Thursday, 

October 14, 2010 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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-rDocket@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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 Stationary Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units.

Subpart LLLL 

Title of the regulation 

Subpart in 

Title 40, 

part 60 

Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units.

Subpart 

MMMM 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63263 

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

1063. 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257–8. 3NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1260. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

4See 64 FR 57572 (Oct. 26, 1999). 5See 63 FR 66084, 66087 (Dec. 1, 1998). 6CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 

112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 

7Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537. 

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. 

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). 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

limit for MH 

incinerators 

Emission 

limit for FB 

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 bestperforming 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

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

limit for MH 

incinerators 

Emission 

limit for FB 

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 plantspecific 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63267 

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

71.5(a)(1)(i). 

10CAA 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). 

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

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

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 bestcontrolled 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 bestcontrolled 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 octachlorinated 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63269 

11 Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA; 

370 F.3d at 1232, 1241–42 DC Cir 2004. 

12Natrella, Experimental Statistics, National 

Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, chapter 1 

revised ed., 1966.) 

13National 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. 

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 bestperforming 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

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 bestperforming facilities face on a day-today 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. 

‘‘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

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 bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 bestperforming 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 bestperforming 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 qualityassured 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 lognormally 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: 

UPL x +t ,n s n m = −× × + ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ (0.99 (Eq. 1) 2 1 1 1 )

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) × TINV(2 * 0.99, n¥1 degrees 

of freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+1/3))], for a 

one-tailed t-value (with 2 × 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) × TINV(2 * 

0.99, n¥1 degrees of freedom) * 

SQRT((1/n)+1/3))]}, for a one-tailed tvalue (with 2 × 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 bestperforming 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14OC10.000</MATH>
63272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 bestperforming FB incinerator as the bestperforming 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

Pollutant Units 

Potential 

emission limit 

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 

Hga ......................................................... 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63273 

14American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

Reference Method Accuracy and Precision 

(ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 

Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 

2001. 

15EPA interprets CAA section 129 as supporting 

the pollutant-by-pollutant approach (74 FR 51380, 

Oct. 6, 2009). 

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

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 testspecific 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

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units 

FB Incinerators MH Incinerators 

Avg of top 

12% 99% of UPL 

MACT floor 

emission 

limit a

Avg of top 

12% 99% of UPL 

MACT floor 

emission 

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/ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

Pollutant Units 

FB Incinerators MH Incinerators 

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. bValue 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 bestperforming 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 bestperforming 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) 

Pollutant Units 

All new SSI units 

(fluidized bed and multiple hearth) 

Avg of top 12% 99% of UPL MACT floor limit 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 IV.C.2) ...................................... 2.6 10.7 11 

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 μm 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 beyondthe-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 costeffective 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 costeffective. 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-thefloor 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 addon 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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$) 

Option Total capital costs 

($) 

Total annualized 

costs ($/Yr) a

1—MACT Floor ............................................................................................................................................ 220,000,000 73,000,000 

2—Option 1 + Activated carbon injection .................................................................................................... 225,000,000 105,000,000 

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

Pollutant 

Emission reductions for each MACT option (TPY) 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63277 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING UNITS TO COMPLY WITH THE MACT CONTROL OPTIONS

SOURCES—Continued 

Pollutant 

Emission reductions for each MACT option (TPY) 

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

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-thefloor 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 beyondthe-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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63278 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63279 

16EPA 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. 

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 multimetals 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 multimetals 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63280 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

control if ISTDMS or CDD/CDF CEMS 

are not used. 

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

Operating parameter (control device type associated with monitoring 

requirement) 

Pollutants influenced by operating 

parameter/control device Alternative monitoring options 

Sludge feed rate (All) .............................................................................. All ................................................... None. 

Sludge moisture level (All) ...................................................................... All ................................................... None. 

Temperature of combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion 

chamber) (All).

All ................................................... None. 

CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon injection) ....................... CDD/CDF ....................................... ISTDMS or CDD/CDF CEMS. 

Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop (Activated carbon injection using CDD/CDF sorbent).

Hg sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon injection) ................................... Hg .................................................. ISTMMS, Hg CEMS, or multi-metals CEMS. 

Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop (Activated carbon injection using Hg sorbent).

Scrubber pressure drop from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ................. PM, Cd, Pb .................................... PM CEMS, Pb CEMS, or Cd 

CEMS. 

Scrubber liquor flow rate from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ............... PM, Cd, Pb .................................... PM CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, 

Cd CEMS, or Pb CEMS. 

Scrubber liquor flow rate from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ............... HCl, SO2 ........................................ HCl CEMS or SO2 CEMS. 

Scrubber liquor pH from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ........................ HCl, SO2 ........................................ HCl CEMS or SO2 CEMS. 

Secondary voltage and secondary amperage of collection plates (All 

ESP).

PM, Cd, Pb, Hg ............................. PM CEMS, Pb CEMS, or Cd 

CEMS. 

Effluent flow rate (Wet ESP).

Temperature of afterburner ..................................................................... CO ................................................. None. 

Bag leak detection monitoring system alarm time (FF) .......................... PM, Cd, Pb, Hg ............................. None. 

Air pollution control device inspections ................................................... All ................................................... None. 

Time of visible emissions from ash handling .......................................... PM ................................................. None. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63281 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF SSI TEST METHODS AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVE TEST METHODS

Pollutant/parameter Test Methods 1 Approved Alternative methods 1 Comments 

Cd ............................... Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.Cd CEMS or Multi-metals CEMS ........ Cd CEMS or multi-metal CEMS are 

optional for all sources in lieu of annual Cd test. 

CDD/CDF ................... Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7.ISTDMS ............................................... ISTDMS are optional for all sources in 

lieu of annual CDD/CDF testing. 

CO .............................. CO CEMS (new sources) and Method 

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

appendix A–4.

CO CEMS (for existing sources) ........ CO CEMS are optional for existing 

sources in lieu of annual CO test; 

CO CEMS are required for new 

sources. 

Flue and exhaust gas 

analysis.

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

appendix A–2.

ASME PTC 19.10–1981 part 10 .........

HCl .............................. Method 26 or Method 26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8.

HCl CEMS ........................................... HCl CEMS are optional for all sources 

in lieu of annual HCl test. 

Hg ............................... Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (when published in the 

Federal Register); Multi-metals 

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).

Multi-metal CEMS, Hg CEMS, or 

ISTMMS are optional for all sources 

in lieu of annual Hg test. 

NOX ............................ Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4.

NOX CEMS ......................................... NOX CEMS are optional for all 

sources in lieu of annual NOX test. 

Opacity ....................... Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4.PM CEMS, COMS .............................. PM CEMS and COMS are optional for 

all sources in lieu of annual opacity 

testing. 

Pb ............................... Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.Pb CEMS or Multi-metals CEMS ........ PB CEMS or multi-metal CEMS are 

optional for all sources in lieu of annual Pb test. 

PM .............................. Method 5, at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; Method 26A or 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8.

PM CEMS ........................................... PM CEMS are optional for all sources 

in lieu of annual PM test required. 

PM, Pb, Cd, Hg .......... Bag leak detection system or PM 

CEMS.

.............................................................. Bag leak detection systems are required for units equipped with FF. 

SO2 ............................. Method 6 or Method 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–4.

HCl CEMS ........................................... SO2 CEMS are optional for all 

sources in lieu of annual SO2 test. 

Visible emissions of 

fugitive ash.

Method 22 of appendix A–7 of this 

part.

None ....................................................

1EPA 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 operatordeveloped 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63282 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

17 551 F.3d at 1027. 

18See 40 CFR 60.8(c). 

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. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63283 

19 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction). 

20See, 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). 

21See 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). 

