Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65387

supervisor of an affected faciltiy located

within a large MWC plant shall obtain

and keep current either a provisional or

operator certification in accordance

with ASME QRO–1–1994 (incorporated

by reference, see § 60.17) or an

equivalent State-approved certification

program.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(9) [Reserved]

* * * * *

7. Section 60.58a is amended by

revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),

(h)(6)(i), (h)(6)(ii), and (h)(10),

redesignating paragraph (h)(6)(iii) as

paragraph (h)(6)(v), adding new

paragraphs (h)(6)(iii) and (h)(6)(iv),

removing and reserving paragraph (j)(3),

and revising paragraph (j)(4), to read as

follows:

§ 60.58a Compliance and performance

testing.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) Compliance with the carbon

monoxide emission limits in § 60.56a(a)

shall be determined using a 4-hour

block arithmetic average for all types of

affected facilities except mass burn

rotary waterwall MWC’s, RDF stokers,

and spreader stoker/RDF mixed fuelfired combustors.

(2) For affected mass burn rotary

waterwall MWC’s, RDF stokers, and

spreader stoker/RDF mixed fuel-fired

combustors, compliance with the carbon

monoxide emission limits in § 60.56a(a)

shall be determined using a 24-hour

daily arithmetic average.

* * * * *

(6) * * *

(i) The owner or operator of an

affected facility with steam generation

capability shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a steam flow

meter or a feedwater flow meter;

measure steam or feedwater flow in

kilograms per hour (pounds per hour)

on a continuous basis; and record the

output of the monitor. Steam or

feedwater flow shall be calculated in 4-

hour block arithmetic averages.

(ii) The method included in

‘‘American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code

for Steam Generating Units, Power Test

Code 4.1—1964’’, Section 4

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17)

shall be used for calculating the steam

(or feedwater flow) required under

paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section. The

recommendations of ‘‘American Society

of Mechanical Engineers Interim

Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and

Apparatus: Application, Part II of Fluid

Meters, 6th edition (1971),’’ chapter 4

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17)

shall be followed for design,

construction, installation, calibration,

and use of nozzles and orifices except

as specified in (h)(6)(iii) of this section.

(iii) Measurement devices such as

flow nozzles and orifices are not

required to be recalibrated after they are

installed.

(iv) All signal conversion elements

associated with steam (or feedwater

flow) measurements must be calibrated

according to the manufacturer’s

instructions before each dioxin/furan

compliance and performance test, and at

least once per year.

* * * * *

(10) At a minimum, valid CEMS data

for carbon monoxide, steam or

feedwater flow, and particulate matter

control device inlet temperature shall be

obtained 75 percent of the hours per day

for 75 percent of the days per month the

affected facility is operated and

combusting MSW.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(3) [Reserved]

(4) The MWC unit capacity shall be

calculated using a design heating value

of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram (4,500

British thermal units per pound) for all

MSW.

* * * * *

§ 60.59a [Amended]

8. Section 60.59a is amended by

removing paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(14),

(b)(15), and (m), and removing the third

sentence of paragraph (e).

[FR Doc. 95–30254 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL–5327–5]

RIN 2060–AD00

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources and Emission

Guidelines for Existing Sources

Municipal Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action adds standards of

performance for new municipal waste

combustor (MWC) units and emission

guidelines for existing MWC’s. The

standards and guidelines implement

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act and are based on the

Administrator’s determination that

MWC’s cause, or contribute significantly

to, air pollution that may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health or

welfare. The standards and guidelines

apply to MWC units at plants with

aggregate capacities to combust greater

than 35 megagrams per day (Mg/day)

(approximately 40 tons per day) of

municipal solid waste (MSW) and

require sources to achieve emission

levels reflecting the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of air pollutants

that the Administrator determined is

achievable, taking into consideration the

cost of achieving such emission

reduction, and any non-air-quality

health and environmental impacts and

energy requirements. The promulgated

standards and guidelines establish

emission levels for MWC organics

(dioxins/furans), MWC metals

(cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg),

particulate matter (PM), and opacity),

MWC acid gases (hydrogen chloride

(HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)), nitrogen

oxides (NOX), and MWC fugitive ash

emissions. Some of the pollutants being

regulated are considered to be

carcinogens and at sufficient

concentrations can cause toxic effects

following exposure. The standards and

guidelines also establish requirements

for MWC operating practices (carbon

monoxide (CO), load, flue gas

temperature at the PM control device

inlet, and operator training/

certification). Additionally, the

standards for new MWC plants also

require a siting analysis and materials

separation plan.

DATES: Effective Dates. June 19, 1996 for

the standards for new sources (§§ 60.50b

through 60.59b) and December 19, 1995

for the emission guidelines for existing

sources (§§ 60.30b through 60.39b). The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the regulations is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of June 19, 1996 for the

standards for new sources. See table 3

of this preamble for a summary of the

retrofit schedules for existing MWC

sources. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for a discussion of the

schedule for judicial review.

Comments. Comments on the

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document associated with the final

standards for new sources are requested,

as discussed in section VI.B of this

preamble. Comments on the ICR

document must be received on or before

February 20, 1996. Refer to Section VI.B

for further information on this request

for comment.

ADDRESSES: Comments. As noted above,

comments on the ICR document
65388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

associated with the final standards for

new source are requested. See section

VI.B and the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble for

further information on obtaining a copy

of the ICR document and addresses for

submitting comments on the ICR

document.

Background Information. The

principal background information for

the final standards and guidelines

includes: (1) A background information

document (BID) entitled, ‘‘Municipal

Waste Combustion: Background

Information for Promulgated Standards

and Guidelines—Summary of Public

Comments and Responses’’ (EPA–453/

R–95–0136), which contains a summary

of all the significant public comments

submitted regarding the proposed

standards and guidelines, the EPA’s

response to these comments, and a

summary of the changes made to the

standards and guidelines as a result of

the comments; and (2) several technical

documents listed under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, including all of the

background information documents that

supported the proposal and

promulgation of the subpart Ea

standards and subpart Ca guidelines. A

document entitled ‘‘FACT SHEET: New

Municipal Waste Combustors—Subpart

Eb Standards,’’ which succinctly

summarizes the final standards, and a

document entitled ‘‘FACT SHEET:

Existing Municipal Waste Combustors—

Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines,’’

which succinctly summarizes the

guidelines, are also available. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

instructions and addresses for obtaining

these documents.

Docket. Docket Nos. A–90–45 and A–

89–08, containing supporting

information used in developing the

standards and guidelines, are available

for public inspection and copying

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday except for

Federal holidays at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Mail Code 6102),

401 M Street SW, Washington DC 20460

[phone: (202) 260–7548]. The docket is

located at the above address in room M–

1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor,

central mall). A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Walter Stevenson at (919) 541–5264 or

Mr. Fred Porter at (919) 541–5251,

Combustion Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information.

On December 20, 1989, the EPA

proposed standards and guidelines for

MWC’s in subparts Ea and Ca of 40 CFR

60, respectively. The subparts Ea and Ca

were promulgated on February 11, 1991

and were developed under authority of

paragraph (b) of section 111 of the Clean

Air Act of 1977. The 1990 Amendments

to the Clean Air Act required the EPA

to review these emission standards and

guidelines and determine if they were

fully consistent with the requirements

of section 129. The EPA reviewed the

subpart Ea standards and subpart Ca

guidelines and concluded that they

were not fully consistent with the

requirements of section 129. Therefore,

the EPA proposed to revise the

standards and guidelines in a September

20, 1994 proposal to make the standards

and guidelines fully consistent with the

requirements of section 129. Municipal

waste combustors that begin

construction after September 20, 1994 or

that begin modification or

reconstruction after June 19, 1996 and

that meet all other applicability criteria

are subject to the revised standards

(subpart Eb). Municipal waste

combustors that were constructed on or

before September 20, 1994 and that

meet all other applicability criteria are

subject to the revised guidelines

(subpart Cb). Municipal waste

combustors that were constructed after

December 20, 1989 and on or before

September 20, 1994 and that meet all

other applicability criteria are subject to

both the subpart Ea standards (1991

standards for new sources) and the

subpart Cb guidelines (1995 retrofit

guidelines for existing sources). In this

final rule, the EPA is withdrawing the

subpart Ca guidelines (1991 guidelines

for existing sources). In a separate action

in today’s Federal Register the EPA is

publishing a direct final rule amending

the text of subpart Ea.

This Federal Register final rule

discusses: (1) The standards for new

MWC’s, (2) the guidelines for existing

MWC’s, (3) the withdrawal of the 1991

subpart Ca guidelines for existing

MWC’s, and (4) a request for public

comment on the ICR document. This

preamble and regulatory text are

available on the EPA’s Technology

Transfer Network (TTN) electronic

bulletin board. Also available on the

EPA’s TTN are FACT SHEETS, which

summarize the final standards and

guidelines. They are suggested reading

for persons requiring an overview of the

standards and guidelines. The FACT

SHEETS can also be obtained by calling

Donna Collins at (919) 541–5578. The

TTN contains 18 electronic bulletin

boards, and the following 5 items are

included in the Clean Air Act

Amendments (CAAA) bulletin board

under menu item ‘‘Recently Signed

Rules’’ in file ‘‘MWC2.ZIP’’:

(1) ‘‘FACT SHEET: New Municipal

Waste Combustors—Subpart Eb

Standards (1995).’’

(2) ‘‘FACT SHEET: Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors—Subpart Cb

Emission Guidelines (1995).’’

(3) Federal Register notice for this

promulgation: ‘‘Standards of

Performance for New Stationary Sources

and Emission Guidelines for Existing

Sources: Municipal Waste Combustors’’

(this document).

(4) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustion:

Background Information for

Promulgated Standards and

Guidelines—Summary of Public

Comments and Responses,’’ EPA–453/

R–95–0136.

(5) Information Collection Request

document for these standards for new

sources: ‘‘Standard Form 83 Supporting

Statement for ICR No. 1506.5—1995

Standards for New Municipal Waste

Combustors (Subpart Eb),’’ September

29, 1995.

The TTN is accessible 24 hours per

day, 7 days per week except Monday

morning from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

when the system is updated. The service

is free except for the cost of the phone

call. Dial (919) 541–5742 to access the

TTN. The TTN is compatible with up to

a 14,400 bits-per-second (bps) modem.

An alternative way to access the TTN is

by ‘‘telenet,’’ using access code

‘‘ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov’’. Further

instructions for accessing the TTN can

be obtained by calling the help desk at

(919) 541–5384.

Documents in the Docket. The

background information for today’s

promulgation includes all of the

documents that supported the proposal

and promulgation of the subpart Ea

standards and subpart Ca guidelines

(docket No. A–90–45 and docket No. A–

89–08). Key background information

documents used in developing the

subpart Ea standards, the subpart Ca

guidelines, and today’s promulgated

standards and guidelines are as follows:

(1) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustors—

Background Information for Proposed

Standards: 111(b) Model Plant

Description and Cost Report,’’ EPA–450/

3–89–27b, August 1989;

(2) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustors—

Background Information for Proposed

Standards: Post-Combustion Technology

Performance,’’ EPA–450/3–89–27c,

August 1989;

(3) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustion

Assessment: Combustion Control at
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65389

Existing Facilities,’’ EPA–600/8–89–057,

August 1989;

(4) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustion

Assessment, Technical Basis for Good

Combustion Practices,’’ EPA–600/8–89–

063, August 1989;

(5) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustors—

Background Information for Proposed

Standards: Control of NOX Emissions,’’

EPA–450/3–89–27d, August 1989;

(6) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustors—

Background Information for Proposed

Standards: Cost Procedures,’’ EPA–450/

3–89–27a, August 1989;

(7) ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for

Proposed Emission Standards and

Guidelines for Municipal Waste

Combustors,’’ EPA–450/3–91–029,

March 1994;

(8) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustors—

Background Information for Proposed

Guidelines for Existing Facilities,’’

EPA–450/3–89–27e, August 1989;

(9) ‘‘Municipal Waste Combustion:

Background Information for

Promulgated Standards and

Guidelines—Summary of Public

Comments and Responses,’’ EPA–453/

R–95–0136, 1995.

These documents and additional

technical information are contained in

dockets A–90–45 and A–89–08. Docket

materials are available for inspection

and copying as described in the

ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

Judicial Review. Under section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, judicial

review of the actions taken by this

notice is available by filing of a petition

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

within 60 days of today’s publication of

this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Clean Air Act, the requirements that are

in today’s notice may not be challenged

later in the civil or criminal proceedings

brought by the EPA to enforce these

requirements (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)).

Preamble Outline. The following

outline is provided to aid in locating

information in the introductory text

(preamble) to the final standards and

guidelines.

I. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and

Measurement Units

A. Acronyms

B. Abbreviations and Measurement Units

II. Background and Withdrawal of the 1991

Subpart Ca Emission Guidelines

III. Summary of Considerations in

Developing the 1995 Standards for New

Sources and Guidelines for Existing Sources

A. Purpose of the Standards and Guidelines

B. Technical Basis of the Standards and

Guidelines

C. Stakeholders and Public Involvement

IV. Standards of Performance for New

Sources (1995)—Summary of the Standards,

Impacts of the Standards, and Significant

Issues and Changes to the Proposed

Standards

A. Summary of the Standards

B. Significant Issues and Changes to the

Proposed Standards

1. Applicability

2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals, Acid

Gases, Organics, Nitrogen Oxides, and

Ash Fugitive Emissions

3. Good Combustion Practices

4. Operator Training and Certification

5. Air Curtain Incinerators

6. Siting Analysis/Materials Separation

Plan

7. Compliance and Performance Testing

8. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

C. Impacts of the Standards

V. Guidelines for Existing Sources (1995)—

Summary of the Guidelines, Impacts of the

Guidelines, and Significant Issues and

Changes to the Proposed Guidelines

A. Summary of the Guidelines

B. Significant Issues and Changes to the

Proposed Guidelines

1. Designated Facilities

2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals, Acid

Gases, Organics, Nitrogen Oxides, and

Fugitive Ash Emissions

3. Good Combustion Practices

4. Operator Training and Certification

5. Air Curtain Incinerators

6. Compliance and Performance Testing

7. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements and Compliance

Schedules

C. Impacts of the Guidelines

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

E. Executive Order 12875

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements

I. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and

Measurement Units

The following definitions, acronyms,

and measurement units are provided to

clarify the preamble to the final

standards and guidelines.

