responsible
                                           reports are to be           official..
                                           submitted no more than 12   Date and
                                           months following the        beginning and ending
                                           previous report.            dates of report..
                                                                       If a performance
                                                                       test was conducted during
                                                                       the reporting period, the
                                                                       results of the test,
                                                                       including any new
                                                                       operating limits and
                                                                       associated calculations
                                                                       and the type of activated
                                                                       carbon used, if
                                                                       applicable.
                                                                       For each
                                                                       pollutant and operating
                                                                       parameter recorded using
                                                                       a CMS, the highest
                                                                       recorded 3-hour average
                                                                       and the lowest recorded 3-
                                                                       hour average, as
                                                                       applicable.
                                                                       If no deviations
                                                                       from emission limits,
                                                                       emission standards, or
                                                                       operating limits
                                                                       occurred, a 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 Sec.
                                                                       60.5205(a)(3) and did not
                                                                       conduct a performance
                                                                       test, include the dates
                                                                       of the last three
                                                                       performance tests, a
                                                                       comparison to the 75
                                                                       percent emission limit
                                                                       threshold of the emission
                                                                       level achieved in the
                                                                       last three performance
                                                                       tests, and a statement as
                                                                       to whether there have
                                                                       been any process changes.
                                                                       Documentation of
                                                                       periods when all
                                                                       qualified 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.

[[Page 63343]]

                                                                       If there were no
                                                                       periods during which your
                                                                       CMSs were out of control,
                                                                       a statement that there
                                                                       were no periods during
                                                                       which your CMSs were out
                                                                       of control.
                                                                       If there were no
                                                                       operator training
                                                                       deviations, a statement
                                                                       that there were no such
                                                                       deviations.
                                                                       Information on
                                                                       monitoring plan
                                                                       revisions, including a
                                                                       copy of any revised
                                                                       monitoring plan.
Deviation report (deviations from         By August 1 of a calendar   If using a CMS:...........            Sec.
 emission limits, emission standards, or   year for data collected     Company name and       60.5235(d)
 operating limits, as specified in Sec.    during the first half of    address.
  60.5235(e)(1)).                          the calendar year; by       Statement by a
                                           February 1 of a calendar    responsible official.
                                           year for data collected     The calendar
                                           during the second half of   dates and times your unit
                                           the calendar year.          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
                                                                       Sec.
                                                                       60.5235(e)(3)(viii).
                                                                       If not using a
                                                                       CMS:
                                                                       Company name and
                                                                       address.
                                                                       Statement by a
                                                                       responsible official.
                                                                       The total
                                                                       operating time of each
                                                                       affected SSI.
                                                                       The calendar
                                                                       dates and times your unit
                                                                       deviated from the
                                                                       emission limits, emission
                                                                       standard, or operating
                                                                       limits.
                                                                       The averaged and
                                                                       recorded data for those
                                                                       dates.
                                                                       Duration and
                                                                       cause of each deviation.
                                                                       A copy of any
                                                                       performance test report
                                                                       that showed a deviation
                                                                       from the emission limits
                                                                       or standards.
                                                                       A brief
                                                                       description of any
                                                                       malfunction, a
                                                                       description of actions
                                                                       taken during the
                                                                       malfunction to minimize
                                                                       emissions, and corrective
                                                                       action taken.
Notification of qualified operator        Within 10 days of            Statement of                 Sec.
 deviation (if all qualified operators     deviation.                  cause of deviation.            60.5235(e)
 are not accessible for 2 weeks or more).                              Description of
                                                                       actions taken to ensure
                                                                       that a qualified operator
                                                                       will be available.
                                                                       The date when a
                                                                       qualified operator will
                                                                       be accessible.
Notification of status of qualified       Every 4 weeks following      Description of               Sec.
 operator deviation.                       notification of deviation.  actions taken to ensure        60.5235(e)
                                                                       that a qualified operator
                                                                       is accessible.
                                                                       The date when you
                                                                       anticipate that a
                                                                       qualified operator will
                                                                       be accessible.
                                                                       Request for
                                                                       approval to continue
                                                                       operation.
Notification of resumed operation         Within five days of          Notification that            Sec.
 following shutdown (due to qualified      obtaining a qualified       you have obtained a            60.5235(e)
 operator deviation and as specified in    operator and resuming       qualified operator and
 Sec.   60.5155(b)(2)(i).                  operation.                  are resuming operation.

[[Page 63344]]

Notification of a force majeure.........  As soon as practicable       Description of               Sec.
                                           following the date you      the force majeure event.       60.5235(f)
                                           first knew, or through      Rationale for
                                           due diligence should have   attributing the delay in
                                           known that the event may    conducting the
                                           cause or have caused a      performance test beyond
                                           delay in conducting a       the regulatory deadline
                                           performance test beyond     to the force majeure..
                                           the regulatory deadline;    Description of
                                           the notification must       the measures taken or to
                                           occur before the            be taken to minimize the
                                           performance test deadline   delay..
                                           unless the initial force    Identification of
                                           majeure or a subsequent     the date by which you
                                           force majeure event         propose to conduct the
                                           delays the notice, and in   performance test..
                                           such cases, the
                                           notification must occur
                                           as soon as practicable.
Notification of intent to start or stop   1 month before starting or   Intent to start        Sec.   60.
 use of a CMS.                             stopping use of a CMS.      or stop use of a CMS.             5235(g)
Notification of intent to conduct a       At least 30 days prior to    Intent to conduct
 performance test.                         the performance test.       a performance test to
                                                                       comply with this subpart.
Notification of intent to conduct a       At least 7 days prior to     Intent to conduct
 rescheduled performance test.             the date of a rescheduled   a rescheduled performance
                                           performance test.           test to comply with this
                                                                       subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary; see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
\b\ CMS means continuous monitoring system.

[FR Doc. 2010-25122 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```