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

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). 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

Pollutant 

Reductions achieved 

through meeting MACT by 

subcategory (TPY) Total 

reductions 

(TPY) Fluidized 

bed 

Multiple 

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.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63285 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR EXISTING SSI IF ALL ENTITIES COMPLY WITH PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS

[Millions of 2008$] 

Subcategory Capital cost 

($ million) 

Annualized cost 

($ million/yr) a

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$] 

Subcategory Capital cost 

($ million) 

Annualized cost 

($ million/yr) 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63286 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

Pollutant 

Reductions achieved 

through meeting 

MACT by subcategory 

(TPY) 

Emissions 

from hauling 

(TPY) 

Emissions 

from 

landfill 

and flare 

(TPY) 

Total 

reductions 

(TPY) 

Fluidized 

bed 

Multiple 

hearth 

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) 

Pollutant 

Secondary air impacts from 

diverting SSI waste to 

landfills (TPY) Total 

secondary 

impacts 

(ton/yr) Wastehauling 

vehicles 

Landfill gas 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63287 

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)—Continued 

Pollutant 

Secondary air impacts from 

diverting SSI waste to 

landfills (TPY) Total 

secondary 

impacts 

(ton/yr) Wastehauling 

vehicles 

Landfill gas 

and flare 

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

Pollutant 

Emission 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

22Roman 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. 

23Fann, 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. 

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. 

TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR NEW AND EXISTING SSI UNITS IN 2015 

[Millions of 2008$] 1

Pollutant 

Estimated 

emission 

reductions 

(TPY) 

Total 

monetized 

benefits 

(3% discount rate) 

Total 

monetized 

benefits 

(7% discount 

rate) 

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. 

1All 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

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63289 

24Pope 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. 25Laden et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

26U.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. 

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. 

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 μg/ 

m3. Using the Laden, et al., (2006) 

study, 40 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3. 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. 

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 cocontrol 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63290 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 concentrationresponse 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 PMmortality 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63291 

information provides a context for 

considering the likely portion of PMrelated 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 μg/m3. Using 

the Laden, et al., (2006) study, 40 

percent of the population is exposed 

above the LML of 10 μg/m3. 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. 

1All 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. 2The 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. 3The 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63292 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 costrevenue-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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 megawatthours 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 

PTCTM38–1980 (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 lowincome 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63295 

27U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

28Mohai P, Saha R. ‘‘Reassessing Racial and 

Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental 

Justice Research.’’ Demography. 2006;43(2): 383– 

399. 

29Mennis 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. 

30Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March 2007. 

31The results of the demographic analysis are 

presented in ‘‘Review of Environmental Justice 

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

in the docket. 

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 socioeconomic 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

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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63296 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

This subpart establishes new source 

performance standards for sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the 

extent any requirement of this subpart is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

subpart A of this part, the requirements 

of this subpart will apply. 

§ 60.4765 When does this subpart become 

effective? 

This subpart takes effect on [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 §§ 60.4800 and 60.4805). Other 

requirements such as the emission 

limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of 

Authority 

§ 60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my 

sewage sludge incineration unit? 

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected 

source if it meets all the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for 

which construction commenced after 

October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after [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 § 60.4930. 

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under 

§ 60.4780. 

§ 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

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

meets either of the two criteria specified 

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

section. 

(1) Commenced construction after 

October 14, 2010. 

(2) Commenced modification after 

[THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(b) Physical or operational changes 

made to your SSI unit to comply with 

the emission guidelines in subpart 

MMMM of this part (Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units) do not qualify as a modification 

under this subpart. 

§ 60.4780 What sewage sludge 

incineration units are exempt from this 

subpart? 

This subpart exempts combustion 

units that incinerate sewage sludge 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. 

§ 60.4785 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the Administrator, as 

defined in § 60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the Administrator has 

delegated authority to your State, local, 

or tribal agency, then that agency (as 

well as the Administrator) has the 

authority to implement and enforce this 

subpart. You should contact your EPA 

Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency, the 

authorities contained in paragraph (c) of 

this section are retained by the 

Administrator and are not transferred to 

the State, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (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 § 60.4850. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

(5) The requirements in § 60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in 

§ 60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in 

§ 60.4800 and § 60.4805. 

§ 60.4790 How are these new source 

performance standards structured? 

These new source performance 

standards contain the nine major 

components listed in paragraphs (a) 

through (i) of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and 

qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance 

requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, 

and calibration requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§ 60.4795 Do all nine components of these 

new source performance standards apply at 

the same time? 

No. You must meet the 

preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence 

construction of the SSI unit. The 

operator training and qualification, 

emission limits, emission standards, 

operating limits, performance testing, 

and compliance, monitoring, and most 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63297 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§ 60.4800 Who must prepare a siting 

analysis? 

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you plan to commence construction of 

an SSI unit after October 14, 2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you are required to submit an initial 

application for a construction permit 

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the 

modification of your SSI unit. 

§ 60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

(a) The siting analysis must consider 

air pollution control alternatives that 

minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the 

maximum extent practicable, potential 

risks to public health or the 

environment, including impacts of the 

affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, 

visibility, soils, and vegetation. In 

considering such alternatives, the 

analysis may consider costs, energy 

impacts, nonair environmental impacts, 

or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s 

impacts that are prepared to comply 

with State, local, or other Federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to 

satisfy the requirements of this section, 

provided they include the consideration 

of air pollution control alternatives 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the 

siting requirements of this section as 

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

commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§ 60.4810 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated 

unless a fully trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator is accessible, either at the 

facility or can be at the facility within 

1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator may operate the SSI unit 

directly or be the direct supervisor of 

one or more other plant personnel who 

operate the unit. If all qualified SSI unit 

operators are temporarily not accessible, 

you must follow the procedures in 

§ 60.4835. 

(b) Operator training and qualification 

must be obtained through a Stateapproved program or by completing the 

requirements included in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by 

completing an incinerator operator 

training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (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. 

§ 60.4815 When must the operator training 

course be completed? 

The operator training course must be 

completed by the later of the two dates 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Six months after your SSI unit 

startup. 

(b) The date before an employee 

assumes responsibility for operating the 

SSI unit or assumes responsibility for 

supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§ 60.4820 How do I obtain my operator 

qualification? 

(a) You must obtain operator 

qualification by completing a training 

course that satisfies the criteria under 

§ 60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date 

on which the training course is 

completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under 

§ 60.4810(c)(2). 

§ 60.4825 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

To maintain qualification, you must 

complete an annual review or refresher 

course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including 

startup and shutdown procedures, 

sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or 

conditions that may lead to 

malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems 

encountered by attendees. 

§ 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed 

operator qualification? 

You must renew a lapsed operator 

qualification by one of the two methods 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

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

you must complete a standard annual 

refresher course described in § 60.4825. 

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

must repeat the initial qualification 

requirements in § 60.4820(a). 

§ 60.4835 What if all the qualified 

operators are temporarily not accessible? 

If a qualified operator is not at the 

facility and cannot be at the facility 

within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section, depending on the 

length of time that a qualified operator 

is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for more than 8 hours, the SSI 

unit may be operated for less than 2 

weeks by other plant personnel who are 

familiar with the operation of the SSI 

unit who have completed a review of 

the information specified in § 60.4840 

within the past 12 months. However, 

you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible 

and include this deviation in the annual 

report as specified under § 60.4915(d). 

(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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(i) If the Administrator notifies you 

that your request to continue operation 

of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI 

unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume 

if a qualified operator is accessible as 

required under § 60.4810(a) and you 

notify the Administrator within 5 days 

of having resumed operations and of 

having a qualified operator accessible. 

§ 60.4840 What site-specific 

documentation is required and how often 

must it be reviewed by qualified sewage 

sludge incineration unit operators and other 

plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of § 60.4835(a)? 

(a) You must maintain at the facility 

the documentation of the operator 

training procedures specified under 

§ 60.4910(c)(1) and make the 

documentation readily accessible to all 

SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for 

reviewing the information listed in 

§ 60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of 

§ 60.4835(a), according to the following 

schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the 

information listed in § 60.4910(c)(1) 

must be conducted within 6 months 

after the effective date of this subpart or 

prior to an employee’s assumption of 

responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the 

information listed in § 60.4910(c)(1) 

must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, 

and Operating Limits 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 sitespecific operating limits that you 

establish in § 60.4870 for each operating 

parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply 

with the emission limits, you must 

install the bag leak detection system 

specified in § 60.4905(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system 

such that the alarm does not sound 

more than 5 percent of the operating 

time during a 6-month period. You must 

calculate the alarm time as specified in 

§ 60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating 

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 § 60.4885(a). 

(2) Performance tests required under 

§ 60.4885(a)(2). 