A. Acronyms

ASME American Society of Mechanical

Engineers

BID Background Information Document

CEMS continuous emissions

monitoring system(s)

COMS continuous opacity monitoring

system(s) dioxins/furans

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins

and polychlorinated dibenzofurans

DSI dry sorbent injection

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

ESP electrostatic precipitator

FF fabric filter

GCP good combustion practices

ICR information collection request

MACT maximum achievable control

technology

MSW municipal solid waste

MWC municipal waste combustor

MWI medical waste incinerator

NSR New Source Review

NOX nitrogen oxides

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning

Standards

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PM particulate matter

RDF refuse-derived fuel

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SD spray dryer

SNCR selective noncatalytic reduction

TEQ basis 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated

dibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent

based on the 1989 international

toxic equivalency factors

B. Abbreviations and Measurement

Units

°C=degrees Celsius (degrees

Fahrenheit=°C*9/5+32)

Cd=cadmium

CO=carbon monoxide

CO2=carbon dioxide

dscf=dry standard cubic feet (at 14.7

pounds per square inch, 68 °F)

dscm=dry standard cubic meters (at 14

pounds per square inch, 68 °F)

g=gram (454 grams per pound)

g/yr=grams per year

gr=grains (7,000 grains per pound)

HCl=hydrogen chloride

Hg=mercury

kg=kilogram (0.454 kilograms per

pound)

kg/yr=kilograms per year

m3=cubic meter (35.3 cubic feet per

cubic meter)

mg=milligrams (10-3 grams)

Mg=megagram (1.1 tons)

Mg/d=megagrams per day

Mg/yr=megagrams per year

ng=nanogram (10-9 grams)

Pb=lead

ppmv=parts per million by volume

SO2=sulfur dioxide

tons/d=tons per day

tons/yr=tons per year

total mass basis (dioxins/furans=total

mass of tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and

dibzofurans

II. Background and Withdrawal of the

1991 Subpart Ca Emission Guidelines

By the mid-1980’s, several studies had

been performed to determine whether

MWC emissions should be regulated

and, if so, under what section of the

Clean Air Act. As set forth in the

Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (52 FR 25399, July 7, 1987),

the EPA decided to regulate air

emissions from MWC’s under section

111 of the Clean Air Act, and to base the
65390 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

regulation on best demonstrated

technology, as required by section 111.

On December 20, 1989, the EPA

proposed standards for new MWC’s and

guidelines for existing MWC’s (54 FR

52251 and 54 FR 52209, respectively).

On November 15, 1990, 1990

Amendments to the Clean Air Act were

enacted and added section 129 to the

Clean Air Act. Section 129 of the Clean

Air Act specifies that revised standards

and guidelines must be developed for

MWC’s in accordance with the

requirements of both section 111 and

new section 129. Section 129 further

specifies that revised standards and

guidelines be developed for both large

and small MWC plants and that the

revised standards and guidelines must

reflect more restrictive performance

levels. Section 129 includes a schedule

for revising the 1991 standards and

guidelines.

When the EPA did not comply with

the section 129 schedule, the Sierra

Club, the Natural Resources Defense

Council, and the Integrated Waste

Services Association filed complaints

with the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of New York. The

resulting consent decree required the

EPA Administrator to sign a notice of

proposed rulemaking not later than

September 1, 1994 and a notice of

promulgation not later than October 31,

1995 (Nos. CV–92–2093, CV–93–0284,

and CV–93–5144). The proposal notice

for the standards and guidelines was

signed as scheduled and published on

September 20, 1994 (59 FR 48198 and

59 FR 48228, respectively). This notice

responds to the requirement for the

Administrator to sign the final standards

and guidelines by October 31, 1995.

The standards and guidelines

promulgated on February 11, 1991 (56

FR 5488 and 56 FR 5514, respectively)

apply to only large MWC’s (capacities

above 225 Mg/day) and reflect best

demonstrated technology. Today’s

notice promulgates revised standards

and guidelines that are fully consistent

with sections 111 and 129 of the Clean

Air Act and extend coverage of the

revised standards and guidelines to

MWC units located at MWC plants with

aggregate plant capacity above 35 Mg/

day.

Today’s promulgated standards for

new sources are more stringent than the

standards promulgated on February 11,

1991. Today’s promulgated standards

will apply to plants for which

construction commenced after

September 20, 1994 or for which

reconstruction or modification

commenced after June 19, 1996. The

guidelines will apply to all MWC’s

constructed prior to September 20,

1994. The February 11, 1991 subpart Ea

standards will remain in effect for

plants constructed, modified, or

reconstructed between December 20,

1989 and September 20, 1994. Sources

subject to the February 11, 1991 subpart

Ea standards are also subject to the

guidelines being promulgated today

under subpart Cb. In some cases, the

promulgated subpart Cb guidelines are

more stringent than the existing subpart

Ea standards. The control technologies

being used to meet the emission limits

included in the 1991 subpart Ea

standards will be able to comply with

the promulgated subpart Cb guidelines,

except supplemental controls would be

required to reduce Hg emissions and

fugitive ash emissions. The direct final

rule also being published in today’s

Federal Register will provide

consistency between the subpart Ea and

Cb rules.

Today’s promulgated guidelines

under subpart Cb for existing sources

are more stringent than the guidelines

promulgated under subpart Ca on

February 11, 1991. Today’s promulgated

guidelines will apply to MWC’s for

which construction commenced on or

before September 20, 1994. Today’s

promulgated guidelines are based on

maximum achievable control

technology, or MACT, and will require

MWC plants to purchase and install

different types of air pollution control

equipment than the best demonstrated

technology-based guidelines

promulgated in 1991 under subpart Ca.

In consideration of public comments,

which supported the withdrawal of

subpart Ca, and to satisfy the MACT

requirements of section 129 of the Clean

Air Act, the EPA is withdrawing the

1991 subpart Ca guidelines as a part of

today’s action.

III. Summary of Considerations in

Developing the 1995 Standards for New

Sources and Guidelines for Existing

Sources

A. Purpose of the Standards and

Guidelines

Under sections 111 and 129 of the

Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to

develop and adopt performance

standards and guidelines for MWC’s.

Congress specifically added section 129

to the Clean Air Act to address public

concerns about MWC’s and other solid

waste combustion units. Under section

111, performance standards and

guidelines must be developed for new

and existing stationary sources that may

contribute to air pollution and that may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger

public health or welfare. Under section

129 of the Clean Air Act, the standards

and guidelines adopted for MWC’s must

be based on MACT.

Independent of Clean Air Act

requirements, the general public is

concerned about emissions from all

sources including MWC’s. This is

understandable considering (1) about

two-thirds of the MWC population is

located in air quality nonattainment

areas with high population densities,

and (2) the EPA’s 1994 MWC Dioxin

Survey identified a limited number of

older poorly controlled MWC’s with

atypically high dioxin/furan emissions

(interim corrective actions have been

taken at these MWC’s).

The MWC industry has aggressively

controlled new MWC plants built since

1990, and almost half of the existing

population currently is equipped with

high efficiency air pollution control

equipment. The other older half of the

population has control equipment with

lower efficiency. As mentioned earlier,

health effects are associated with many

of the pollutants emitted from MWC’s,

and the standards and guidelines being

promulgated today will bring all MWC

units up to the same high performance

level.

The EPA estimates that in the United

States, there are about 307 operating

MWC units at 128 plants, providing a

total U.S. MSW combustion capacity of

about 94,000 Mg/day. Approximately 16

percent of MSW generated in the United

States is combusted.

Emissions from MWC’s contain

organics (dioxins/furans), metals (Cd,

Pb, Hg, PM, and opacity), acid gases

(Hcl and SO2), and NOX. These

pollutants can have adverse effects on

both public health and welfare. The

EPA recently released a draft report

reassessing the health effects of human

exposure to dioxins/furans. In the draft

report, which is currently undergoing

review, MWC’s are identified as one

source of dioxin/furan emissions. Other

MWC emissions of principal concern

include Pb, Cd, and Hg. Acid gas and

NOX emissions contribute to acid rain

when emissions of SO2 and NOX are

chemically transformed in the

atmosphere into sulfuric and nitric

acids and return to earth as wet

deposition such as rain, fog, or snow, or

as dry deposition such as fine particles

or gases. Acid deposition damages lakes

and harms forests and buildings.

Nitrogen oxides also contribute to lowlevel ozone and urban area smog

formation.

Today’s standards and guidelines are

set forth as emission limits and will

significantly reduce MWC emissions.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65391

B. Technical Basis of Standards and

Guidelines

Section 129(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act

requires the revised standards for new

MWC’s and revised guidelines for

existing MWC’s to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions of

designated air pollutants, taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-airquality health and environmental

impacts and energy requirements that

the Administrator determines are

achievable for a particular category of

sources. (This control level is commonly

referred to as the ‘‘maximum achievable

control technology, or ‘‘MACT’’.)

Section 129 also provides that standards

for new sources may not be less

stringent than the emissions control

achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar unit. This is

commonly referred to as the ‘‘MACT

floor’’ for new MWC units.

Additionally, section 129 provides that

the emission limitations in the

guidelines for existing MWC’s may not

be less stringent than the average

emission limitations achieved by the

best performing 12 percent of units in

the category. This is commonly referred

to as the ‘‘MACT floor’’ for existing

MWC units. Emission control options

less stringent than the MACT floor can

not be considered in developing section

129 standards and guidelines.

Technical data on the number and

size of MWC’s, control technologies in

use, permit emission limits, and

emission test data were used to

determine the MACT floor for new and

existing MWC’s and to define control

alternatives. The types of data EPA

considered in selecting final standards

and guidelines included the following:

(1) Over 100 MWC plant-specific

questionnaires; (2) emissions

information from literature, and State

and local agencies; and (3) EPA and

industry test reports. Overall, the EPA

used performance test data from over 60

MWC plants to develop the standards

and guidelines. After proposal, the EPA

reviewed additional data submitted

with public comments on the proposal

and data that EPA gathered from States

and industry. Based on the new

information, the EPA reviewed both the

proposed MACT determinations for new

and existing MWC’s and the regulatory

alternatives. The reassessment of the

standards and guidelines in light of the

new data resulted in the EPA revising

the MACT emission rates for some

pollutants.

The most significant changes to the

standards and guidelines since proposal

are summarized in sections IV.B and

V.B., respectively, of this preamble. The

rationales for these changes as well as

other changes are summarized in the

preamble and discussed in more detail

in the BID. In keeping with the

Administrator’s ‘‘reinventing

government’’ initiative, several of the

changes to the guidelines and standards

were made to streamline the regulations

and provide increased flexibility while

optimizing environmental control by

using common sense initiatives.

Examples of these changes include the

following: (1) Reduced dioxin/furan

testing for MWC plants with low dioxin/

furan emission levels; (2) NOX

guidelines for large MWC plants that

allow plants to use an emissions

averaging plan to demonstrate

compliance for two or more existing

MWC units located at the same facility;

(3) clarification of siting requirements

for new MWC’s; (4) providing additional

time for MWC operators to obtain

operator training and certification; (5)

replacing quarterly reporting with

annual reporting (semiannual reporting

if noncompliance); (6) revised text to

clarify that the regulations do not apply

to MWC plants with combustion

capacity less than 35 Mg/day; (7)

exemption for plants firing small

amounts of MSW (10 Mg/day or less);

(8) exemption for combustion of clean

wood; and (9) allowing certain records

to be maintained in either electronic or

paper format without duplication. All of

these changes are discussed further in

sections IV and V of this preamble, and

represent changes that improve the

effectiveness and efficiency of the

standards and guidelines without any

reduction in environmental protection.

C. Stakeholders and Public Involvement

Prior to proposal, in accordance with

section 117 of the Clean Air Act, the

EPA consulated with advisory

committees, independent experts,

Federal departments and agencies, and

owners, operators, and manufacturers of

MWC’s. Numerous discussions were

held with governmental entities,

industry representatives, and

environmental groups including, but not

limited to, the following groups: the

U.S. Conference of Majors, the National

League of Cities, the National

Association of Counties, the Municipal

Waste Management Association, the

Solid Waste Association of North

America, the Integrated Waste Services

Association, the Sierra Club, and the

Natural Resources Defense Council.

The standards and guidelines being

adopted today were proposed in the

Federal Register on September 20, 1994

(59 FR 48198 and 59 FR 48228,

respectively). The preambles for the

proposed standards and guidelines

describe the rationale for the proposed

standards and guidelines. After

proposal, the EPA provided interested

persons the opportunity to comment

through a written comment period. The

public comment period was from

September 20, 1994 to November 21,

1994. Comments were received from

private citizens, industry

representatives, environmental groups,

and governmental entities. The

comments have been carefully

considered, and changes have been

made in the standards and guidelines

where appropriate. Sections IV and V of

this preamble discuss the major

revisions to the standards and

guidelines to address the commenters’

concerns.

IV. Standards of Performance for New

Sources (1995)—Summary of the

Standards, Impacts of the Standards,

and Significant Issues and Changes to

the Proposed Standards

This section presents a summary of

the final standards, including

identification of the source category and

pollutants being regulated, and

presentation of the final emission limits

and their associated performance

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and

reporting requirements. This section

also discusses the most significant

changes to the proposed standards. Also

discussed are the impacts of the final

standards.

A. Summary of the Standards

The final standards (subpart Eb) apply

to each new MWC unit located at an

MWC facility that has an aggregate plant

capacity to combust over 35 Mg/day of

MSW, for which construction

commenced after September 20, 1994 or

modification or reconstruction

commenced after June 19, 1996.

Municipal waste combustors that

commenced construction on or before

September 20, 1994 are not covered

under the subpart Eb standards.

Municipal waste combustors

constructed on or before September 20,

1994 are considered existing sources

and are subject to the guidelines that are

addressed in section V of this notice.

An MWC is defined as any setting or

equipment that combusts MSW

including air curtain incinerators.

Municipal solid waste combustion

includes the direct combustion of MSW

or the combustion of MSW gases from

pyrolysis or gasification. The MWC unit

includes any type of setting or

equipment including combustion

equipment with or without heat

recovery.
65392 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Municipal solid waste is defined as a

mixture or a single-item waste stream of

household, commercial, and/or

institutional discards. This would

include materials such as paper, yard

waste, plastics, leather, rubber, glass,

metals, and other combustible and

noncombustible materials. The final

MSW definition is revised slightly from

proposal to make it clear that MSW does

not include used motor oil; sewage

sludge; wood pallets; construction,

renovation, and demolition wastes

(including but not limited to railroad

ties and telephone poles); clean wood;

industrial process or manufacturing

wastes; medical waste; or motor

vehicles. Although these wastes are not

MSW, they can be intermixed with

MSW and can be combusted in MWC

plants. The regulations do not prohibit

their combustion. The definition of

MSW includes RDF, which is municipal

solid waste that is shredded (or

pelletized) before combustion. Any

medical, industrial, or other type of

waste combustor plant with capability

to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of

MSW and is in compliance with a

federally enforceable permit to combust

less than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not

covered by this standard. Furthermore,

cofired MWC plants that combust less

than 30 percent MSW (on a calendar

quarter basis) are exempt. A summary of

the final standards is presented in table

1. In table 1, significant revisions made

since proposal are marked with an

asterisk (*) and are discussed in section

IV.B.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF STANDARDS FOR NEW MWC’S (SUBPART EB)a

[* indicates a significant change since proposal and the change is discussed in this preamble]

Applicability

The final standards apply to new MWC units located at plants with capacities to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of residential, commercial, and/or institutional discards. Industrial manufacturing discards

are not covered by the standards. Any medical, industrial manufacturing, municipal, or other type of waste combustor plant with capacity to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of MSW and with a federally

enforceable permit to combust less than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not

covered.*

Plant Size (MSW combustion capacity) Requirement.

≤35 Mg/day* ............................................................................................. Not covered by standards.

>Mg/day but ≤225 Mg/day (referred to as small MWC plants) ................ Subject to provisions listed below.

>225 Mg/day (referred to as large MWC plants) ..................................... Subject to provisions listed below.

Good Combustion Practices

• Applies to large and small MWC plants.

• A site-specific operator training manual is required to be developed and made available for MWC personnel.

• The EPA or State MWC operator training course must be completed by the MWC chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room

operators.

• The ASME (or State-equivalent) operator certification must be obtained by the MWC chief facility operator (mandatory), shift supervisors

(mandatory), and control room operators (optional).*

• The MWC load level is required to be measured and not to exceed 110 percent of the maximum load level measured during the most recent

dioxin/furan performance test.

• The PM control device inlet flue gas temperature is required to be measured and not to exceed the temperature 17 °C above the maximum

temperature measured during the most recent dioxin/furan performance test.

• The CO level is required to be measured using CEMS, and the concentration in the flue gas is required not to exceed the following:

MWC type CO level Averaging

time (hours)

Modular starved-air and excess-air ............................................................................................................................... 50 ppmv ....... 4

Mass burn waterwall and refractory .............................................................................................................................. 100 ppmv ..... 4

Mass burn rotary refractory ........................................................................................................................................... 100 ppmv ..... 4

Fluidized-bed combustion ............................................................................................................................................. 100 ppmv ..... 4

Pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired ............................................................................................................................ 150 ppmv* ... 4

Spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired ................................................................................................................... 150 ppmv* ... 24

RDF stoker .................................................................................................................................................................... 150 ppmv ..... 24

Mass burn rotary waterwall ........................................................................................................................................... 100 ppmv ..... 24

MWC Organic Emissions (measured as total mass dioxins/furans):

• Dioxins/furans (performance test by EPA Reference Method 23)

Large and small MWC plants ........................................................................................................................................ 13 ng/dscm

total mass

(mandatory) or 7

ng/dscm

total mass

(optional to

qualify for

less frequent testing).*b.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65393

MWC type CO level Averaging

time (hours)

• Basis for dioxin/furan limit GCP and SD/

FF/carbon

injection.

MWC Metal Emissions:

• PM (performance test by EPA Reference Method 5)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 24 mg/dscm

(0.010 gr/

dscf).*

• Opacity (performance test by EPA Reference Method 9)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 10 percent

(6-minute

average)

• Cd (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 0.020 mg/

dscm (8.7

gr/million

dscf).*

• Pb (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 0.20 mg/

dscm (87

gr/million

dscf).*

• Hg (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 0.080 mg/

dscm (35

gr/million

dscf) or 85-

percent reduction in

Hg emissions

• Basis for PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and Hg limits

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... See basis for

dioxin/furan

limit

MWC Acid Gas Emissions:

• SO2 (performance test by CEMS)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 30 ppmv or

80-percent

reduction in

SO2 emissions

• HCl (performance test by EPA Reference Method 26)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... 25 ppmv or

95-percent

reduction in

HCl emissions

• Basis for SO2 and HCl limits See basis for

dioxin/furan

limit..

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions:

• NOx (performance test by CEMS)

Large MWC plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 150 ppmv,

except 180

ppmv is allowed for

the first

year of operation.*

Small MWC plants ..................................................................................................................................................... No NOX control requirement

• Basis for NOX limit

Large MWC plants ..................................................................................................................................................... SNCR

Small MWC plants ..................................................................................................................................................... No NOX control requirement.
65394 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

MWC type CO level Averaging

time (hours)

Fugitive Ash Emissions:

• Fugitive emissions (performance test by EPA Reference Method 22)

Large and small MWC plants .................................................................................................................................... Visible emissions less

than 5 percent of the

time from

the ash

transfer

system except during

maintenance and

repair activities.*.

• Basis for fugitive emissions limit ............................................................................................................................ Wet ash handling or enclosed ash

handling.

Siting Requirements:

• Large and small MWC plants ................................................................................................................................ (1) Siting

analysis*,

(2) materials separation plan,

and (3)

public

meetings

(including

response

to comments)

Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements:

• Reporting frequency ............................................................................................................................................... Annual (semiannual if

violation).*

• Load, flue gas temperature .................................................................................................................................... Continuous

monitoring,

4-hour

block arithmetic average.

• CO .......................................................................................................................................................................... CEMS, 4-

hour block

or 24-hour

daily arithmetic average, as applicable.

• Dioxins/furans, PM, Cd, Pb, HC1, and Hg

Large MWC plants ..................................................................................................................................................... Annual stack

test (see

reduced

testing option for low

emitters of

dioxins/

furans).*

Small MWC plants ..................................................................................................................................................... Annual or

third year

stack test.*

• Opacity ................................................................................................................................................................... COMS (6-

minute average) and

annual

stack test.

• SO2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... CEMS, 24-

hour daily

geometric

mean.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65395

MWC type CO level Averaging

time (hours)

• NOX (large MWC plants only) ................................................................................................................................ CEMS, 24-

hour daily

arithmetic

average.

• Fugitive ash emissions ........................................................................................................................................... Annual test.

*=a significant change since proposal, and the change is discussed in this preamble.

aAll concentration levels in the table are corrected to 7 percent O2, dry basis. bAlthough not part of the dioxin/furan limit, the limit of 13 ng/dscm total mass is equal to about 0.1 to 0.3 ng/dscm TEQ. The optional reduced

testing limit of 7 ng/dscm total mass is equal to about 0.1 to 0.2 ng/dscm TEQ.

B. Significant Issues and Changes to

the Proposed Standards (Issues were

marked with the ‘‘*’’ symbol in table 1)

The most significant changes to the

standards since proposal are discussed

below. Additional rationales for these

changes, as well as other changes being

made are provided in the promulgation

BID (EPA–453/R–95–0136). Some of the

changes made that are not discussed

below include GCP requirements,

monitoring requirements, and reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

1. Applicability

At proposal, an MWC plant of 35 Mg/

day capacity that cofired 30 percent (10

Mg/day) or less MSW would have been

exempt from the standards. This 30

percent cofiring provision was retained

in the final rule. Additionally, a 10 Mg/

day exemption has been added to the

final rule to exempt all combustion

units independent of size that fire only

a small amount of MSW. In the final

standards, any medical, industrial

manufacturing, or other type of waste

combustor capable of combusting more

than 35 Mg/day MSW but actually

combusting less than 10 Mg/day of

MSW is not subject to this rule,

provided it submits an initial report

containing a copy of the plant’s

federally enforceable permit limiting the

amount of MSW that may be combusted

by the plant to less than 10 Mg/day and

keeps records on the daily weight of

MSW fired.

At proposal, a cofired combustor was

defined as a unit combusting a fuel feed

stream where 30 percent or less was

comprised of MSW, as measured on a

24-hour daily basis. Several commenters

expressed concern about a cofired status

determination being made on a daily

basis. For example, some facilities that

burn biomass material including yard

waste would have difficulty making a

determination of cofired status on a

daily basis. Biomass material including

yard waste (which is MSW) and clean

wood (which is not MSW) are often

collected together and stored on- or offsite for a period of time and intermixed

before being combusted. In such cases,

it is difficult or impossible to determine

what percentage of the waste combusted

daily was yard waste. After considering

the public comments, the EPA

determined that the definition of cofired

combustor should be revised to allow

for measuring the percent MSW burned

on a calendar quarterly basis. This

change is consistent with current waste

refuse storage and recordkeeping

procedures.

Also under the proposal, MWC plants

of 25 to 35 Mg/day capacity were

required to submit an initial notification

of construction, but they were not

subject to the proposed standards or

guidelines. Only MWC plants greater

than 35 Mg/day capacity were covered

by the proposal. As part of the

Administrator’s ‘‘reinventing

government’’ initiative, the initial

notification requirement for MWC

plants between 25 and 35 Mg/day

capacity was removed from the final

rule to minimize the reporting

requirement for smaller plants. This

change reduced reporting and

recordkeeping requirements for both the

MWC and the EPA, but did not reduce

the level of environmental protection

provided by the standards and

guidelines being adopted today.

Under the proposed standards, clean

wood was included in the definition of

MSW. Several commenters disagreed

with this decision to cover clean wood

under the MWC standards. Under the

final rule, clean wood is not considered

to be MSW. Clean wood includes

untreated wood or untreated wood

products including clean untreated

lumber, tree stumps (whole or chipped),

and tree limbs (whole or chipped).

Clean wood is exempt from the

definition of MSW because available

data indicate that combustion of clean

wood results in low emission of

dioxins/furans, Hg, and other

pollutants. Clean wood is

predominantly an agricultural,

industrial, or other nonmunicipal solid

waste; regulation of the combustion of

these types of wastes is currently being

addressed under a separate rulemaking.

Clean wood does not include yard

waste, which is covered by the final

MWC standards; yard waste includes

grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs,

and clippings from bushes and shrubs

that are generated by residential,

commercial/retail, institutional, or

nonmanufacturing industrial sources as

part of maintenance activities associated

with yards or other private or public

lands.

2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals,

Acid Gases, Organics, Nitrogen Oxides,

and Ash Fugitive Emissions

Many commenters expressed concern

as to whether the proposed emission

limits for all regulated pollutants are

actually achievable by an MWC. These

commenters noted that no single MWC

existed with all the controls proposed as

MACT (SD/FF/SNCR and carbon

injection) and the standards may not be

achievable. Since proposal, the EPA has

obtained data from 12 new MWC units

at 5 MWC plants that have recently

begun operation and all are equipped

with the full set of controls proposed as

MACT (SD/FF/SNCR and carbon

injection). Data from these plants show

that all proposed emission limits for all

pollutants are simultaneously being

achieved. Therefore, the EPA remains

convinced that properly designed,

constructed, maintained, and operated

MWC plants can comply with all

pollutant emission limits included in

the final standards.

For new sources, the MACT floor for

each regulated pollutant was established

as the emission level achievable by the

best controlled source. To determine

new source MACT for proposal, the EPA

evaluated the performance of SD/FF/

SNCR/carbon injection. Since proposal,

the EPA obtained additional

information regarding the performance

of the control technologies determined

to be MACT (SD/FF/SNCR/carbon

injection). Based on the new

information and a reevaluation of the

data used for proposal, the EPA revised

the achievable performance levels for

PM, Cd, Pb, Hg, dioxins/furans, and

NOX. Changes to the MACT floor levels

and the selected MACT standards

resulting from these reevaluations are

discussed below.
65396 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

a. MWC Acid Gases. The MACT floor

levels and selected MACT emission

limits for MWC acid gases are the same

as proposed.

b. MWC Metals. Based on comments

and data received since proposal, the

EPA reassessed the achievable

performance levels for PM, Cd, and Pb

by SD/FF systems. Based on this

reassessment of available data, the

selected PM, Cd, and Pb MACT

emission limits were revised. For both

large and small plants, the PM MACT

floor and selected MACT limit were

revised to 24 mg/dscm (proposal was 15

mg/dscm). The Cd MACT floor and

selected MACT limit were revised to

0.020 mg/dscm (proposal was 0.010 mg/

dscm). The Pb MACT floor and selected

MACT limit were revised to 0.20 mg/

dscm (proposal was 0.10 mg/dscm). The

selected MACT limits for all three

pollutants were revised because, based

on available data, emission levels more

stringent than these levels are not

considered to be continuously

achievable.

The final MACT limits for Hg

emissions for large and small plants

remain at the same levels as proposed

(0.080 mg/dscm or an 85 percent

reduction in Hg emissions); however,

the MACT floor level was revised. At

proposal, the MACT floor for Hg was

based on use of an SD/FF system

combined with GCP. Carbon injection

was not commercially operational at any

MWC. At proposal, MACT for Hg was

based on use of an SD/FF system in

combination with carbon injection. This

MACT selection was based on

evaluation of emission reductions, costs,

and other factors, as described in the

proposal preamble (59 FR 48198,

September 20, 1994). Several

commenters questioned the selection of

an Hg MACT limit based on carbon

injection when carbon injection was not

commercially operated. Since proposal,

data have become available for 12 new

MWC units initiating operation using

carbon injection commercially, and all

were meeting the proposed Hg limits.

Since carbon injection is now in

commercial operation, the EPA revised

the final MACT floor for Hg to be based

on SD/FF in combination with carbon

injection and GCP.

c. MWC Organics. The final emission

limits for dioxins/furans for new MWC’s

remain at the same level as proposed;

however, the technology basis for the

floor level of control has been changed.

As discussed in section IV.B.2.b

regarding MWC metals (Hg), the EPA

reviewed new data received since

proposal and concluded that SD/FF

combined with GCP and carbon

injection is the best emission control

technology being used by MWC’s for Hg

and dioxin/furan control, and is,

therefore, the basis of the final MACT

floor. The data gathered prior to

proposal as well as data for new units

operating with these controls show that

a dioxin/furan level of 13 ng/dscm is

achievable. The final MACT emission

limit for dioxins/furans for new units at

both large and small plants is equal to

the MACT floor and remains at 13 ng/

dscm (total mass basis).

The format of the final dioxin/furan

emission limit changed from the

proposed format. The EPA proposed a

dual format for the dioxin/furan

emission limit (total or TEQ) and

requested comments on the use of this

dual format. No commenters agreed

with the dual format as proposed. The

EPA has selected total mass dioxin/

furan emissions in the final standards.

The TEQ format is not used. There is no

indication that TEQ’s would be a better

measure of emissions control

performance than total dioxins/furans.

Furthermore, most test data on which

the standards are based were expressed

as total dioxins/furans. Additionally,

because there have been different

methods for calculating TEQ over time

and the ratio of total dioxins/furans to

TEQ dioxins/furans varies among

MWC’s, there would be additional

uncertainty in using a TEQ data base.

Refer to the promulgation preamble (56

FR 5504) for the 1991 subpart Ea

standards for additional discussion.

Although not part of the dioxin/furan

limit, the limit of 13 ng/dscm total mass

is equal to about 0.1 to 0.3 ng/dscm

TEQ.