(3) Periodic performance evaluations 

required under § 60.4885(b)(6) to meet 

the operating limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 60.4855 How do I establish operating 

limits if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated 

carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in 

some other manner, to comply with the 

emission limits? 

If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., 

materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in § 60.4845, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) 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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed; however, if the respondent 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 60.4845 

to demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that you 

have met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§ 60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emission limits 

and standards? 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

in Table 1 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 60.4900(b). You must measure 

emissions according to § 60.13 to 

calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide). You must demonstrate initial 

compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, 

calculated using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

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

you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 1 

to this subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in 

§ 60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring 

plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must 

use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 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 

§ 60.4900(b). You must measure 

emissions and calculate 6-minute 

averages as specified in § 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 

§ 60.8. Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures 

and acceptance criteria specified in 

§ 60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency emission limit in 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 (tetrathrough 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 

§ 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 § 60.4915(g). You must 

conduct the initial performance test as 

soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the initial performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

§ 60.4870 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

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

paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section 

during the initial performance tests and 

performance evaluations required in 

§ 60.4865 and the most recent 

performance tests and performance 

evaluations required in § 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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. 

§ 60.4875 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device inspection 

and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an air pollution 

control device inspection according to 

§ 60.4900(c) within 60 days of 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. 

§ 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 sitespecific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required 

under this subpart, according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 60.13(i) and 

paragraph (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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63302 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the 

continuous monitoring system is out of 

control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous emissions 

monitoring system is out of control if 

the conditions 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-ofcontrol 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: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits 

and standards specified in Table 1 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

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

procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.4900(b). 

(2) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans total mass, 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

specified in § 60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to § 60.13 

to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide). You must demonstrate initial 

compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, 

calculated using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

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

you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 1 

to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.4880(e). For mercury 

continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 

75 and Procedure 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 

§ 60.4900(b). You must measure 

emissions and calculate 6-minute 

averages as specified in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 (tetrathrough 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 

§ 60.4915(d). You must submit the 

deviation report specified in 

§ 60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a performance test, as 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.4915(g). You must 

conduct the performance test as soon as 

practicable after the force majeure 

occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

§ 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 § 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 § 60.4905, 

except as provided in § 60.4855. Fourhour 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§ 60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established 

maximum, below the established 

minimum, or outside the allowable 

range of the operating limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section constitutes 

a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except 

during performance tests conducted to 

determine compliance with the 

emission and operating limits or to 

establish new operating limits. You 

must submit the deviation report 

specified in § 60.4915(e) for each 

instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under 

this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual 

compliance report specified in 

§ 60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63305 

§ 60.4895 By what date must I conduct 

annual air pollution control device 

inspections and make any necessary 

repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual 

inspection of each air pollution control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limits, according to 

§ 60.4900(c), within 10 to 12 months 

following the previous annual air 

pollution control device inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit 

must be completed. 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and 

Calibration Requirements 

§ 60.4900 What are the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements for compliance with the 

emission limits and standards? 

You must meet, as applicable, the 

performance testing requirements 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the monitoring requirements 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the air pollution control device 

inspections requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, and the 

bypass stack provisions specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of 

a minimum of three test runs conducted 

under conditions representative of 

normal operations, as specified in 

§ 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the 

emission limits or standards during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations 

from the applicable emission limits or 

standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry 

sludge burned during the performance 

test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating 

conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of 

sewage sludge burned during the 

performance test. 

(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: 

CC O adj meas = −− ( . )/ . % 20 9 7 20 9 ( ) 2 (Eq. 1)

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 

percent oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on 

a dry basis. 

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

oxygen (defined oxygen correction 

basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a 

dry basis, percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be 

conducted and data reduced in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures contained in this subpart 

unless the Administrator does one of the 

following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific 

cases, the use 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14OC10.001</MATH>
63306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 reestablished 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 60.13(e)(1), and you 

must collect continuous emissions 

monitoring system data in accordance 

with § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. Any such periods must 

be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

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

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction, as defined in § 60.4930, 

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 sitespecific monitoring plan developed in 

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

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

(ii) Collect data according to 

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

this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device 

inspections. You must conduct air 

pollution control device inspections 

that include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation, if 

applicable. 

(2) Ensure proper calibration of 

thermocouples, sorbent feed systems, 

and any other monitoring equipment. 

(3) Generally observe that the 

equipment is maintained in good 

operating condition. 

(4) Ensure that the air pollution 

control device meets manufacturer 

recommendations. 

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass 

stack at any time that sewage sludge is 

being charged to the SSI unit is 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. 

§ 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 § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. Any such periods must 

be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

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

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction, as defined in § 60.4930, 

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 § 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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 § 60.4880. 

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

you must install, calibrate (to 

manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or 

method for measuring the use of the 

bypass stack including date, time, and 

duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§ 60.4910 What records must I keep? 

You must maintain the items (as 

applicable) specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (m) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be 

available on site in either paper copy or 

computer-readable format that can be 

printed upon request, unless an 

alternative format is approved by the 

Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation 

produced as a result of the siting 

requirements of §§ 60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation 

of the operator training procedures and 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager 

number at which they can be reached 

during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who may operate the unit according to 

the provisions of § 60.4835(a), as 

follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section as required by § 60.4840(b), 

including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the 

SSI operators who have completed the 

operator training requirements under 

§ 60.4810, met the criteria for 

qualification under § 60.4820, and 

maintained or renewed their 

qualification under § 60.4825 or 

§ 60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including 

the dates of their initial qualification 

and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 

weeks, as required in § 60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for 2 weeks or more along with copies 

of reports submitted as required in 

§ 60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device 

inspections. Records of the results of 

initial and annual air pollution control 

device inspections conducted as 

specified in §§ 60.4875 and 60.4900(c), 

including any required maintenance 

and any repairs not completed within 

10 days of an inspection or the 

timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. (1) The 

results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted 

to determine compliance with the 

emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete 

performance test report, including 

calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the log of the 

quantity of sewage sludge burned 

during the performance tests, as 

required in § 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 § 60.4850(b). 

(iv) For other control devices for 

which you must establish operating 

limits under § 60.4855, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating 

parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits, at 

the frequencies specified in your 

monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous 

monitoring systems. You must keep the 

following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications 

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

of starting or stopping use of a 

continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under 

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

emission limits (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 

§ 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 §§ 60.4900 

and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance 

evaluations for continuous monitoring 

systems. Records of the monitoring plan 

required under § 60.4880, and records of 

performance evaluations required under 

§ 60.4885(b)(6). 

(l) Less frequent testing. Any records 

required to document that your SSI unit 

qualifies for less frequent testing under 

§ 60.4885(a)(3). 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records 

indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times, and durations as 

required under § 60.4905(c). 

§ 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 

§ 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 sitespecific operating limits specified in 

§ 60.4855. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63310 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(4) The anticipated date of initial 

startup. 

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan 

required under § 60.4880, at least 60 

days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous 

monitoring system. 

(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 

§§ 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 § 60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air 

pollution control device inspection 

required in § 60.4875, including a 

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You 

must submit an annual compliance 

report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

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

provide an accessible qualified operator, 

you must notify the Administrator 

within 5 days of meeting 

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

operation. 

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If 

a force majeure is about to occur, 

occurs, or has occurred for which you 

intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the 

Administrator, in writing as soon as 

practicable following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known that the event may cause or 

caused a delay in conducting a 

performance test beyond the regulatory 

deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test 

deadline unless the initial force majeure 

or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the 

notification must occur as soon as 

practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of 

the force majeure event and a rationale 

for attributing the delay in conducting 

the performance test beyond the 

regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be 

taken to minimize the delay; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

conduct the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports 

required. You must submit other 

notifications as provided by § 60.7 and 

as follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 

1 month before starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 

at least 30 days prior to any 

performance test conducted to comply 

with the provisions of this subpart, to 

afford the Administrator the 

opportunity to have an observer present. 

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

must notify the Administrator at least 7 

days prior to the date of a rescheduled 

performance test for which notification 

was previously made in paragraph (h)(2) 

of this section. 

(i) Report submission form. (1) Submit 

initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, 

postmarked on or before the submittal 

due dates. 

(2) 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). 