In addition to the final dioxin/furan

limit of 13 ng/dscm, a provision has

been added to the final standards

allowing less frequent dioxin/furan

testing for new plants achieving dioxin/

furan emission levels lower than 7 ng/

dscm. Data for new MWC’s using SD/

FF/SNCR/carbon injection technology

suggest this is a realistic goal for many

new MWC’s and will encourage MWC’s

to optimize performance of pollution

control systems. Refer to section IV.B.7

for a description of the alternative

dioxin/furan testing schedule.

d. Nitrogen Oxides. As explained at

proposal (59 FR 48198, September 20,

1994), the combination of SD/FF, GCP,

and SNCR was the basis of the new

source MACT floor for NOX. These

technologies remain the basis for the

final NOX MACT floor. Since proposal,

the EPA has obtained additional NOX

data showing that large MWC plants

equipped with SNCR can continuously

achieve an emission level of 150 ppmv

over a 24-hour averaging period. The

new data were obtained from the same

plant that was the basis of the proposed

NOX emission level of 180 ppmv. The

new data are representative of what

NOX emission level can be achieved

after a plant has had a period of time to

adjust to operation with the SNCR

system. Applications of SNCR typically

require some site-specific fine-tuning to

achieve optimum performance levels.

Based on the revised data, a two-phase

standard is being adopted. The final

NOX standard for MWC’s at large plants

allows time to ‘‘fine-tune’’ the SNCR

system. The final standard for MWC’s at

large plants is 180 ppmv (24-hour

averaging period) for the first year of

operation, and 150 ppmv (24-hour

averaging period) thereafter.

The final standards do not require

NOX control for MWC’s at small plants.

e. MWC Fugitive Ash Emissions. The

proposed fugitive ash emission limit

allowed no visible emissions from ash

handling and transfer points. Several

commenters objected to the proposed

level of no visible emissions. The

commenters were concerned that even

where the best ash management

practices such as wetting the ash or

enclosing transfer systems, there may be

short periods of time when visible

emissions are observed, such as during

maintenance. The proposal was based

on about 16 hours of method 22 visible

emissions data for ash handling

practices at two MWC plants and

observations (not using method 22) at

two additional MWC plants. Since

proposal, the EPA has reviewed visible

emission data from other industries that

use similar transfer systems. Based on

comments received and the review of

additional data, the final fugitive ash

emission limit was revised to limit

visible emissions to no more than 5

percent of the time.

As part of the final fugitive ash

emission requirements, an exemption

has been provided during maintenance

and repair activities, because these

necessary activities may require opening

of an enclosure that could generate

short-term visible emissions.

3. Good Combustion Practices

The proposed standards included CO

limits for nine categories of combustor

technologies, including, among others,

RDF stoker combustors and coal/RDF

mixed fuel-fired combustors.

Commenters requested clarification on

which CO limit applies to a stoker unit

that is designed to combust coal and

RDF but only combusts RDF. Under the

final standards, a spreader stoker unit

burning RDF only or cofiring RDF with

coal would be subject to the proposed

RDF stoker CO limit. To clarify this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65397

requirement, the final CO requirements

include an additional category of

combustor technology referred to as

‘‘spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuelfired combustors,’’ which are assigned

the same CO limit and averaging time as

RDF stoker combustors (150 ppmv, 24-

hour averaging time). The final

standards further clarify that the

category of combustors referred to in the

proposed standards as coal/RDF mixed

fuel-fired combustors only includes

pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel

streams, and the CO limit and averaging

time remains the same as proposed (150

ppmv, 4-hour averaging time).

4. Operator Training and Certification

The proposed standards required full

ASME certification of chief facility

operators and shift supervisors within 6

months of startup of an affected MWC.

Various commenters including ASME

pointed out that the proposed standards

did not include sufficient time for

ASME to conduct full certification

exams for all MWC operators. After

considering these comments, the EPA

revised the operator training

requirements to allow additional time

for ASME (or State) certification exams.

In the final standards, chief facility

operators and shift supervisors at new

MWC plants must obtain ASME or

State-approved provisional certification

within 1 year after promulgation or 6

months after startup, whichever is later.

In addition, by this same date (1 year

after promulgation or 6 months after

startup, whichever is later), the same

personnel must be either fully certified

or scheduled with ASME or the State to

take a full certification exam (instead of

actually obtaining full certification

within 1 year, as proposed).

5. Air Curtain Incinerators

No changes were made to the

proposed standards for air curtain

incinerators. As discussed above in

section IV.B.1, the final standards do

not cover combustion of clean wood;

therefore, air curtain incinerators

combusting only clean wood are not

covered by the standards.

6. Siting Analysis/Materials Separation

Plan

Various commenters said the

proposed siting analysis was not

consistent with section 129 of the Clean

Air Act. Commenters also argued that

the proposed siting requirements were

either too stringent or not stringent

enough. The siting analysis in the final

rule has been reworded to allow for a

consideration of alternatives, on a sitespecific basis, to minimize to the

maximum extent practicable potential

risks to the public health or the

environment. These changes ensure

consistency with section 129(a)(3) of the

Clean Air Act.

7. Compliance and Performance Testing

Both the proposed and final standards

require all plants to perform annual

performance tests for dioxin/furan

emissions. However, a provision for less

frequent dioxin/furan testing has been

added to the final rule to encourage

MWC plants to achieve emission levels

significantly lower than 13 ng/dscm. By

achieving low dioxin/furan emissions,

they would qualify for less frequent

testing and thereby reduce their testing

costs. If all MWC units at an MWC plant

achieve 7 ng/dscm dioxins/furans or

less during performance testing for 2

consecutive years of operation, the plant

can elect to conduct dioxin/furan testing

on one unit per year. The plant must

test units in sequence (e.g., a 3-unit

plant would test unit 1 (year 1), unit 2

(year 2), unit 3 (year 3), unit 1 (year 4),

etc.). If an annual performance test

conducted on any unit indicates total

dioxin/furan emissions are greater than

7 ng/dscm, the plant must revert to

testing all units annually beginning the

following year until the 2-year

compliance record is reestablished.

For small plants, two options are

provided. The one-unit incentive

schedule discussed above is provided

for dioxin/furan testing. An alternative

3-year testing option is also provided for

small plants. The alternative 3-year

testing option allows small plants to

conduct performance tests for dioxins/

furans, as well as PM, HCl, Cd, Pb, and

Hg only once every 3 years if the plant

demonstrates compliance with all

pollutant emission limits for 3

consecutive years and continues to

demonstrate compliance every third

year. The owner or operator of a small

plant may choose either option for

performance testing.

8. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

Reporting requirements have been

changed from quarterly as proposed to

annual (semiannual if any emission

limits or operating parameters are

violated) to reduce the burden on

affected plants. In recognition of the

cost associated with reporting

requirements, the EPA reconsidered the

effectiveness of quarterly versus annual

reporting for the purpose of determining

compliance. After careful

reconsideration, the EPA has concluded

that annual reporting will provide

adequate information for most plants.

[The EPA notes, however, that once an

MWC is required to obtain a Title V

Operating Permit, the Title V reporting

requirements given in Section 504(a) of

the Act will supersede the annual

reporting requirements presented above.

Section 504(a) requires permittees to

submit monitoring reports to the

permitting authority no less often than

every six months. See 42 U.S.C.

7661c(a).]

C. Impacts of the Standards

The final standards can be achieved

by utilizing any technology. The basis

for the MACT-based limits at both

proposal and promulgation remain the

combination of GCP/SD/FF and carbon

injection for new large and small plants,

and the additional use of SNCR at large

plants. Because the technology basis for

the final standards is the same as at

proposal, the impacts analysis presented

at proposal has not been revised. Table

2 provides a brief summary of the air

and cost impacts of the standards. The

summary in table 2 provides impacts

estimates relative to two baseline

scenarios: a pre-1989 baseline (typical

control prior to the 1991 subpart Ea

standards) and a 1991 baseline (typical

control under the 1991 subpart Ea

standards). Refer to the preamble to the

proposed standards (59 FR 48198) for a

detailed summary of these air and

control cost impacts, as well as a

discussion of the water, solid waste,

energy, and economic impacts of the

rule. The national impacts estimates

provided in table 2 and discussed in the

proposal preamble represent the EPA’s

estimate of the worst case of impacts

that would result from implementation

of the standards. Recent data suggest a

reduction in the construction of new

MWC’s. This would reduce the cost of

the standards.
65398 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2.—IMPACTS OF THE CURRENT SUBPART EA AND PROMULGATED SUBPART EB STANDARDS

Parameter

Increment of

promulgated

standards over

the 1991 standards

1991 Standards a Total b

New MWC’s subject to Standards in the Fifth Year After Promulgation:

Combustion capacity (106 Mg/yr) ................................................................................... 0.8 16.8 17.6

Number of MWC plants .................................................................................................. 24 48 72

Cost (1990 Dollars):

Capital cost ($106) .......................................................................................................... 156 613 769

Annualized cost ($106/yr) ............................................................................................... 43 157 200

Average cost increase ($/Mg MSW combusted) ............................................................ 1.95 11.55 13.50

Annual Emissions Reduction (Mg/yr):

SO2 ................................................................................................................................. 3,000 35,000 38,000

Hcl ................................................................................................................................... 4,000 46,000 50,000

PM ................................................................................................................................... 800 5,700 6,500

Cd ................................................................................................................................... 1 9 10

Pb .................................................................................................................................... 17 140 157

Hg ................................................................................................................................... 18 9 27

Nox .................................................................................................................................. 200 10,300 10,500

Total dioxins/furans (kg/yr) ............................................................................................. 1 28 29

aThe impacts are based on a pre-1989 baseline (i.e., a baseline prior to the effective date of the subpart Ea standards.

bThe total impacts are calculated by adding the incremental impacts of the promulgated standards (subpart Eb) to the impacts of the 1991

standards (subpart Ea). These impacts would be equivalent to the total impacts of the promulgated standards over a pre-1989 baseline.

A number of comments were received

on the possible effects on EPA’s costing

analysis following the recent Supreme

Court decision that ‘‘flow control’’ is

unconstitutional. The EPA considered

the effect of flow control on the

financing of new MWC’s. In summary,

the EPA finds that if tipping fees are

raised to cover the increased costs of

these regulations, then the lack of ‘‘flow

control’’ requirements will likely result

in fewer MWC’s being constructed and

a shift of wastes to other disposal

options. The impacts of the flow control

decision is likely to be very placespecific depending on the relative

tipping fees of MWC’s and other

disposal options, transportation costs,

and institutional factors.

V. Guidelines for Existing Sources

(1995)—Summary of the Guidelines,

Impacts of the Guidelines, and

Significant Issues and Changes to the

Proposed Guidelines

This section presents a summary of

the final guidelines, including

identification of the source category and

pollutants being regulated, and

presentation of the final emission limits

and their associated performance

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements and compliance

schedules. This section also provides a

discussion of the most significant issues

and changes to the proposed guidelines.

Also mentioned are the impacts of the

final guidelines.

The EPA strongly believes (based on

emissions data from MWC’s which

incorporate the necessary control

technology) that the air pollution

control technology to be retrofitted to

existing MWC’s to meet the emission

guidelines will reduce actual emissions

to levels significantly below the limits

established by the emission guidelines.

There remains, however, some

uncertainty as to the actual performance

level that will be achieved on a

continuous basis by the control

technology when installed at large MWC

plants where ESP-based scrubber

systems are used. Therefore, the dioxin/

furan emission limits included in the

emission guidelines for some types of

MWC’s, while still significantly below

the MACT floor, are slightly less

stringent than those included in the

proposal.

The EPA will track the

implementation of the guidelines and

annual performance test results in order

to monitor the level of emissions

including dioxin/furan control actually

achieved by the guidelines.

Additionally, the EPA may conduct

supplemental dioxin/furan tests. The

EPA will also meet with MWC owners

and operators as needed to review the

performance of the air pollution control

technology and the effectiveness of

maintenance and operational practices

in order to provide information that will

lead to optimal performance of emission

control technology, and will work with

MWC owners and operators to assure a

continued high level of public safety.

A. Summary of the Guidelines

The final guidelines require States to

develop emission regulations limiting

air emissions from each existing MWC

unit located at a MWC plant that has an

aggregate plant capacity to combust

more than 35 Mg/day of MSW, for

which construction commenced on or

before September 20, 1994.

The aggregate design capacity of all

existing MWC’s at an MWC plant shall

be considered in determining: (1)

Whether a plant is subject to the

guidelines; and (2) what control levels

are applicable. The capacity of new

MWC’s (i.e., those that commenced

construction after September 20, 1994 or

that commenced modification or

reconstruction after June 19, 1996 that

are located at the MWC plant are not

considered in determining applicability

of the guidelines but would be

considered in determining the

applicability of subpart Eb (standards

for new sources). Only MWC units

constructed before September 20, 1994

are considered for determining the

applicability of the guidelines.

Modification of an existing MWC (or

funds spent) to comply with the

emission guidelines would not be

considered in determining if an existing

MWC unit was subject to the standards

for new MWC’s (subpart Ea or Eb).

Municipal waste combustion plants

with a federally enforceable permit to

combust less than 10 Mg/day of MSW

are exempt from the requirements of the

guidelines as long as they submit a

notification of exemption and keep

daily records of the weight of MSW

combusted.

Cofired combustors (i.e., that combust

less than 30 percent MSW) located at a

plant with an aggregate plant capacity

greater than 35 Mg/day are exempt from

the requirements of the guidelines as
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65399

long as they submit a notification of

exemption and keep records of the

weight of MSW combusted on a

calendar quarter basis.

The definitions of MWC and MSW

have been revised but are the same for

the guidelines as for the standards, and

are discussed in the summary of the

standards in section IV.A of this notice.

A summary of the final guidelines is

presented in table 3.

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC’S (SUBPART CB) a

[* indicates a significant change since proposal and the change is discussed in this preamble]

Applicability

The final guidelines apply to existing MWC’s located at plants with capacities to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of residential, commercial, and/or institutional discards. Industrial manufacturing discards

are not covered by the guidelines. Any medical, industrial manufacturing, municipal, or other type of waste combustor plant with capacity to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of MSW and with a federally

enforceable permit to combust less than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not

covered.*

Plant Size (MSW combustion capacity) Requirement

<35 Mg/day* ............................................................................................. Not covered by guidelines.

> 35 Mg/day but ≥225 Mg/day (referred to as small MWC plants) ......... Subject to provisions listed below.

> 225 Mg/day (referred to as large MWC plants) .................................... Subject to provisions listed below.

Good Combustion Practices

• Applies to large and small MWC plants.

• A site-specific operator training manual is required to be developed and made available for MWC personnel.

• The EPA or a State MWC operator training course would be required to be completed by the MWC chief facility operator, shift supervisors,

and control room operators.

• The ASME (or State-equivalent) provisional and full operator certification must be obtained by the MWC chief facility operator (mandatory),

shift supervisors (mandatory), and control room operators (optional).*

• The MWC load level is required to be measured and not to exceed 110 percent of the maximum load level measured during the most recent

dioxin/furan performance test.

• The maximum PM control device inlet flue gas temperature is required to be measured and not to exceed the temperature 17°C above the

maximum temperature measured during the most recent dioxin/furan performance test.

• The CO level is required to be measured using a CEMS, and the concentration in the flue gas is required not to exceed the following:

MWC type CO level Averaging

time (hours)

Modular starved-air and excess-air ............................................................................................................................... 50 ppmv ....... 4

Mass burn waterwall and refractory .............................................................................................................................. 100 ppmv ..... 4

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

Fluidized-bed combustion ............................................................................................................................................. 100 ppmv ..... 4

Pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired ............................................................................................................................ 150 ppmv* ... 4

Spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired ................................................................................................................... 200 ppmv* ... 24

RDF stoker .................................................................................................................................................................... 200 ppmv ..... 24

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

MWC Organic Emissions (measured as total mass dioxins/furans):

• Dioxins/furans (performance test by EPA Reference Method 23)

Large MWC plants

MWC units utilizing an ESP-based air pollution control system ....... 60 ng/dscm total mass (mandatory) or 15 ng/dscm total mass (optional

to qualify for less frequent testing).* c

MWC units utilizing a nonESP-based air pollution control system ... 30 ng/dscm total mass (mandatory) or 15 ng/dscm total mass (optional

to qualify for less frequent testing).* c

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ 125 ng/dscm total mass (mandatory) or 30 ng/dscm total mass (optional to qualify for less frequent testing).* c

• Basis for dioxin/furan limits

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ GCP and SD/ESP or GCP and SD/FF, as specified above.

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ GCP and DSI/ESP.

MWC Metal Emissions:

• PM (performance test by EPA Reference Method 5)

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ 27 mg/dscm (0.012 gr/dscf).

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ 70 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf).*

• Opacity (performance test by EPA Reference Method 9)

Large and small MWC plants ............................................................... 10 percent (6-minute average)

• Cd (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ 0.040 mg/dscm (18 gr/million dscf).

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ 0.10 mg/dscm (44 gr/million dscf).

• Pb (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ 0.49 mg/dscm (200 gr/million dscf).*

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ 1.6 mg/dscm (700 gr/million dscf).

• Hg (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)

Large and small MWC plants ............................................................... 0.080 mg/dscm (35 gr/million dscf) or 85-percent reduction in Hg emissions.

• Basis for PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and Hg limits

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ GCP and SD/ESP/CI or GCP and SD/FF/CI
65400 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ GCP and DSI/ESP/CI.

MWC Acid Gas Emissions:

• SO2 (performance test by CEMS)

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ 31 ppmv or 75-percent reduction in SO2 emissions.*

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ 80 ppmv or 50-percent reduction in SO2 emissions.

• HCl (performance test by EPA Reference Method 26)

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ 31 ppmv or 95-percent reduction in HCl emissions.*

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ 250 ppmv or 50-percent reduction in HCl emissions.

• Basis for SO2 and HCl limits

Large and small MWC plants ............................................................... See basis for MWC metals.

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

• NOX (performance test by CEMS)

Large MWC plants:

Mass burn waterwall ......................................................................... 200 ppmvb.

Mass burn rotary waterwall ............................................................... 250 ppmvb.

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

Fluidized bed combustor ....................................................................... 240 ppmvb.

Mass burn refractory ............................................................................. No NOX controlb requirement

Other ..................................................................................................... 200 ppmvb.

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ No NOx control requirement.

• Basis for NOx limits

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ SNCR.

Refractory MWC plants ......................................................................... No NOX control requirement

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ No NOX control requirement.

Fugitive Ash Emissions:

• Fugitive Emissions (performance test by EPA Reference Method 22)

Large and small plants ......................................................................... Visible emissions 5 percent of the time from ash transfer systems except for maintenance and repair activities.*

• Basis for fugitive emission limit Wet ash handling or enclosed ash handling.

Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements:

• Reporting frequency Annual (semiannual if violation)*.

• Load, flue gas temperature Continuous monitoring, 4-hour block arithmetic average

• CO CEMS, 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic average, as applicable

• Dioxins/furans, PM, Cd, Pb, HCl, and Hg

Large MWC plants ................................................................................ Annual stack test.*

Small MWC plants ................................................................................ Annual or third year stack test.

• Opacity COMS (6-minute average) and annual stack test.

• SO2 CEMS, 24-hour daily geometric mean.

• NOX (large MWC plants only) CEMS, 24-hour daily arithmetic average.

• Fugitive ash emissions Annual test.*

Compliance Schedule:

• Large MWC plants

State plans are required to include one of the following three retrofit schedules for compliance with regulatory requirements: (1) Full compliance or closure within 1 year following EPA approval of the State plan; (2) full compliance in 1 to 3 years following issuance of a revised

construction or operation permit if a permit modification is required or 1 to 3 years following EPA approval of the State plan if a permit

modification is not required, provided the State plan includes measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress toward compliance; or (3) closure in 1 to 3 years following approval of the State plan, provided the State plan includes a closure agreement. If a State

plan allows the second or third scheduling options (i.e., more than 1 year), the State plan submitted to EPA must contain post-1990 test

data for dioxins/furans for all MWC units at large plants under the extended schedule. (See § 60.21(h) of subpart B of 40 CFR 60 for additional information relating to measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress toward compliance).

• Small MWC plants

State plans must require full compliance or closure with regulatory

requirements in 3 years or less following issuance of a revised

construction or operation permit if a permit modification is required,

or within 3 years following EPA approval of the State plan if a permit modification is not required.

• State plans are required to specify that all MWC’s at large MWC plants for which construction was commenced after June 26, 1987 comply

with the guidelines for Hg and dioxins/furans within 1 year following issuance of a revised construction or operation permit if a permit modification is required, or within 1 year following EPA approval of the State plan, whichever is later.

• State plans are required to specify that owners or operators of

MWC’s comply with the operator training and certification requirements by 6 months after startup or 1 year after State plan approval

by the EPA, whichever is later, for large plants and by 6 months after

startup or 18 months after State plan approval by the EPA, whichever is later, for small plants.

*=significant change since proposal, and the change is discussed in this preamble.

aAll concentration levels in the table are converted to 7 percent O2, dry basis. bState plans may allow NOX emissions averaging between existing MWC units at a large MWC plant. The daily weighted average NOX emissions concentration from the MWC units included in the emissions averaging plan must comply with the following 24-hour limits: 180 ppmv for

mass burn waterwall combustors; 220 ppmv for mass burn rotary waterwall combustors; 230 ppmv for refuse-derived fuel combustors; 220 ppmv

for fluidized bed combustors; and 180 ppmv for other combustor types (excluding mass burn refractory combustors). Refer to the regulatory text

of the emission guidelines for additional requirements. State plans may also establish a program to allow emissions trading between non-contiguous MWC plants. Such a program shall meet the requirements of the Open Market Trading Rule of Ozone Smog Precursors, proposed August

3, 1995 (60 FR 39668) as finally promulgated. cAlthough not part of the dioxin/furan limit, the dioxin/furan total mass limits of 30 ng/dscm, 60 ng/dscm, and 125 ng/dscm are equal to about

0.3 to 0.8 ng/dscm TEQ, 0.7 to 1.4 ng/dscm TEQ, and 1.7 to 2.9 ng/dscm TEQ, respectively. The optional reduced testing limits of 15 ng/dscm

and 30 ng/dscm total mass are equal to about 0.1 to 0.3 ng/dscm TEQ and 0.3 to 0.8 ng/dscm TEQ, respectively.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65401

B. Significant Issues and Changes to the

Proposed Guidelines

The most significant changes to the

proposed guidelines are discussed

below. Rationales for these changes as

well as other changes not discussed

below are provided in the promulgation

BID (EPA–453/R–95–0136). Issues not

discussed below include additional

changes to GCP requirements,

monitoring requirements, recordkeeping

and reporting requirements, and

compliance schedules.

1. Designated Facilities

Under the final guidelines, any

medical, municipal, industrial

manufacturing, or other type of waste

combustion plant capable of combusting

greater than 35 Mg/day MSW but

actually combusting less than 10 Mg/

day of MSW is not a designated facility,

as long as the plant submits an initial

report and keeps certain records. This

exemption was not included in the

proposed guidelines. This exemption is

identical to the exemption in the

standards for new sources. Section

IV.B.1 provides further discussion of the

exemption.

Under the final guidelines, a cofired

combustor is defined as a unit

combusting a fuel feed stream 30

percent or less MSW, as measured on a

calendar quarterly basis. At proposal,

determination of status as a cofired

combustor was measured on a daily

basis. This change is identical to the

change made in the standards. Refer to

section IV.B.1 for further discussion on

the change.

The initial reporting requirement in

the proposed guidelines for MWC plants

with combustion capacity greater than

25 Mg/day but less than or equal to 35

Mg/day is not included in the final

guidelines. Both the proposed and final

guidelines exempt plants with capacity

less than 35 Mg/day. Also, an

exemption for combustion of clean

wood or clean wood products is

included in the final guidelines. This

exemption is identical to the exemption

in the standards. Refer to section IV.B.1

for discussion of EPA’s rationale for this

exemption.

2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals,

Acid Gases, Organics, and Nitrogen

Oxides, and Ash Fugitive Emissions

For existing MWC’s, the MACT floor

levels and the emission limits for

several pollutants have been revised

since proposal. See the proposal

preamble (59 FR 48228, September 20,

1994), the promulgation BID (EPA–453/

R–95–0136), and docket A–90–45 for

additional details on the MACT floor

analysis methodology and the selection

of MACT.

Since proposal, the EPA revised the

MACT floors for existing plants based

on new permit information received and

an updated inventory of operating MWC

plants. This revision resulted in revised

MACT floor levels for various pollutants

for small and large MWC plants. The

revised MACT floor pollutant levels for

large plants have resulted in more

stringent MACT emission limits for SO2,

HCl, and Pb. In addition, the revised

MACT floors and emission limits for

NOX for large plants include emission

levels based on combustor type.

Revisions to the MACT floor that

resulted in revisions to the selected

MACT level of control for specific

pollutants are discussed below.

While the final emission limits are

somewhat different from proposal, the

limits can be achieved using the same

control technologies that were the basis

of the proposed emission limits. The

technology bases for large and small

plants are summarized in table 3.

a. MWC Acid Gases. Based on the new

information and test data received after

proposal and the revised MACT floor

analysis, the EPA revised the MACT

limits for SO2 and HCl for the final

guidelines for large plants.

The revised SO2 MACT floor for large

plants is 31 ppmv. The final SO2

emission limit for large plants, which

was set at the MACT floor level of 35

ppmv at proposal, is 31 ppmv because

of the change in the MACT floor at

promulgation.

The MACT-based SO2 limit of 80

ppmv for small plants has not changed

from proposal; however, the SO2 MACT

floor for small plants is revised to 98

ppmv. Because the revised floor is more

stringent than the proposal floor (the

floor at proposal was 118 ppmv), the

EPA’s conclusion that acid gas controls

will be needed to achieve the floor

remains the same. In addition, the EPA’s

conclusion that a lower emission rate of

80 ppmv is achievable at minimal cost

also remains the same. Therefore, the

final SO2 emission limit for small plants

remains at 80 ppmv.

The revised HCl MACT floor for large

plants is 31 ppmv. The final HCl

emission limit for large plants, which

was set at the MACT floor level of 35

ppmv at proposal, is 31 ppmv because

of the change in the MACT floor at

promulgation.

b. MWC Metals. Based on the new

information and test data received after

proposal and the revised MACT floor

analysis, the Pb limit for large plants

was revised for the final guidelines. The

proposed Pb MACT emission level for

large plants was 0.50 mg/dscm;

however, the revised Pb MACT floor

emission level for large plants is 0.49

mg/dscm. Therefore, the final Pb

emission limit for large plants has been

revised to 0.49 mg/dscm.

c. MWC Organics. The dioxin/furan

emission limits for large and small

plants were revised since proposal. The

MACT floor for dioxins/furans for

MWC’s at large plants is 126 ng/dscm

total mass. As documented in the

preambles to these proposed guidelines

(59 FR 48228, September 20, 1994) and

the promulgated subpart Ca guidelines

(56 FR 5514, February 11, 1991), in

combination with GCP, SD/ESP systems

can achieve dioxin/furan total mass

emissions of 60 ng/dscm and SD/FF

systems can achieve dioxin/furan total

mass emissions of 30 ng/dscm.

Therefore, the MACT floor of 126 ng/

dscm can be achieved with either SD/

ESP or SD/FF systems.

When determining the final MACT

standard (which may be more stringent

than the MACT floor), section 129(a)(2)

requires the Administrator to consider

certain factors, including the cost of

achieving the emission reduction. In the

Administrator’s judgment, it would be

prohibitively expensive and

unreasonable to require existing MWC’s

with ESP’s that can meet a dioxin/furan

emission limit of 60 ng/dscm to retrofit

an SD/FF in order to achieve an

additional 30 ng/dscm reduction in

emissions. For example, at a typical

1,400 Mg/day MWC plant already

equipped with an SD/ESP, the capital

cost to remove the ESP and retrofit a

new FF would be about $14 million.

This cost would be in addition to paying

the remaining debt for a relatively new

ESP (about $5 million including interest

payments) and would result in a

relatively small increase in control

device efficiency.

For the final rule, the Administrator

considered several regulatory options

more stringent than the MACT floor;

however, because of this high pollution

control device retrofit cost, the

Administrator decided to set separate

MACT limits for MWC’s with ESP-based

control systems and MWC’s with

nonESP-based control systems. For

MWC’s with ESP-based control systems,

the EPA selected a MACT level of 60 ng/

dscm total mass, based on the

performance of SD/ESP systems. For

MWC’s using or retrofitting nonESPbased control systems, the EPA selected

a MACT level of 30 ng/dscm total mass,

based on the performance of SD/FF

systems. The number of MWC plants

that will comply by using an SD/ESP

will be limited (only about 10 percent

of the MWC plants). The vast majority

of MWC’s are expected to use SD/FF

systems to comply.
65402 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

The MACT floor for dioxins/furans at

small MWC plants is 1,500 ng/dscm

total mass. As with large MWC plants,

the final emission guidelines limit for

dioxins/furans is more stringent than

the MACT floor. The final guideline

limit for dioxins/furans at small MWC

plants is 125 ng/dscm total mass and is

based on DSI/ESP technology.

The final MACT limit for Hg is based

on use of activated carbon injection.

Activated carbon injection technology

used in combination with DSI/ESP, SD/

ESP, or SD/FF technology is expected to

result in supplemental dioxin/furan

control, reducing dioxin/furan

emissions from these control systems by

more than 50 percent. The final MACT

guideline levels for dioxins/furans for

existing units at small and large plants

do not consider supplemental dioxin/

furan control from activated carbon

injection because an insufficient amount

of emissions data exist to adequately

determine the performance level of

activated carbon injection retrofitted to

existing MWC air pollution control

systems. Nonetheless, it is expected that

the use of activated carbon injection

will result in additional reduction of

dioxins/furans to levels below the

emission limits in the final guidelines.

As with the standards for new

MWC’s, the final guidelines include a

provision that allows less frequent

dioxin/furan testing if a plant is

achieving a significantly lower level of

dioxin/furan emissions (15 ng/dscm for

MWC’s at large plants and 30 ng/dscm

for MWC’s at small plants). This option

will encourage optimal performance and

minimal emissions. Refer to section

IV.B.7 for a description of the

alternative testing schedule.