(j) Changing report dates. If the 

Administrator agrees, you may change 

the semi-annual or annual reporting 

dates. See § 60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting 

date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§ 60.4920 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a title V operating permit for my 

unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, 

you are required to apply for and obtain 

a title V operating permit unless you 

meet the relevant requirements for an 

exemption specified in § 60.4780. 

§ 60.4925 When must I submit a title V 

permit application for my new SSI unit? 

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this 

subpart is not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, a complete 

title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before one of the dates 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (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 

§ 60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Terms used but not defined in this 

subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act 

and § 60.2. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, 

liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, or 

diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an 

instrument that is capable of monitoring 

particulate matter loadings in the 

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

in order to detect bag failures. A bag 

leak detection system includes, but is 

not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, light 

scattering, light transmittance, or other 

principle to monitor relative particulate 

matter loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive 

days starting on January 1 and ending 

on December 31. 

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 offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) 

collected are representative of the 

emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring 

system means a monitoring system for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an 

affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

means a continuous emissions 

monitoring system, continuous 

automated sampling system, continuous 

parameter monitoring system, 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during 

the treatment of domestic sewage in a 

treatment works. Sewage sludge 

includes, but is not limited to, domestic 

septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced 

wastewater treatment processes; and a 

material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash 

generated during the firing of sewage 

sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated 

during preliminary treatment of 

domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the 

rate at which sewage sludge is fed into 

the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit 

means an incineration unit combusting 

sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incineration unit designs 

include fluidized bed and multiple 

hearth. 

Shutdown means the period of time 

after all sewage sludge has been 

combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, 

refuse, sewage sludge from a waste 

treatment plant, water supply treatment 

plant, or air pollution control facility 

and other discarded material, including 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from 

industrial, commercial, mining, 

agricultural operations, and from 

community activities, but does not 

include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or 

industrial discharges which are point 

sources subject to permits under section 

402 of the Federal Water Pollution 

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

1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring 

to units of measure, means a 

temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 

kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time 

between the activation, including the 

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

distillate oil), of the system and the first 

feed to the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product 

of the concentration of an individual 

dioxin congener in an environmental 

mixture and the corresponding estimate 

of the compound-specific toxicity 

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

equivalency factor for that compound. 

Table 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 

§ 60.4770. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63314 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

UNITS

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limit a

Using these averaging methods and 

minimum sampling volumes or 

durations 

And determining compliance using 

this method 

Particulate matter ....... 4.1 milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride ...... 0.12 parts per million by dry volume .. 3-run average (For Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard 

cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon monoxide ....... 7.4 parts per million by dry volume .... 4-hour rolling average (using 1-hour 

averages of data).

Continuous emissions monitoring system. 

Dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis).

0.024 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis).

0.0022 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Mercury ....................... 0.0010 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 29 and 

ASTM D6784–02, collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. For Method 

30B, collect a minimum sample as 

specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (when published in the Federal Register); 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). 

Oxides of nitrogen ...... 26 parts per million by dry volume ..... 3-run average (Collect sample for a 

minimum duration of one hour per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Sulfur dioxide .............. 2.0 parts per million by dry volume .... 3-run average (For Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 6C, collect sample 

for a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 40, appendix A–4; or 

ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus]). 

Cadmium .................... 0.00051 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Lead ............................ 0.00053 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Opacity ....................... 0 percent ............................................. 6-minute averages, three 1-hour observation periods.Performance test (Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Fugitive emissions 

from ash handling.

Visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) for 

no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.

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

appendix A–7 of this part). 

aAll emission limits (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

For these operating parameters You must establish these 

operating limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording b Averaging time 

for compliance 

All SSI units 

Dry sludge feed rate ............................... Maximum dry sludge feed rate ............. Continuous ............ Hourly ................. 4-hour rolling.c

Combustion chamber temperature or 

afterburner temperature.

Minimum combustion temperature or 

afterburner temperature.

Continuous ............ Every 15 minutes 4-hour rolling.c

Sludge moisture content ......................... Range of moisture content (percent) .... Composite of three 

samples taken 6 

hours apart.

Daily ................... Daily. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63315 

TABLE 2—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION

UNITS a—Continued 

For these operating parameters You must establish these 

operating limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording b Averaging time 

for compliance 

Scrubber 

Pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

or amperage to each wet scrubber.

Minimum pressure drop or minimum 

amperage.

Continuous ............ Every 15 minutes 4-hour rolling.c

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 detection 

system alarm.

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

§ 60.4850 and is not established on a site-specific basis) 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary voltage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates.

Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.Continuous ............ Hourly ................. 4-hour rolling.c

Secondary amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates.

Effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator.

Maximum effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.

Hourly .................... Hourly ................. 4-hour rolling.c

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury sorbent injection rate ................ Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate Hourly .................... Hourly ................. 4-hour rolling.c

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

rate.

Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop.Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure drop.Continuous ............ Every 15 minutes 4-hour rolling.c

aAs specified in § 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. bThis 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

Dioxin/furan congener 

Toxic 

equivalency 

factor 

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

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

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0 .1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0 .1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .................................................................................................................................... 0 .01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .3 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .03 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0 .01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0 .01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0003 

TABLE 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 construction ........... • Statement of intent to construct .......... § 60.4915(a) 

• Anticipated date of commencement of 

construction.


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63316 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• Documentation for siting requirements.

• Anticipated date of initial startup.

Notification of initial startup ..................... Prior to initial startup ............................... • Maximum design dry sewage sludge 

burning capacity.

§ 60.4915(b) 

• 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 following the initial 

performance test.

• Company name and address ..............

• Statement by a responsible official, 

with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report.

§ 60.4915(c) 

• Date of report.

• Complete test report for the initial performance test.

• Results of CMSb 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 following the 

submission of the initial compliance 

report; subsequent reports are to be 

submitted no more than 12 months 

following the previous report.

• Company name and address ..............

• Statement and signature by responsible official.

• Date and beginning and ending dates 

of report.

§§ 60.4915(d) 

• 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 

§ 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.


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63317 

TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• 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 emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits, as specified in 

§ 60.4915(e)(1)).

By August 1 of a calendar year for data 

collected during the first half of the 

calendar year; by February 1 of a calendar year for data collected during 

the second half of the calendar year.

If using a CMS: 

• Company name and address. 

• Statement by a responsible official. 

• The calendar dates and times your 

unit deviated from the emission limits 

or operating limits. 

§ 60.4915(e) 

• The averaged and recorded data for 

those dates.

• Duration and cause of each deviation.

• Dates, times, and causes for monitor 

downtime incidents.

• A copy of the operating parameter 

monitoring data during each deviation 

and any test report that documents 

the emission levels.

• For periods of CMS malfunction or 

when a CMS was out of control, you 

must include the information specified 

in § 60.4915(e)(3)(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 deviation (if all qualified operators are not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more).

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

• Description of actions taken to ensure 

that a qualified operator will be available.

• The date when a qualified operator 

will be accessible.

§ 60.4915(f) 

Notification of status of qualified operator 

deviation.

Every 4 weeks following notification of 

deviation.

• Description of actions taken to ensure 

that a qualified operator is accessible.

• The date when you anticipate that a 

qualified operator will be accessible.

• Request for approval to continue operation.

§ 60.4915(f) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63318 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of resumed operation following shutdown (due to qualified operator deviation and as specified in 

§ 60.4835(b)(2)(i).

Within 5 days of obtaining a qualified operator and resuming operation.• Notification that you have obtained a 

qualified operator and are resuming 

operation.

§ 60.4915(f) 

Notification of a force majeure ................ As soon as practicable following the 

date you first knew, or through due 

diligence should have known that the 

event may cause or caused a delay in 

conducting a performance test beyond 

the regulatory deadline; the notification 

must occur before the performance 

test deadline unless the initial force 

majeure or a subsequent force 

majeure event delays the notice, and 

in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable.

• Description of the force majeure event 

• Rationale for attributing the delay in 

conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the 

force majeure.

• Description of the measures taken or 

to be taken to minimize the delay.

• Identification of the date by which you 

propose to conduct the performance 

test.

§ 60.4915(g) 

Notification of intent to start or stop use 

of a CMS.

1 month before starting or stopping use 

of a CMS.