Relative to the proposal, the optional

TEQ format of the proposed dioxin/

furan emission limits was removed in

the final standards, as explained in

section IV.B.2.c. Although not part of

the dioxin/furan limit, the dioxin/furan

total mass limits of 30 ng/dscm, 60 ng/

dscm, and 125 ng/dscm are equal to

about 0.3 to 0.8 ng/dscm TEQ, 0.7 to 1.4

ng/dscm TEQ, and 1.7 to 2.9 ng/dscm

TEQ, respectively.

d. Nitrogen Oxides. After considering

data submitted by commenters

regarding requiring SNCR for MWC

units at large plants where some could

already achieve the MACT floor level

without SNCR, the EPA changed the

proposed NOX emission limit of 180

ppmv for all large plants. The NOX

MACT floor was revised by calculating

the MACT floor separately for each

subcategory of combustor type, and the

MACT limits are being promulgated at

levels equivalent to the MACT floors for

each combustor type. The final

guideline MACT limits are: 200 ppmv

for mass burn waterwall combustors;

250 ppmv for refuse-derived fuel

combustors; 250 ppmv for mass burn

rotary waterwall combustors; 240 ppmv

for fluidized bed combustors; no limit

for mass burn refractory combustors;

and 200 ppmv for other combustors not

listed above.

In addition, the EPA has revised the

emission guidelines to allow States to

include in their State plans options for

averaging of emissions from units

within a large MWC plant, and for

trading emissions between MWC plants.

The plant average emission limits for

units being included in an emissions

averaging plan within a plant are

approximately 10 percent less than the

MACT limits for each combustor type,

as follows: 180 ppmv for mass burn

waterwall combustors; 220 ppmv for

mass burn rotary waterwall combustors;

230 ppmv for refuse-derived fuel

combustors; 220 ppmv for fluidized bed

combustors; and 180 ppmv for other

combustor types (excluding mass burn

rotary refractory combustors). Emissions

trading between units at noncontiguous

plants must be consistent with the

requirements of the Open Market

Trading Rule for Ozone Smog

Precursors, proposed August 3, 1995 (60

FR 39668), as finally promulgated. Until

the Open Market trading rule is

finalized, it is not possible to reference

the rule in the guidelines text. In the

interim, the guideline text indicates

NOX emissions trading must be

approved by the Administrator prior to

implementation. After the Open Market

Trading Rule is finalized, it is

preapproved for use under the

guidelines.

e. Fugitive Ash Emissions. The

emission limit for fugitive ash emissions

under the final guidelines is visible

emissions no more than 5 percent of the

time from ash conveying and transfer

systems at MWC’s. An exemption for

maintenance and repair activities has

been added. These same changes were

made to the standards for new sources.

See the discussion of the standards in

section IV.B.2.e for an explanation of

the reasons for these changes.

3. Good Combustion Practices

The final CO guidelines include an

additional category of combustor

technology referred to as ‘‘spreader

stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired

combustors,’’ which is assigned the

same CO limit and averaging time as the

RDF stoker combustor category (200

ppmv, 24-hour averaging time). In the

final guidelines, the category of

combustors referred to in the proposal

as ‘‘coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired

combustors’’ was revised to ‘‘pulverized

coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustors,’’

and the CO limit and averaging time

remains the same as proposed (150

ppmv, 4-hour averaging time). These

same changes were made to the

standards for new sources. See the

discussion of the standards in section

IV.B.3 for an explanation of the reasons

for these changes.

4. Operator Training and Certification

As discussed in section IV.B.4 for the

standards for new sources, the EPA has

clarified the provisional certification

requirements and revised the schedule

for full certification of chief facility

operators and shift supervisors to allow

sufficient time to schedule exams. As

stated in the proposal preamble, a Stateapproved ASME-equivalent certification

program may be substituted for ASME

certification.

For large plants, the final guidelines

specify that a State plan must require

chief facility operators and shift

supervisors to obtain ASME provisional

certification by 1 year after State plan

approval or 6 months after startup,

whichever is later. In addition, a State

plan must require that, by the same

date, these personnel obtain full

certification or be scheduled with

ASME to take the ASME full

certification exam (instead of actually

obtaining full certification within 1 year

as proposed).

For small plants, the final guidelines

specify that a State plan must require

chief facility operators and shift

supervisors to obtain ASME provisional

certification by 18 months after State

plan approval or 6 months after startup,

whichever is later. In addition, a State

plan must require that, by the same

date, these personnel obtain full

certification or be scheduled with

ASME to take the ASME full

certification exam (instead of actually

obtaining full certification within 1 year

as proposed).

5. Air Curtain Incinerators

No changes were made to the

proposed guidelines for air curtain

incinerators. As discussed in section

V.B.1, the final guidelines do not cover

combustion of clean wood; therefore, air

curtain incinerators combusting only

clean wood are not covered by the

guidelines.

6. Compliance and Performance Testing

Under the final guidelines, State plans

must specify that all plants are required

to perform annual performance testing

for dioxin/furan emissions. However, a

provision for less frequent testing has

been added to encourage plants to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65403

optimize performance and achieve

emission levels significantly lower than

the dioxin/furan emission limits in the

final guidelines. State plans may require

that, to take advantage of this provision,

existing MWC’s must meet a dioxin/

furan level of 15 ng/dscm (large plants)

or 30 ng/dscm (small plants), for 2

consecutive years. Refer to the

discussion on the standards for new

MWC’s under section IV.B.7 for a

description of this reduced testing

schedule.

7. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements and Compliance

Schedules

Reporting requirements have been

changed from quarterly to annual

(semiannual if exceeding the emission

limit for any pollutant) to reduce the

economic burden on MWC’s. Refer to

section IV.B.8 for an explanation of the

reasons for this change.

The EPA revised the proposed

compliance schedule for large and small

plants to allow more time for small

plants to comply with the guidelines

and to clarify the schedule for plants

that select to close down operation

rather than retrofit to comply with the

guidelines. The final compliance

schedule is as follows. For large MWC

plants, State plans may allow three

alternative compliance schedules: (1)

Full compliance or closure within 1

year following approval of the State

plan; (2) full compliance in 1 to 3 years

following issuance of a revised

construction or operation permit if a

permit modification is required or 1 to

3 years following approval of the State

plan if a permit modification is not

required, provided the State plan

includes measurable and enforceable

incremental steps of progress toward

compliance; or (3) closure in 1 to 3 years

following approval of the State plan,

provided the State plan includes a

closure agreement. If a State plan allows

the second or third scheduling options

(i.e., more than 1 year), the State plan

submitted to EPA must include post1990 test data for dioxins/furans for all

MWC units at large plants under the

schedule. For small MWC plants, State

plans must require full compliance or

closure in up to 3 years following

issuance of a revised construction or

operation permit if a permit

modification is required, or 3 years

following approval of the State plan if

a permit modification is not required.

C. Impacts of the Guidelines

The final guidelines can be achieved

by designated facilities that utilize the

same control technologies that were the

basis for the proposed guidelines. The

basis for the MACT guidelines selected

at both proposal and promulgation is

GCP/SD/ESP(or FF)/SNCR and carbon

injection for large plants and GCP/DSI/

ESP and carbon injection for small

plants. Because the technology basis for

the final guidelines is the same as at

proposal, the impacts analysis presented

at proposal has not been revised for the

promulgated rule. Table 4 provides a

brief summary of the air and cost

impacts of the guidelines. The summary

in table 4 provides impacts estimates

based on two baseline scenarios: A pre1989 baseline (control level prior to the

1991 subpart Ca guidelines) and a 1991

baseline (control level after the 1991

subpart Ca guidelines.) Refer to the

preamble to the proposed guidelines (59

FR 48228) for a detailed summary of

these air and control cost impacts, as

well as a discussion of the water, solid

waste, energy, and economic impacts of

the guidelines.

TABLE 4.—IMPACTS OF THE 1991 SUBPART CA AND PROMULGATED SUBPART CB GUIDELINES

Parameter 1991 subpart Ca

guidelines a

Promulgated 1995

subpart Cb guidelines a

Increment of promulgated 1995

subpart Cb guidelines over the

1991 subpart Ca

guidelines b

Characteristics of Existing MWC’s:

Combustion capacity (10 6 Mg/yr) .......................................................................... 35.9 39.0 3.1

Number of MWC plants .......................................................................................... 158 179 21

Cost (1990 Dollars):

Capital cost ($10 6) ................................................................................................. 888 2,100 1,212

Annualized cost ($10 6/yr) ...................................................................................... 168 445 277

Average cost increase ($/Mg MSW combusted) ................................................... 6.40 13.60 7.20

Annual Emissions Reduction (Mg/yr):

SO2 ......................................................................................................................... 25,000 43,000 18,000

HCl .......................................................................................................................... 36,000 56,000 20,000

PM .......................................................................................................................... 1,100 3,100 2,000

Cd ........................................................................................................................... 2 5 3

Pb ........................................................................................................................... 30 83 53

Hg ........................................................................................................................... 11 47 36

NOX ........................................................................................................................ 0 19,000 19,000

Total dioxins/furans (kg/yr) .............................................................................. 117 157 40

aThe impacts are based on a pre-1989 baseline (i.e., a baseline prior to the effective date of the subpart Ca guidelines).

bThe impacts are calculated by subtracting the impacts of the 1991 subpart Ca guidelines from the impacts of the promulgated 1995 subpart

Cb guidelines (based on a pre-1989 baseline).

The national impacts estimates

provided in table 4 and discussed in the

proposal preamble represent EPA’s

estimate of the upper limit of impacts

that would result from implementation

of the guidelines. To the extent that any

existing MWC’s close rather than

comply with the guidelines or switch to

other disposal options that may cost

less, the national costs will be lower and

air emissions will be less.

A number of comments were received

on the possible effects on EPA’s costing

analysis following the recent Supreme

Court decision that ‘‘flow control’’ is

unconstitutional. The EPA considered

the effect of flow control on the

financing of existing MWC’s. In

summary, the EPA finds that if MWC’s

raise tipping fees to cover the increased

costs of these regulations, then the lack

of ‘‘flow control’’ will likely result in a

shift of some wastes to other disposal

options. The combined impacts of no

flow control and increased tipping fees

on individual MWC’s and

municipalities are likely to be very
65404 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

place-specific depending on the relative

tipping fees of MWC’s and other

disposal options, transportation costs,

and institutional factors. If tipping fees

are not raised to offset emission control

costs, then operators of MWC’s will

have to finance the costs of the

regulations out of current revenues.

The EPA has identified several ways

that State and local governments can

guarantee a continued source of MSW

for the MWC’s and provide funds from

the general revenue to support the

operation of MWC facilities,

accomplishing some of the outcomes

that flow control can produce,

including: (1) Government provision of

collection services; (2) contractor

provision of collection services under

government contract; (3) franchising

collection and hauling to designated

facilities; (4) subsidizing facilities from

the general revenues; and (5) supporting

integrated solid waste management

programs from the general revenue.

VI. Administrative Requirements

This section addresses the following

administrative requirements: Docket,

Paperwork Reduction Act, Executive

Orders 12866 and 12875, Unfunded

Mandates Act, Regulatory Flexibility

Act, and Clean Air Act Procedural

Requirements.

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered in the development of this

rulemaking. The principal purposes of

the docket are: (1) To allow interested

parties to identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process; and (2) to

serve as the record in case of judicial

review, except for interagency review

material. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(A). The

docket number for this rulemaking is A–

90–45. Docket No. A–89–08 also

includes background information for

this rulemaking that supported the

proposal and promulgation of the

subpart Ea standards and subpart Ca

guidelines.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1506.5) and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2136); 401 M St., S.W.;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. This ICR document is

also available on the EPA’s TTN Clean

Air Act Amendments electronic bulletin

board. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble for

information on accessing EPA’s TTN

electronic bulletin board.

The information required to be

collected by this rule is necessary to

identify the regulated entities who are

subject to the rule and to ensure their

compliance with the rule. The

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements are mandatory and are

being established under authority of

Section 114 of the Act. All information

submitted as part of a report to the

Agency for which a claim of

confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to the Agency

policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1,

part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of

Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41

FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended

by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43

FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR

17674, March 23, 1979).

The annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden presented in this

ICR document reflects only part of the

burden imposed by this rule. The rest of

the burden was presented to and

approved by the OMB in an ICR

document in 1991 for the subpart Ea

NSPS promulgated in February 1991.

The ICR document that accompanied

the subpart Ea rulemaking summarized

the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements that MWC owners and

operators of large MWC units are

required to follow to demonstrate

compliance with the 1991 NSPS. As

explained elsewhere in this document,

the Clean Air Act Amendments were

passed by Congress in 1990, and they

included section 129 that directs the

Administrator to extend the NSPS to

small MWC plants, as well as to include

emission limits for additional pollutants

and siting requirements. This ICR

document for subpart Eb presents this

additional burden imposed by section

129 of the Act, by summarizing the total

annual burden on small plants (i.e., for

the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements associated with all

pollutant emission limits and siting)

and the additional annual burden on

large MWC plants (i.e., only for

requirements associated with Cd, Pb,

Hg, and fugitive ash emission limits and

siting).

The total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden summarized in

this ICR document for this collection

averaged over the first 3 years of NSPS

application to new MWC’s is estimated

to be about 69,700 person hours per

year. This would be the estimated

annual burden for 64 respondents (i.e.,

MWC units). This is a worst-case burden

estimate, as discussed under section

IV.C. If fewer MWC units are

constructed than have been projected,

then the burden will be less than

reported here. The average burden per

respondent is about 1,100 person hours

per year. The rule requires an initial

one-time notification from each new

MWC regarding all pollutant emission

levels and siting and subsequent annual

compliance reports regarding all

pollutant emission levels. Additionally,

if any of the pollutant emission limits

are exceeded, respondents would be

required to submit semi-annual reports.

The rule includes continuous

monitoring requirements for SO2,

opacity, CO, CO2, O2 and annual stack

testing requirements for PM, dioxins/

furans, opacity, HCl, Cd, Pb, Hg, and

fugitive ash. Efforts were made to

reduce the burden on small plants by

allowing them to test emissions once

every 3 years instead of annually if they

demonstrate that they consistently meet

the emissions requirements. This

burden estimate includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Comments on the ICR document are

requested, including the Agency’s need

for the information presented in this ICR

document, the accuracy of the provided

burden estimates, and any suggested

methods for minimizing respondent

burden. Send comments on the ICR to

the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St. S.W.; Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.

N.W.; Washington, DC 20503; marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA’’.

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since the OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

December 19, 1995, a comment to OMB

is best assured of having its full effect

if OMB receives it by January 18, 1996.

The EPA will publish a response to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65405

OMB and public comments on the

information collection requirements

contained in this proposal in a

subsequent Federal Register notice.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

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

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant’’ regulatory action as one

that is likely to lead to a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, the promulgated standards

for new sources will not be a

‘‘significant’’ rule because the annual

effect on the economy is expected not to

exceed $43 million over the cost of the

existing subpart Ea standards. However,

the EPA considers these promulgated

standards to be ‘‘significant’’ because of

their relationship to the guidelines for

MWC’s that are also being promulgated

today. The final guidelines will cost

$450 million per year or less based on

a baseline prior to the effective date of

the subpart Ea standards. As such, this

action was submitted to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations

are documented in the public docket for

this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a statement to accompany

any rule where the estimated costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, will be $100 million

or more in any 1 year. Section 203

requires the EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule. Under

section 205(a), the EPA generally must

select the ‘‘least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule’’

and is consistent with statutory

requirements. The EPA has complied

with section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, by promulgating a rule

that is the most cost-effective alternative

for regulation of these sources that

meets the statutory requirements under

the Clean Air Act. For Hg and dioxins/

furans, the EPA adopted standards that

are more stringent than the MACT floor

level of control. In the case of dioxins/

furans, the EPA concluded that a

standard more stringent than the MACT

floor can be achieved at little or no cost,

and thus represents the most costeffective control. In the case of Hg, the

MACT floor emissions level is equal to

current uncontrolled levels. However,

the EPA concluded, after considering

the requisite factors in section 129(a)(2),

that an uncontrolled floor level could

not be justified under the Clean Air Act

and that a more stringent emissions

standard based on the use of carbon

injection as an add-on control would be

cost-effective. The EPA was unable in

this rulemaking to identify any

alternatives other than carbon injection

for control of Hg emissions. To the

extent that section 205(a) of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) may be read to have the EPA

consider a less stringent level of Hg

control, the EPA concluded that such an

alternative would be ‘‘inconsistent with

law’’ within the meaning of section

205(b)(2) of the UMRA. Accordingly, the

alternative selected for Hg is the most

cost-effective one available under these

circumstances.

The unfunded mandates statement

under section 202 must include: (1) A

citation of the statutory authority under

which the rule is proposed, (2) an

assessment of the costs and benefits of

the rule including the effect of the

mandate on health, safety and the

environment, and the Federal resources

available to defray the costs, (3) where

feasible, estimates of future compliance

costs and disproportionate impacts

upon particular geographic or social

segments of the nation or industry, (4)

where relevant, an estimate of the effect

on the national economy, and (5) a

description of the EPA’s consultation

with State, local, and tribal officials.

Since this rule is estimated to impose

costs to the private sector and

government entities in excess of $100

million, the EPA has prepared the

following statement with respect to

these impacts.

1. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

rulemaking, sections 111 and 129 of the

Clean Air Act, is fully discussed in

section II of this preamble. The rule

establishes emission guidelines for

existing MWC’s and standards of

performance for new MWC’s.

Section 129(a)(2) requires the

Administrator to promulgate standards

for new solid waste incinerator units

and emission guidelines for existing

units that ‘‘reflect the maximum degree

of reduction in emissions of air

pollutants listed under section (a)(4)

that the Administrator, taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-airquality health and environmental

impacts and energy requirements,

determines is achievable for new or

existing units in each category. The

Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types (including mass-burn,

refuse-derived fuel, modular and other

types of units), and sizes of units within

a category in establishing such

standards * * *’’ 42 U.S.C § 7429(a)(2)

(emphasis added). This is commonly

referred to as maximum achievable

control technology, or MACT. Section

129(a)(2) further defines a minimum

level of stringency that can be

considered for MACT standards—

commonly referred to as the MACT

floor—which for new units, is the level

of control achieved by the best

controlled similar unit, and for existing

units, is the level of control achieved by

the average of the best performing 12

percent of units in the category. Id.

In the final rule, the Administrator

determined for new MWC’s that MACT

for all pollutants was equivalent to the

pollutants’ MACT floor levels—i.e., the

MACT floor levels reflect the maximum

achievable, cost-effective reduction in

emissions of the air pollutants specified

in section 129(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act.

The promulgated MACT levels reflect

the performance of emission control

technology that is in commercial use at

the best controlled similar source (i.e.,

an MWC equipped with an SD/FF

system, carbon injection, and SNCR, in

combination with GCP’s). The

September 20, 1994 proposed standards

were more stringent than the MACT

floor levels because the proposed levels

were based on carbon injection

technology, which was not in

commercial use at the time of proposal.

Since proposal, a dozen MWC units

equipped with carbon injection

technology have initiated operation;

thus, the best controlled similar unit in

the final rule includes carbon injection

(i.e., basis for the MACT floor).
65406 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

For existing MWC’s, some of the

emission limits included in the

emission guidelines promulgated today

are the same as the final MACT floor

levels. For several pollutants, however,

the Administrator decided, consistent

with section 129(a)(2) after considering

costs and non-air-quality health and

environmental impacts and energy

requirements, to set MACT standards

more stringent than the MACT floor,

since more stringent levels could be

achieved at either no additional cost, or

minimal costs. The MACT floor levels

for acid gases and PM are stringent

enough for existing units at both small

and large plants that they require an

acid gas/PM control system. Since an

acid gas/PM control system also

controls emissions of all regulated

pollutants except Hg and NOx,

establishing emission limits for acid

gases and PM effectively establishes

emission limits for the other pollutants

(except Hg and NOx). The cost to

comply with the selected emission

limits relative to the cost of the acid gas/

PM control system are minimal.

For example, the same acid gas/PM

control system that owners and

operators of MWC’s need to meet the

MACT emissions guideline levels for

SO2 and PM also controls dioxins/

furans to levels more stringent than the

dioxin/furan MACT floor level. Thus,

the Administrator determined that the

final dioxin/furan emission guidelines

may be achieved at no additional

control costs. In the final rule, for

MWC’s at large plants, the

Administrator distinguished between

the dioxin/furan emission guidelines for

MWC’s equipped with ESP-based

control systems and MWC’s equipped

with nonESP-based control systems. In

the Administrator’s judgment, it would

be prohibitively expensive and

unreasonable to require existing ESP’s

that can meet a limit of 60 ng/dscm to

retrofit an SD/FF in order to achieve

additional reduction in emissions

beyond the MACT floor (see the

proposal preamble, 50 FR 48228,

September 20, 1994, for a more detailed

discussion). For the final rule, the

Administrator considered several

regulatory options more stringent than

the MACT floor; however, because of

the high cost of pollution control device

retrofit, the Administrator determined

that MACT for dioxins/furans emitted

from MWC’s with ESP-based control

systems is 60 ng/dscm, and MACT for

dioxins/furans emitted from MWC’s

with SD/FF systems is 30 ng/dscm.

The MACT floor for Hg is 0.36 mg/

dscm, and MACT for Hg is more

stringent than the MACT floor at a level

of 0.080 mg/dscm. To achieve the Hg

emission limit in the emission

guidelines, carbon injection will be

required (this exceeds MACT floor

requirements). Because of the toxicity

and bioaccumulation potential of Hg,

the Administrator considered the small

cost of adding Hg control to be costeffective. The cost of Hg control is about

$0.25 to $0.35 per gram Hg removed

($250,000 to $350,000 per Mg), which

translates to approximately $0.05 to

$0.07 per month for a household served

by an MWC.

2. Social Costs and Benefits

This assessment of the cost and

benefits to State, local, and tribal

governments of the guidelines is based

on EPA’s ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis

for Proposed Emission Standards and

Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste

Combustors.’’ Measuring the social costs

of the guidelines requires identification

of the affected entities by ownership

(public or private), consideration of

regulatory alternatives, calculation of

the regulatory compliance costs for each

affected entity, and assessment of the

market implications of the additional

pollution control costs. Calculating the

social benefits of the guidelines requires

estimating the anticipated reductions in

emissions at MWC’s due to regulation,

identification of the harmful effects of

exposure to MWC emissions, and

valuing the expected reductions in these

damages to society.

a. Affected Entities. For 1996, the base

year of the analysis, there are 179

MWC’s in the population of operational

facilities affected by the guidelines. Of

this total, 100 are publicly owned and

operated (i.e., facilities owned by State

or local governments). There are no

MWC’s currently owned, or expected to

be owned in the near future, by tribal

governments, so there is no impact on

tribal governments. The remaining 79

MWC’s are privately owned and

operated. The EPA developed 16 model

plants to characterize the existing

facilities based on the technologies used

for combustion and air pollution control

at baseline. Table 5 shows the

distribution of publicly and privately

owned MWC’s and the estimated MSW

volumes managed by the existing MWC

model plants. Of the 100 publicly

owned and operated MWC plants, 38

plants are located in communities with

a population less than 50,000, 11 plants

are located in communities with a

population between 50,000 and 100,000,

21 plants are located in communities

with a population between 100,000 and

250,000, and 30 plants are located in

communities with a population greater

than 250,000. A detailed description of

the model plants used to characterize

operational MWC’s is presented in table

3–4 of the ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis

of Proposed Emissions Standards and

Guidelines for Municipal Waste

Combustors’’ (EPA–450/3–91–029,

1994).

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF TOTAL MSW THROUGHPUT AT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MWC’S BY MODEL PLANT

Model planta

Ownership

Public

throughput

(Mg/yr)

Public

share (%)

Private

throughput

(Mg/yr)

Private

share (%)

Total throughput (Mg/yr)

1 ........................................................................................................... 813,244 100.0 0 0.0 813,244

2 ........................................................................................................... 1,158,112 81.9 256,034 18.1 1,414,146

3 ........................................................................................................... 1,397,867 100.0 0 0.0 1,397,867

4 ........................................................................................................... 1,914,896 19.3 7,995,967 80.7 9,910,863

5 ........................................................................................................... 3,956,410 61.1 2,523,329 38.9 6,479,739

6 ........................................................................................................... 374,566 56.7 286,119 43.3 660,685

7 ........................................................................................................... 1,008,603 57.5 746,477 42.5 1,755,080

8 ........................................................................................................... 1,547,612 66.5 777,981 33.5 2,325,593

9 ........................................................................................................... 400,346 73.3 145,661 26.7 546,007

10 ......................................................................................................... 425,552 82.5 90,472 17.5 516,024

11 ......................................................................................................... 166,082 42.0 228,966 58.0 395,048

12 ......................................................................................................... 284,596 72.6 107,219 27.4 391,815

14 ......................................................................................................... 343,596 48.4 366,785 51.6 710,381

15 ......................................................................................................... 937,280 29.2 2,277,088 70.8 3,214,368
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65407

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF TOTAL MSW THROUGHPUT AT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MWC’S BY MODEL PLANT—Continued

Model planta

Ownership

Public

throughput

(Mg/yr)

Public

share (%)

Private

throughput

(Mg/yr)

Private

share (%)

Total throughput (Mg/yr)

16 ......................................................................................................... 58,462 6.7 819,320 93.3 877,782

17 ......................................................................................................... 745,501 52.9 662,673 47.1 1,408,174

Total: ............................................................................................. 15,078,823 45.9 17,737,993 54.1 32,816,816

aThere is no model plant that matches model plant #13 in the Economic Impact Analysis (EPA–450/3–91–029, March 1994).

b. Regulatory Alternatives Considered.

The two broad categories of regulatory

standards available include design

standards and emission standards.

Design standards specify the type of

control equipment polluters must

install, whereas emission standards

specify the maximum quantity of a

given pollutant that any one polluter

may release.

Design standards offer the least

flexible approach considered in this

analysis. Municipal waste combustors

would have to install the specified

control equipment regardless of the

additional emission reductions achieved

or the relative cost of alternative means

of emission reductions.

Emission standards allow greater

flexibility in the methods used to reduce

emissions. Municipal waste combustors

are free to meet the emission limit in the

manner that is least costly to them.

Consequently, for a given level of

emission reductions, emission standards

are generally less costly than design

standards. Furthermore, emission

standards give MWC’s an incentive to

develop more effective means of

controlling emissions. In addition, the

Act requires the Administrator to

promulgate emission standards unless

such standards are not feasible. See 42

U.S.C. §§ 7411(h) and 7429(a)(1). Since

emission standards for MWC’s are

feasible, the EPA is barred from

promulgating design standards for

MWC’s.

Even though emission standards

generally result in a more efficient

allocation of costs than design

standards, uniform emission standards

can be more costly than necessary.

Uniform emission standards require the

same level of emission control of every

discharger. Because marginal control

costs differ for plants of different sizes,

different technologies, different levels of

product recovery (i.e., in the chemical

industry), and different levels of

baseline control, an effective solution

can be reached if standards are carefully

tailored to the special characteristics of

each discharger. This type of standard is

referred to as a differentiated standard.

In formulating its MWC regulatory

alternatives, EPA selected candidate

regulatory alternatives that contain

control limits for MWC’s differentiated

by MWC size classification. Large

facilities are defined as MWC plants

with aggregate plant capacities over 225

Mg/day. Small facilities are defined as

MWC plants with aggregate plant

capacities between 35 and 225 Mg/day.

Plants with aggregate plant capacities

less than 35 Mg/day are not covered by

today’s rulemaking. The lower size

threshold of 35 Mg/day aggregate plant

capacity for controlling MWC emissions

under today’s rulemaking was selected

after reviewing the population

distributions of MWI’s and MWC’s.

Most incinerators at medical waste

facilities are smaller incinerators that

fire segregated medical waste with

general hospital discards (MSW), and

these incinerators would have the

potential to be covered by today’s

rulemaking. To avoid overlap with the

upcoming MWI rulemaking, this

rulemaking includes the lower size

cutoff of 35 Mg/day plant capacity and

MWC plants with aggregate capacities

less than or equal to 35 Mg/day will be

addressed under a separate rulemaking.

With a lower size cutoff of 35 Mg/day,

today’s promulgated MWC rulemaking

will cover over 99 percent of the total

U.S. MWC combustion capacity but will

exclude 97 percent of the total MWI

combustion capacity.

The regulatory alternatives for the two

selected size classifications did not

specify a particular control technology;

rather, they specified emission limits

that facilities would be required to meet.

Current practice indicates that the

emission guideline limits for acid gases,

PM, and metals will likely be met with

one of six different types of control

technologies, depending on the

applicable emission limits. Table 6

presents acid gas, PM, and metals

control technologies listed in order of

increasing efficiency.

TABLE 6.—CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

ASSOCIATED WITH ACID GAS, PARTICULATE MATTER, AND METALS

CONTROL

GCP + ESP

GCP + DSI/ESP

GCP + DSI/FF

GCP + SD/ESP

GCP + SD/FF

In designing MWC regulatory

alternatives, the EPA considered

emission limits consistent with the

combinations of the acid gas control

technologies listed in table 6. Small

plants may be required to meet one

control limit and large plants another

under a given regulatory alternative.

Under the final guidelines, more

stringent control requirements are in

fact applicable to large plants than to

small plants. This was done in an

attempt to equalize the cost impact on

small and large plants. Under the final

guidelines the unit cost for air pollution

control retrofit for large plants would be

about $16 per Mg of waste combusted.