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

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

test.

• Intent to conduct a performance test 

to comply with this subpart.

Notification of intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test.At least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled performance test.• Intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test to comply with this subpart.

aThis 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 60.5000 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes emission 

guidelines and compliance schedules 

for the control of emissions from sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) units. The 

pollutants addressed by these emission 

guidelines are listed in Tables 2 and 3 

to this subpart. These emission 

guidelines are developed in accordance 

with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. 

To the extent any requirement of this 

subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, 

the requirements of this subpart will 

apply. 

§ 60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an 

air quality program in a State or United 

States protectorate with one or more SSI 

units that commenced construction on 

or before October 14, 2010, you must 

submit a State plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

that implements the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the State plan to 

EPA by [THE DATE 12 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

§ 60.5010 Is a State plan required for all 

states? 

No. You are not required to submit a 

State plan if there are no SSI units for 

which construction commenced on or 

before October 14, 2010 in your State, 

and you submit a negative declaration 

letter in place of the State plan. 

§ 60.5015 What must I include in my State 

plan? 

(a) You must include the nine items 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(9) of this section in your State plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, 

including those that have ceased 

operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from 

affected SSI units in your State. 

(3) Compliance schedules for each 

affected SSI unit. 

(4) Emission limits, emission 

standards, operator training and 

qualification requirements, and 

operating limits for affected SSI units 

that are at least as protective as the 

emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on 

the State plan was held, a list of 

witnesses and their organizational 

affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of 

each presentation or written 

submission. 

(7) Provision for State progress reports 

to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable State 

mechanisms that you selected for 

implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your State’s legal 

authority to carry out the sections 

111(d) and 129 State plan. 

(b) Your State plan may deviate from 

the format and content of the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart. 

However, if your State plan does deviate 

in content, you must demonstrate that 

your State plan is at least as protective 

as the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. Your State plan must 

address regulatory applicability, 

increments of progress for retrofit, 

operator training and qualification, 

emission limits and standards, 

performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements 

of subpart B of this part (Adoption and 

Submittal of State plans for Designated 

Facilities) in your State plan. 

§ 60.5020 Is there an approval process for 

my State plan? 

Yes. The EPA will review your State 

plan according to § 60.27. 

§ 60.5025 What if my State plan is not 

approvable? 

If you do not submit an approvable 

State plan (or a negative declaration 

letter) by [THE DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], EPA will develop a Federal 

plan according to § 60.27 to implement 

the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. Owners and operators of 

SSI units not covered by an approved 

State plan must comply with the 

Federal plan. The Federal plan is an 

interim action and will be automatically 

withdrawn when your State plan is 

approved. 

§ 60.5030 Is there an approval process for 

a negative 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63320 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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 § 60.5090. 

§ 60.5040 Are there any State plan 

requirements for this subpart that apply 

instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

Yes. Subpart B establishes general 

requirements for developing and 

processing section 111(d) State plans. 

This subpart applies instead of the 

requirements in subpart B of this part, 

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

this section: 

(a) State plans developed to 

implement this subpart must be as 

protective as the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. State plans 

must require all SSI units to comply by 

the dates specified in § 60.5035. This 

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

and longer compliance schedules in 

§ 60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to 

implement this subpart are required to 

include two increments of progress for 

the affected SSI units. These two 

minimum increments are the final 

control plan submittal date and final 

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

This applies instead of the requirement 

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

State plan to include all five increments 

of progress for all SSI units. 

§ 60.5045 In lieu of a State plan submittal, 

are there other acceptable option(s) for a 

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

obligations? 

Yes, a State may meet its Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 obligations by 

submitting an acceptable written request 

for delegation of the Federal plan that 

meets the requirements of this section. 

This is the only other option for a State 

to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable Federal plan 

delegation request must include the 

following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate 

resources and legal authority to 

administer and enforce the Federal plan. 

(2) The items under § 60.5015(a)(1), 

(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. 

§ 60.5050 What authorities will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies? 

The authorities that will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the 

emission limits and standards in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart and operating 

limits established under § 60.5175 or 

§ 60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods. 

(c) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in § 60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in 

§ 60.5155(b)(2). 

(g) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 60.8(b). 

§ 60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect 

SSI unit owners and operators in my State? 

(a) No. This subpart does not directly 

affect SSI unit owners and operators in 

your State. However, SSI unit owners 

and operators must comply with the 

State plan you develop to implement 

the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. States may choose to 

incorporate the model rule text directly 

in their State plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable 

plan to implement and enforce the 

guidelines contained in this subpart by 

[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 § 60.5025, 

to ensure that each unit within your 

State that commenced construction on 

or before October 14, 2010 reaches 

compliance with all the provisions of 

this subpart by the dates specified in 

§ 60.5035. 

Applicability of State Plans 

§ 60.5060 What SSI units must I address in 

my State plan? 

(a) Your State plan must address SSI 

units that meet all three criteria 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your State that 

commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition 

of an SSI unit as defined in § 60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under 

§ 60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of an SSI 

unit makes changes that meet the 

definition of modification after [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. 

§ 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63321 

Use of Model Rule 

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

subpart? 

(a) The model rule is the portion of 

these emission guidelines (§§ 60.5085 

through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to 

SSI units. The model rule provides 

these requirements in regulation format. 

You must develop a State plan that is at 

least as protective as the model rule. 

You may use the model rule language as 

part of your State plan. Alternative 

language may be used in your State plan 

if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the 

model rule contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§ 60.5085 

through 60.5250, ‘‘you’’ and 

‘‘Administrator’’ have the meaning 

specified in § 60.5250. 

§ 60.5075 How does the model rule relate 

to the required elements of my State plan? 

Use the model rule to satisfy the State 

plan requirements specified in 

§ 60.5015(a)(3) through (5). 

§ 60.5080 What are the principal 

components of the model rule? 

The model rule contains the nine 

major components listed in paragraphs 

(a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward 

compliance. 

(b) Operator training and 

qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance 

requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, 

and calibration requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§ 60.5085 What are my requirements for 

meeting increments of progress and 

achieving final compliance? 

If you plan to achieve compliance 

more than 1 year following the effective 

date of State plan approval, you must 

meet the two increments of progress 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§ 60.5090 When must I complete each 

increment of progress? 

Table 1 to this subpart specifies 

compliance dates for each increment of 

progress. 

§ 60.5095 What must I include in the 

notifications of achievement of increments 

of progress? 

Your notification of achievement of 

increments of progress must include the 

three items specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of 

progress has been achieved. 

(b) Any items required to be 

submitted with each increment of 

progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator 

of the SSI unit. 

§ 60.5100 When must I submit the 

notifications of achievement of increments 

of progress? 

Notifications for achieving increments 

of progress must be postmarked no later 

than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§ 60.5105 What if I do not meet an 

increment of progress? 

If you fail to meet an increment of 

progress, you must submit a notification 

to the Administrator postmarked within 

10 business days after the date for that 

increment of progress in Table 1 to this 

subpart. You must inform the 

Administrator that you did not meet the 

increment, and you must continue to 

submit reports each subsequent 

calendar month until the increment of 

progress is met. 

§ 60.5110 How do I comply with the 

increment of progress for submittal of a 

control plan? 

For your control plan increment of 

progress, you must satisfy the two 

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 sitespecific operating limits under 

§ 60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the 

final control plan. 

§ 60.5115 How do I comply with the 

increment of progress for achieving final 

compliance? 

For the final compliance increment of 

progress, you must complete all process 

changes and retrofit construction of 

control devices, as specified in the final 

control plan, so that, if the affected SSI 

unit is brought online, all necessary 

process changes and air pollution 

control devices would operate as 

designed. 

§ 60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI 

unit and then restart it? 

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will 

restart it prior to the final compliance 

date in your State plan, you must meet 

the increments of progress specified in 

§ 60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will 

restart it after your final compliance 

date, you must complete emission 

control retrofits and meet the emission 

limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits on the date your unit 

restarts operation. 

§ 60.5125 What must I do if I plan to 

permanently close my SSI unit and not 

restart it? 

If you plan to close your SSI unit 

rather than comply with the State plan, 

submit a closure notification, including 

the date of closure, to the Administrator 

by the date your final control plan is 

due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and 

Qualification 

§ 60.5130 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated 

unless a fully trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator is accessible, either at the 

facility or can be at the facility within 

1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator may operate the SSI unit 

directly or be the direct supervisor of 

one or more other plant personnel who 

operate the unit. If all qualified SSI unit 

operators are temporarily not accessible, 

you must follow the procedures in 

§ 60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification 

must be obtained through a Stateapproved program or by completing the 

requirements included in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by 

completing an incinerator operator 

training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63322 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Combustion controls and 

monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control 

equipment and factors affecting 

performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of 

the incinerator and air pollution control 

devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions 

or to prevent conditions that may lead 

to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash 

characteristics and handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and 

local regulations, including 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and 

administered by the State-approved 

program. 

(3) Written material covering the 

training course topics that may serve as 

reference material following completion 

of the course. 

§ 60.5135 When must the operator training 

course be completed? 

The operator training course must be 

completed by the later of the three dates 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) The final compliance date 

(Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit 

startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee 

assumes responsibility for operating the 

SSI unit or assumes responsibility for 

supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§ 60.5140 How do I obtain my operator 

qualification? 

(a) You must obtain operator 

qualification by completing a training 

course that satisfies the criteria under 

§ 60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date 

on which the training course is 

completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under 

§ 60.5130(c)(2). 

§ 60.5145 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

To maintain qualification, you must 

complete an annual review or refresher 

course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including 

startup and shutdown procedures, 

sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or 

conditions that may lead to 

malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems 

encountered by attendees. 

§ 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed 

operator qualification? 

You must renew a lapsed operator 

qualification by one of the two methods 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

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

you must complete a standard annual 

refresher course described in § 60.5145. 

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

must repeat the initial qualification 

requirements in § 60.5140(a). 

§ 60.5155 What if all the qualified 

operators are temporarily not accessible? 

If a qualified operator is not at the 

facility and cannot be at the facility 

within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section, depending on the 

length of time that a qualified operator 

is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for more than 8 hours, the SSI 

unit may be operated for less than 2 

weeks by other plant personnel who are 

familiar with the operation of the SSI 

unit who have completed a review of 

the information specified in § 60.5160 

within the past 12 months. However, 

you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible 

and include this deviation in the annual 

report as specified under § 60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more, you 

must take the two actions that are 

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

this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this 

deviation in writing within 10 days. In 

the notice, State what caused this 

deviation, what you are doing to ensure 

that a qualified operator is accessible, 

and when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the 

Administrator every 4 weeks outlining 

what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating 

when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible, and 

requesting approval from the 

Administrator to continue operation of 

the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify 

the Administrator of the deviation 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you 

that your request to continue operation 

of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI 

unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume 

if a qualified operator is accessible as 

required under § 60.5130(a) and you 

notify the Administrator within 5 days 

of having resumed operations and of 

having a qualified operator accessible. 

§ 60.5160 What site-specific 

documentation is required and how often 

must it be reviewed by qualified SSI 

operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of § 60.5155(a)? 

(a) You must maintain at the facility 

the documentation of the operator 

training procedures specified under 

§ 60.5230(c)(1) and make the 

documentation readily accessible to all 

SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for 

reviewing the information listed in 

§ 60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of 

§ 60.5155(a), according to the following 

schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the 

information listed in § 60.5230(c)(1) 

must be conducted within 6 months 

after the effective date of this subpart or 

prior to an employee’s assumption of 

responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the 

information listed in § 60.5230(c)(1) 

must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission 

Standards, and Operating Limits 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63323 

the combustion chamber (or afterburner 

combustion chamber) that you establish 

in § 60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, 

electrostatic precipitator, activated 

carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you 

must meet the site-specific operating 

limits that you establish in § 60.5190 for 

each operating parameter associated 

with each air pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply 

with the emission limits, you must 

install the bag leak detection system 

specified in § 60.5225(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system 

such that the alarm does not sound 

more than 5 percent of the operating 

time during a 6-month period. You must 

calculate the alarm time as specified in 

§ 60.5190. 

(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 § 60.5205(a). 

(2) Performance tests required under 

§ 60.5205(a)(2). 

(3) Periodic performance evaluations 

required under § 60.5205(b)(5) to meet 

the operating limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 60.5175 How do I establish operating 

limits if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated 

carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits? 

If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

activated carbon injection, or 

afterburner, or limit emissions in some 

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

comply with the emission limits in 

§ 60.5165, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 

(a) 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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as 

possible, but no later than 2 business 

days after the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if you wish to avail 

yourself of an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for that malfunction. If 

you seek to assert an affirmative 

defense, you must also submit a written 

report to the Administrator within 30 

days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance of the standard in § 60.5165 

to demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that you 

have met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emission limits 

and standards? 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) 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 § 60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance 

using the performance test required in 

§ 60.8. You must demonstrate that your 

SSI unit meets the emission limits and 

standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans, 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 § 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 § 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 § 60.5220(b). 

You must measure emissions according 

to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic 

averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 

24-hour block average of these 1-hour 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of 

Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

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

you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 2 

to this subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in 

§ 60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring 

plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must 

use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 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 

§ 60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions and calculate 6-minute 

averages as specified in § 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 

§ 60.5200(a)(3). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 (tetrathrough 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 

§ 60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial 

compliance using a performance test as 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.5235(g). You must 

conduct the initial performance test as 

soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the initial performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

§ 60.5190 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

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

paragraphs (c) through (l) of this section 

during the initial performance tests and 

performance evaluations required in 

§ 60.5185 and the most recent 

performance tests and performance 

evaluations required in § 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

§ 60.5195 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device inspection 

and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an air pollution 

control device inspection according to 

§ 60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved State plan, 

Federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final 

compliance date, you must conduct the 

air pollution control device inspection 

within 60 days after installation of the 

control device. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following the air pollution control 

device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must 

be completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the SSI unit must be 

completed. 

§ 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan for my continuous 

monitoring systems 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 sitespecific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required 

under this subpart, according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 60.13(i) and 

paragraph (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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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-ofcontrol 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 § 60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits 

and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, use the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. In lieu of using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans, 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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 60.5220(b). 

You must measure emissions according 

to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic 

averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 

24-hour block average of these 1-hour 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of 

Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

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

you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

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

to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 2 

to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.4880(e). For mercury 

continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 

75 and Procedure 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 

§ 60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions and calculate 6-minute 

averages as specified in § 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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63329 

continuous automated sampling system. 

Your performance evaluation must be 

conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in 

§ 60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with 

the dioxins/furans toxic equivalency 

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

this section, you must determine 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as 

follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra-through 

octachlorinated-congener emitted using 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough 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 

§ 60.5235(c). You must submit a 

deviation report as specified in 

§ 60.5235(d) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a performance test, as 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.5235(g). You must 

conduct the performance test as soon as 

practicable after the force majeure 

occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

§ 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 § 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 § 60.5225, 

except as provided in § 60.5175. Fourhour 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§ 60.5170(c). 

(b) Operation above the established 

maximum, below the established 

minimum, or outside the allowable 

range of the operating limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section constitutes 

a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except 

during performance tests conducted to 

determine compliance with the 

emission and operating limits or to 

establish new operating limits. You 

must submit the deviation report 

specified in § 60.5235(d) for each 

instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under 

this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual 

compliance report specified in 

§ 60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

§ 60.5215 By what date must I conduct 

annual air pollution control device 

inspections and make any necessary 

repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual 

inspection of each air pollution control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limits, according to 

§ 60.5220(c), within 10 to 12 months 

following the previous annual air 

pollution control device inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit 

must be completed. 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, 

Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§ 60.5220 What are the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements for compliance with the 

emission limits and standards? 

You must meet, as applicable, the 

performance testing requirements 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the monitoring requirements 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the air pollution control device 

inspections requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, and the 

bypass stack provisions specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of 

a minimum of three test runs conducted 

under conditions representative of 

normal operations, as specified in 

§ 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the 

emission limits or standards during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations 

from the applicable emission limits or 

standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry 

sludge burned during the performance 

test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating 

conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of 

sewage sludge burned during the 

performance test. 

(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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(6) All pollutant concentrations, 

except for opacity, must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of 

this section: 

C C adj meas = −− ( . )/ . % 20 9 7 20 9 ( ) O2 (Eq. 1)

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 

percent oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on 

a dry basis. 

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

oxygen (defined oxygen correction 

basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a 

dry basis, percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be 

conducted and data reduced in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures contained in this subpart 

unless the Administrator does one of the 

following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific 

cases, the use 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14OC10.002</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 60.13(e)(1), and you 

must collect continuous emissions 

monitoring system data in accordance 

with § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. Any such periods must 

be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

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

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction as defined in § 60.5250, 

constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected 

during all periods except those periods 

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

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

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous 

automated sampling system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous automated 

sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in 

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

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

(ii) Collect data according to 

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

this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device 

inspections. You must conduct air 

pollution control device inspections 

that include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation, if 

applicable. 

(2) Ensure proper calibration of 

thermocouples, sorbent feed systems, 

and any other monitoring equipment. 

(3) Generally observe that the 

equipment is maintained in good 

operating condition. 

(4) Ensure that the air pollution 

control device meets manufacturer 

recommendations. 

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass 

stack at any time that sewage sludge is 

being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all 

pollutants listed in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates 

the performance test. 

§ 60.5225 What are the monitoring and 

calibration requirements for compliance 

with my operating limits? 

(a) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain the continuous 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. Any such periods must 

be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in § 60.5200(a)(7)(i) 

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction, as defined in § 60.5250, 

constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected 

during all periods except those periods 

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

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

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling 

average of all recorded readings, except 

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

this section. 

(vii) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(2) Meet the following requirements 

for each type of measurement device: 

(i) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow measurement 

device, you must meet the following 

requirements: 

(A) Locate the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(B) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of 

the flow rate. 

(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream 

and downstream disturbances. 

(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration 

check at least semi-annually. 

(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors 

(for activated carbon injection), during 

the performance test conducted 

pursuant to § 60.5205, you must 

demonstrate that the system is 

maintained within +/¥5 percent 

accuracy, according to the procedures in 

appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 60.5200. 

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

you must install, calibrate (to 

manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or 

method for measuring the use of the 

bypass stack including date, time, and 

duration. 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and 

Reporting 

§ 60.5230 What records must I keep? 

You must maintain the items (as 

applicable) specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (m) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be 

available on site in either paper copy or 

computer-readable format that can be 

printed upon request, unless an 

alternative format is approved by the 

Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of 

the final control plan and any additional 

notifications, reported under § 60.5250. 

(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 

§ 60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager 

number at which they can be reached 

during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who may operate the unit according to 

the provisions of § 60.5155(a), as 

follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section as required by § 60.5160(b), 

including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the 

SSI operators who have completed the 

operator training requirements under 

§ 60.5130, met the criteria for 

qualification under § 60.5140, and 

maintained or renewed their 

qualification under § 60.5145 or 

§ 60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including 

the dates of their initial qualification 

and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 

weeks, as required in § 60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for 2 weeks or more along with copies 

of reports submitted as required in 

§ 60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device 

inspections. Records of the results of 

initial and annual air pollution control 

device inspections conducted as 

specified in §§ 60.5195 and 60.5220(c), 

including any required maintenance 

and any repairs not completed within 

10 days of an inspection or the 

timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, 

and any subsequent performance tests 

conducted to determine compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

and/or to establish operating limits, as 

applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete 

performance test report, including 

calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the log of the 

quantity of sewage sludge burned 

during the performance tests, as 

required in § 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63334 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 § 60.5170(b). 

(iv) For other control devices for 

which you must establish operating 

limits under § 60.5175, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating 

parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits, at 

the frequencies specified in your 

monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous 

monitoring systems. You must keep the 

following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications 

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

of starting or stopping use of a 

continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under 

§ 60.5220(b)(5) that compliance with the 

emission limits (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 

§ 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 §§ 60.5220 

and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance 

evaluations for continuous monitoring 

systems. Records of the monitoring plan 

required under § 60.5200, and records of 

performance evaluations required under 

§ 60.5205(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. Any records 

required to document that your SSI unit 

qualifies for less frequent testing under 

§ 60.5205(a)(3). 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records 

indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times, and durations as 

required under § 60.5225(c). 

§ 60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

You must submit the reports specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this 

section. See Table 6 to this subpart for 

a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If 

you plan to achieve compliance more 

than 1 year following the effective date 

of State plan approval, you must submit 

the following reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in 

§§ 60.5085(a) and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification 

of achievement of increments of 

progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the 

increment as specified in §§ 60.5095 

and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of 

progress, you must submit a notification 

to the Administrator postmarked within 

10 business days after the date for that 

increment, as specified in § 60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit 

rather than comply with the State plan, 

submit a closure notification as 

specified in § 60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You 

must submit the following information 

no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name 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 

§§ 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 § 60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air 

pollution control device inspection 

required in § 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 

§ 60.5230(f)(4)(iii). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63336 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 § 60.11(d) and to 

correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation. 

(1) If all qualified operators are not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more, you 

must take the two actions in paragraphs 

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

(i) Submit a notification of the 

deviation within 10 days that includes 

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

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

(A) A statement of what caused the 

deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to 

ensure that a qualified operator is 

accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that 

a qualified operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the 

Administrator every 4 weeks that 

includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

section. 

(A) A description of actions taken to 

ensure that a qualified operator is 

accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that 

a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the 

Administrator to continue operation of 

the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the 

Administrator, under the provisions of 

§ 60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to 

provide an accessible qualified operator, 

you must notify the Administrator 

within five days of meeting 

§ 60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming 

operation. 

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If 

a force majeure is about to occur, 

occurs, or has occurred for which you 

intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the 

Administrator, in writing as soon as 

practicable following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence, should 

have known that the event may cause or 

caused a delay in conducting a 

performance test beyond the regulatory 

deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test 

deadline unless the initial force majeure 

or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the 

notification must occur as soon as 

practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of 

the force majeure event and a rationale 

for attributing the delay in conducting 

the performance test beyond the 

regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be 

taken to minimize the delay; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

conduct the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports 

required. You must submit other 

notifications as provided by § 60.7 and 

as follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 

1 month before starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 

at least 30 days prior to any 

performance test conducted to comply 

with the provisions of this subpart, to 

afford the Administrator the 

opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in § 60.5220(a)(8), you 

must notify the Administrator at least 7 

days prior to the date of a rescheduled 

performance test for which notification 

was previously made in paragraph (g)(2) 

of this section. 

(h) Report submission form. 

(1) Submit initial, annual, and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) 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 § 60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting 

date. 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§ 60.5240 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a title V operating permit for my 

existing SSI unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable 

EPA-approved and effective Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal 

plan or an applicable and effective 

Federal plan, you are required to apply 

for and obtain a title V operating permit 

for your existing SSI unit unless you 

meet the relevant requirements for an 

exemption specified in § 60.5065. 

§ 60.5245 When must I submit a title V 

permit application for my existing SSI unit? 

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not 

subject to an earlier permit application 

deadline, a complete title V permit 

application must be submitted on or 

before the earlier of the dates specified 

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

section. (See sections 129(e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act 

and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 

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

(1) 12 months after the effective date 

of any applicable EPA-approved Clean 

Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or 

tribal plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date 

of any applicable Federal plan. 

(3) [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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63337 

Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 

40 CFR 71.7(b).) 

Model Rule—Definitions 

§ 60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

Terms used but not defined in this 

subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act 

and § 60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the Federal 

plan, the Administrator of the EPA or 

his/her authorized representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved 

State plan, the director of the State air 

pollution control agency or his/her 

authorized representative. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, 

liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, or 

diesel fuel. 

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 offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) 

collected are representative of the 

emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring 

system means a monitoring system for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an 

affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

means a continuous emissions 

monitoring system, continuous 

automated sampling system, continuous 

parameter monitoring system, 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during 

the treatment of domestic sewage in a 

treatment works. Sewage sludge 

includes, but is not limited to, domestic 

septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced 

wastewater treatment processes; and a 

material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash 

generated during the firing of sewage 

sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated 

during preliminary treatment of 

domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the 

rate at which sewage sludge is fed into 

the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit 

means an incineration unit combusting 

sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incineration unit designs 

include fluidized bed and multiple 

hearth. 

Shutdown means the period of time 

after all sewage sludge has been 

combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, 

refuse, sewage sludge from a waste 

treatment plant, water supply treatment 

plant, or air pollution control facility 

and other discarded material, including 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from 

industrial, commercial, mining, 

agricultural operations, and from 

community activities, but does not 

include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or 

industrial discharges which are point 

sources subject to permits under section 

402 of the Federal Water Pollution 

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

1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring 

to units of measure, means a 

temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 

kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time 

between the activation, including the 

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

distillate oil), of the system and the first 

feed to the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product 

of the concentration of an individual 

dioxin congener in an environmental 

mixture and the corresponding estimate 

of the compound-specific toxicity 

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

equivalency factor for that compound. 

Table 5 to this subpart lists the toxic 

equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air 

pollution control device that utilizes an 

aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 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

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the 

discretion of the State. bThe date can be no later than 3 years after 

the effective date of State plan approval or 

[THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that commenced construction on or before October 14, 

2010. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FLUIDIZED

BED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these averaging methods 

and minimum sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Particulate matter ........................... 12 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters sample per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; 

Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 0.49 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 

200 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Carbon monoxide .......................... 56 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (collect sample for 

a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 10, 

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

appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 0.61 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63339 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FLUIDIZED

BED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these averaging methods 

and minimum sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.056 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0033 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02, collect a 

minimum volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic meters per run. 

For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A (when published in 

the Federal Register); 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). 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 63 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (Collect sample for 

a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 22 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (For Method 6, collect a minimum volume of 200 

liters per run. For Method 6C, 

collect sample for a minimum 

duration of one hour per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 40, appendix A– 

4; or ASNI/ASME PTC–19.10– 

1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analysis [Part 10, Instruments 

and Apparatus]). 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.0019 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Lead ............................................... 0.0098 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters sample per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. 

Opacity ........................................... 0 percent ....................................... 6-minute averages, three 1-hour 

observation periods.

Performance test (Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Fugitive emissions from ash handling.Visible emissions of combustion 

ash from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer 

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

period.

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

of appendix A–7 of this part). 

aAll emission limits (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

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these averaging methods 

and minimum sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Particulate matter ........................... 80 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; 

Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 1.0 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 

200 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 3 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Carbon monoxide .......................... 3,900 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (collect sample for 

a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 10, 

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

appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 5.0 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.32 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING MULTIPLE

HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these averaging methods 

and minimum sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Mercury .......................................... 0.02 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02, collect a 

minimum volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic meters per run. 

For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A (when published in 

the Federal Register); 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). 

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

a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

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

liters per run. For Method 6C, 

collect sample for a minimum 

duration of one hour per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 40, appendix A– 

4; or ASNI/ASME PTC–19.10– 

1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analysis ([Part 10, Instruments 

and Apparatus]). 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.095 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Lead ............................................... 0.30 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. 

Opacity ........................................... 10 percent ..................................... 6-minute averages, three 1-hour 

observation periods.

Performance test (Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Fugitive emissions from ash handling.Visible emissions of combustion 

ash from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer 

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

period.

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

of appendix A–7 of this part). 

aAll emission limits (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

INCINERATION UNITS a

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording b Averaging time for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Dry sludge feed rate .................... Maximum dry sludge feed rate .... Continuous ................. Hourly ......................... 4-hour rolling.c

Combustion chamber temperature (not required if afterburner 

temperature is monitored).

Minimum combustion temperature 

or afterburner temperature ...........

Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... 4-hour rolling.c

Sludge moisture content .............. Range of moisture content (%) .... Composite of three 

samples taken 6 

hours apart.

Daily ........................... Daily. 

Scrubber 

Pressure drop across each wet 

scrubber or amperage to each 

wet scrubber.

Minimum pressure drop or minimum amperage.Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... 4-hour rolling.c

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

and is not established on a site-specific basis) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63341 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording b Averaging time for 

compliance 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates.

Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates.

Continuous ................. Hourly ......................... 4-hour rolling.c

Secondary amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates.

Effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.

Maximum effluent water flow rate 

at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator.

Hourly ......................... Hourly ......................... 4-hour rolling.c

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury sorbent injection rate ..... Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate.Hourly ......................... Hourly ......................... 4-hour rolling.c

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

Carrier gas flow rate or carrier 

gas pressure drop.

Minimum carrier gas flow rate or 

minimum carrier gas pressure 

drop.

Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... 4-hour rolling.c

Afterburner 

Temperature of the afterburner 

combustion chamber.

Minimum temperature of the 

afterburner combustion chamber.

Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... 4-hour rolling.a

aAs specified in § 60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous 

automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. bThis 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

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Increments of progress report ................. No later than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment.

• Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be 

burned, and the maximum design 

sewage sludge burning capacity.

§ 60.5235(a) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• Notification of any failure to meet an 

increment of progress.

• Notification of any closure.

Initial compliance report .......................... No later than 60 days following the initial 

performance test.

• Company name and address ..............

• Statement by a responsible official, 

with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report.

§ 60.5235(b) 

• Date of report.

• Complete test report for the initial performance test.

• Results of CMSb 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 following the 

submission of the initial compliance 

report; subsequent reports are to be 

submitted no more than 12 months 

following the previous report.

• Company name and address ..............

• Statement and signature by responsible official. 

• Date and beginning and ending dates 

of report. 

• If a performance test was conducted 

during the reporting period, the results 

of the test, including any new operating limits and associated calculations and the type of activated carbon 

used, if applicable.

§ 60.5235(c) 

• 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 

§ 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.


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63343 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• 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 emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits, as specified in 

§ 60.5235(e)(1)).

By August 1 of a calendar year for data 

collected during the first half of the 

calendar year; by February 1 of a calendar year for data collected during 

the second half of the calendar year.

If using a CMS: .......................................

• Company name and address 

• Statement by a responsible official 

• The calendar dates and times your 

unit deviated from the emission limits 

or operating limits 

§ 60.5235(d) 

• The averaged and recorded data for 

those dates.

• Duration and cause of each deviation.

• Dates, times, and causes for monitor 

downtime incidents.

• A copy of the operating parameter 

monitoring data during each deviation 

and any test report that documents 

the emission levels.

• For periods of CMS malfunction or 

when a CMS was out of control, you 

must include the information specified 

in § 60.5235(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 deviation (if all qualified operators are not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more).

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

• Description of actions taken to ensure 

that a qualified operator will be available 

§ 60.5235(e) 

• The date when a qualified operator 

will be accessible.

Notification of status of qualified operator 

deviation.

Every 4 weeks following notification of 

deviation.

• Description of actions taken to ensure 

that a qualified operator is accessible.

§ 60.5235(e) 

• The date when you anticipate that a 

qualified operator will be accessible.

• Request for approval to continue operation.

Notification of resumed operation following shutdown (due to qualified operator deviation and as specified in 

§ 60.5155(b)(2)(i).

Within five days of obtaining a qualified 

operator and resuming operation.

• Notification that you have obtained a 

qualified operator and are resuming 

operation.

§ 60.5235(e) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of a force majeure ................ As soon as practicable following the 

date you first knew, or through due 

diligence should have known that the 

event may cause or have caused a 

delay in conducting a performance 

test beyond the regulatory deadline; 

the notification must occur before the 

performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent 

force majeure event delays the notice, 

and in such cases, the notification 

must occur as soon as practicable.

• Description of the force majeure event 

• Rationale for attributing the delay in 

conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the 

force majeure. 

• Description of the measures taken or 

to be taken to minimize the delay. 

• Identification of the date by which you 

propose to conduct the performance 

test. 

§ 60.5235(f) 

Notification of intent to start or stop use 

of a CMS.

1 month before starting or stopping use 

of a CMS.

• Intent to start or stop use of a CMS .... § 60. 5235(g) 

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

test.

• Intent to conduct a performance test 

to comply with this subpart.

Notification of intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test.At least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled performance test.• Intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test to comply with this subpart.

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

b CMS means continuous monitoring system. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25122 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2