For similar small plants the retrofit costs

would be about $17 per Mg of waste

combusted. Table 7 shows the control

technologies evaluated for the

guidelines regulatory alternatives under

two compliance scenarios for acid gas,

PM, and metals control. The control

technology bases identified in this table

are not intended to imply a design

standard. Rather, the technology bases

are identified only for the purpose of

estimating costs and emission

reductions.
65408 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 7.—EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC’S: CONTROL TECHNOLOGY BASES USED TO ESTIMATE THE

IMPACTS OF THE REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES a b

Regulatory alternative, and baseline APCD

Size Classification (Mg MSW/day)

Small (35 to

225) Large (over 225)

Reg. Alt. I:

No control ............................................................................................................................................ GCP+ESP GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

ESP (low) ............................................................................................................................................. GCP+ESP GCP+SD/

ESP(m)+CI+SNCR

SD/ESP ............................................................................................................................................... GCP+SD/ESP GCP+SD/

ESP(m)+CI+SNCR

SD/FF .................................................................................................................................................. GCP+SD/FF GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

Reg. Alt. II–A:

No control ............................................................................................................................................ GCP+DSI/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

ESP (low) ............................................................................................................................................. GCP+DSI/

ESP+CI

GCP+SD/

ESP(m)+CI+SNCR

SD/ESP ............................................................................................................................................... GCP+SD/

ESP+CI

GCP+SD/

ESP(m)+CI+SNCR

SD/FF .................................................................................................................................................. GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

Reg. Alt. II–B:

No control ............................................................................................................................................ GCP+DSI/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

ESP (low) ............................................................................................................................................. GCP+DSI/

ESP+CI

GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

SD/ESP ............................................................................................................................................... GCP+SD/

ESP+CI

GCP+SD/

ESP(m)+CI+SNCR

SD/FF .................................................................................................................................................. GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

Reg. Alt. III;

No control ............................................................................................................................................ GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

ESP (low) ............................................................................................................................................. GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

SD/ESP ............................................................................................................................................... GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

SD/FF .................................................................................................................................................. GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/

FF+CI+SNCR

MACT Floor:

No control ................................................................................................................................................ GCP+DSI/FF GCP+SD/FF+SNCR

ESP (low) ................................................................................................................................................ GCP+DSI/ESP GCP+SD/

ESP(M)+SNCR

SD/ESP ................................................................................................................................................... GCP+SD/ESP GCP+SD/

ESP(m)+SNCR

SD/FF ...................................................................................................................................................... GCP+SD/FF GCP+SD/FF+SNCR

Source: This table is an extract of table 4–2 of the document entitled ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors,’’ EPA–450/3–91–029, March 1994. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on obtaining

this document. aThe MWC regulation does not mandate a specific type of control equipment. The MWC owner/operator may use any control equipment that

meets the emission standards. The control technologies are the projected compliance strategies used as the basis for computing costs. If the

MWC has equipment that is meeting or exceeding the control requirements, no additional costs are incurred. b CI=carbon injection.

TABLE 7A.—EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC’S: EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES a

Pollutant category (Mg/yr)/annualized cost ($1990 10 6/yr)

Regulatory alternative

Reg. alt. I Reg. alt. II–A Reg. alt. II–B Reg. alt. III Mact floor

SO2 ....................................................................................... 41,200 43,300 43,300 45,000 43,300

HCl ....................................................................................... 51,600 56,300 56,300 57,300 56,300

PM ........................................................................................ 3,070 3,070 3,070 3,240 3,070

Pb ......................................................................................... 74.8 74.8 91.1 102 74.8

Cd ......................................................................................... 5.24 5.24 5.56 6.02 5.24

Hg ......................................................................................... 44.7 47.5 47.5 47.5 0

NOX ...................................................................................... 8,680 8,680 8,690 8,690 8,680

CO ........................................................................................ 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300

Dioxins/furans (total mass) ................................................... 0.154 0.156 0.157 0.158 b 0.153
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65409

TABLE 7A.—EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC’S: EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES a—Continued

Pollutant category (Mg/yr)/annualized cost ($1990 10 6/yr)

Regulatory alternative

Reg. alt. I Reg. alt. II–A Reg. alt. II–B Reg. alt. III Mact floor

Annualized cost ($1990 10 6/yr) ........................................... 412 443 448 487 425

Source: This table is an extract of tables 5–14 and 5–21 of the document entitled ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors,’’ EPA–450/3–91–029, March 1994. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on obtaining this document. aThe MWC regulation does not mandate a specific type of control equipment. The MWC owner/operator may use any control equipment that

meets the emission standards. The control technologies are the projected compliance strategies used as the basis for computing costs. If the

MWC has equipment that is meeting or exceeding the control requirements, no additional costs are incurred. bThe MACT floor is regulatory alternative II–A without carbon injection for mercury and dioxin/furan control. The majority of the dioxin/furan

emission control is achieved by acid gas controls included in alternative II–A and the floor. It is assumed that adding mercury control (carbon injection) to acid gas control reduces dioxin/furan emissions by at least an additional 50 percent. The dioxin/furan emission reduction estimate for

the MACT floor is not provided in the ‘‘Economic Impacts Analysis.’’

The regulatory alternatives represent

alternative levels of control considered

by the EPA, whereas the compliance

scenarios represent potential alternative

responses by the MWC owners and

operators to the emission requirements.

Generally speaking, the EPA assumed

that MWC owners and operators will

choose the minimum-cost control

technology that will meet the emission

requirements. However, where there is

uncertainty regarding the actual

emission limits that a particular control

technology will achieve in practice,

owners may choose a more conservative

(and potentially more costly)

compliance strategy to reduce the risk of

noncompliance. A conservative

investment decision is particularly

likely when the investment decision

affects the facility’s ability to remain in

operation (e.g., noncompliance results

in plant shutdown), is a long-term

decision, or involves a significant

capital outlay. Consequently, we

evaluate two compliance scenarios for

meeting the acid gas, PM, and metals

control requirements for existing plants

subject to guidelines.

A more detailed discussion of the

regulatory alternatives EPA considered

may be found in the ‘‘Economic Impact

Analysis for Proposed Emission

Standards and Guidelines for Municipal

Waste Combustors,’’ EPA–450/3–91–

029, March 1994 (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on

obtaining this document). Control

alternatives were also developed for

NOX control and Hg control. Discussion

of these alternatives can be found in the

following memos that may be obtained

from the EPA’s Air Docket, as specified

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this preamble: (1) ‘‘Update

Report on Mercury Control

Technologies for Municipal Waste

Combustors’’ prepared by K. Nebel and

D. White, Radian Corporation, for W.

Stevenson, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, July 1993; (2) ‘‘NOX

Control on Existing MWC’s,’’ prepared

by E. Soderberg et al., Radian

Corporation, for W. Stevenson, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

August 23, 1991; (3) ‘‘Wet Scrubbing

Systems Performance and Cost,’’

prepared by K. Nebel, et al., Radian

Corporation, for W. Stevenson, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, June

22, 1994; and (4) ‘‘A Summary of

Mercury Emissions and Applicable

Control Technologies for Municipal

Waste Combustors,’’ prepared by K.

Nebel and D. White, Radian

Corporation, for W. Stevenson, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

September 1991.

c. Social Costs. The regulatory

compliance costs of reducing air

emissions from MWC’s include the total

and annualized capital costs; operating

and maintenance costs; monitoring,

inspection, recordkeeping, and

reporting costs; and total annual costs.

The annualized capital cost is

calculated using a 4-percent discount

rate for publicly-owned MWC’s and an

8-percent discount rate for privatelyowned MWC’s. The total annual cost is

calculated as the sum of the annualized

capital cost; operating and maintenance

costs; and the monitoring, inspection,

recordkeeping, and reporting costs.

There are no Federal funds available to

assist State and local governments in

meeting these costs.

Table 8 provides the estimated

compliance costs for the final

regulations and their distribution across

public and private MWC’s. As shown,

the national annual compliance costs for

existing MWC’s total $405.5 million,

with publicly-owned facilities incurring

$229.9 million. This total both

represents 56.7 percent of the estimated

national compliance costs and forms the

basis for allocating benefits to publiclyowned MWC’s. (The analysis has

assumed that benefits are linear with

emission reductions). The level of

compliance costs depends not only on

the absolute number of facilities, but

also on the baseline level of pollution

control. It is assumed that higher

compliance costs are associated with

higher emission reductions and are,

thus, appropriate for allocating the

benefits associated with the reduced

emissions.

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR EXISTING MWC’S BY OWNERSHIP ($1990, 10 3)

Ownership category

Annual

capital

costs

Annual

operating

and

maintenance

costs

Annual

MIRR

costs a

Total annual

costs

Public ................................................................................................................................................ 67,625 154,163 8,092 229,881

Private .............................................................................................................................................. 83,936 87,161 4,575 175,672

Total ....................................................................................................................................... 151,561 241,325 12,667 405,553

a MIRR=Monitoring, inspection, reporting, and recordkeeping.
65410 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

The analysis assumes that the entire

increase in costs of combustion services

for both public and private entities will

be passed through to MWC customers in

the form of increases in the tipping fee

charged by MWC’s. As shown in table

9, the estimated increases in the average

tipping fee for publicly-owned MWC’s

are significant and range from 36 to 59

percent. The range for privately-owned

MWC’s is 41 to 65 percent.

TABLE 9.—AVERAGE TIPPING FEE INCREASES FOR EXISTING MWC’S BY

OWNERSHIP

Ownership

Small MWC

plants (35

to 225 Mg/

day MSW)

(percent

change)

Large MWC

plants a

(over 225

Mg/day

MSW) (percent

change)

Public ................ 59 36

Private ............... 65 41

aFee increases are computed using the average cost per megagram of MSW reported in

tables 5–10 and 5–11 of the EPA’s ‘‘Economic

Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste

Combustors,’’ (EPA–450/3–91–029) and an

average tipping fee of $57/Mg of MSW. The

average tipping fee is based on the 1993 average tipping fee for MWC’s reported in Waste

Age (Berenyi & Gould, 1993) converted to

1990 dollars.

Section 7.3.1 of the EPA’s economic

impact analysis (EPA–450/3–91–029)

provides a distributional analysis of the

impacts on governmental entities with

respect to their ability to finance the

regulatory compliance capital through

revenue bonds. A community’s ability

to finance the regulatory compliance

capital through revenue bonds is

estimated by comparing the estimated

average annual cost per household to

the average annual household income

for the community. If the cost per

household exceeds one percent of

average annual household income, then

the community is assumed to have

potential difficulty issuing revenue

bonds. Of the estimated 100

governmental entities subject to the

guidelines, no governmental entities

with a population above 50,000 are

projected to have difficulty issuing

revenue bonds as a result of the

regulation on existing sources. Overall,

3 of the 100 governmental entities (all

3 of which have population below

50,000) are projected to have difficulty

issuing such bonds.

Without market adjustments, the

social costs of the guidelines should be

equivalent to the national compliance

costs shown in table 8. However, in this

analysis, the social costs differ, both

because the total capital costs for both

public and private MWC’s were

discounted at the social rate equal to 7

percent, and because of tax differences.

Table 10 shows the estimated social cost

of the regulations and the distribution

across public and private MWC’s. The

estimated annual social cost of the

guidelines is $443 million of which 56.7

percent, or $251.1 million, is attributed

to publicly-owned MWC’s. This

estimate of social cost is greater than the

national compliance costs because the

total capital costs for publicly-owned

MWC’s is discounted at the social rate

of 7 percent, as opposed to the 4 percent

rate used to compute the national

compliance costs.

TABLE 10.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED

ANNUAL SOCIAL COST BY OWNERSHIP ($1990)

Ownership category

Total social costs

($10 3 per

year)

Share

(percent)

Public ........................ 251,107 56.7

Private ....................... 191,893 43.3

Total ............... 443,000 100.0

Table 10A provides typical costs of air

pollution control retrofits for existing

MWC’s. The costs shown in table 10A

are for 17 model existing plants.

TABLE 10A.—Typical Cost of Air Pollution Control Retrofit for Existing MWC’S

Plant size (Mg/day) MWC type

Costs ($1990×10 6) Model plant

number Capital Annual

45 ..................................................................................................................................... MOD/SA 2 0.5 10

136 ................................................................................................................................... MOD/SA 3 10.5 9

181 ................................................................................................................................... MOD/EA 3 0.4 11

181 ................................................................................................................................... MB/WW 5 0.9 6

454 ................................................................................................................................... MB/RWW 13 1.6 12

980 ................................................................................................................................... MB/WW 25 3.2 5

2,041 ................................................................................................................................ MB/WW 46 5.0 4

181 ................................................................................................................................... MB/WW a5 0.8 14

454 ................................................................................................................................... MB/RWW a13 1.6 17

544 ................................................................................................................................... RDF 28 2.3 8

1,814 ................................................................................................................................ RDF 64 4.8 7

1,814 ................................................................................................................................ RDF a33 4.4 15

544 ................................................................................................................................... RDF a17 2.0 16

218 ................................................................................................................................... MB/REF 8 0.9 2

680 ................................................................................................................................... MB/REF 39 2.3 1

816 ................................................................................................................................... MB/REF 35 4.1 3

Note: See table 5–1 of the ‘‘Economic Impacts Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors’’

(EPA–450/3–91–029) for more information. aThese model plants are assumed to be relatively new units that originally incorporated good combustion in their design and, therefore, do not

need to retrofit good combustion to comply with the guidelines.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65411

d. Social Benefits. Society will benefit

from the proposed guidelines through

the reduction of emissions of dioxins/

furans, Cd, Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, SO2, and

NOX. These pollutant categories are

emitted by various types of sources,

including MWC’s. The level of pollutant

emissions and health effects vary among

types of sources, and total national

emissions of these pollutants has been

shown to have the health effects listed

in table 11.

TABLE 11.—HEALTH AND OTHER

EFFECTS

Pollutant category Health and other effects

Organics ......... • Mortality, morbidity.

• Carcinogenicity.

Metals ............ • Retardation and brain

damage.

• Hypertension.

• Central nervous system

injury.

• Renal dysfunction.

Acid gases ..... • Materials damage.

• Dental erosion.

• Acid rain.

• Mortality, morbidity.

• Respiratory tract problems, permanent harm to

lung.

• Soiling and materials

damage.

• Reduced agricultural

yield.

• Ozone formation.

Particulate

matter.

• Mortality, morbidity.

• Eye and throat irritation,

bronchitis, lung damage.

• Impaired visibility.

• Soiling and materials

damage.

Because of limitations on data on the

concentration-response function and

valuation of these functions, benefits

have not been quantified for all

pollutants. Benefits have been

quantified only for emissions of SO2 and

PM. Benefits have not been quantified

for dioxins/furans, Cd, Pb, Hg, HCl or

NOX emission control. Benefits to the

public and environment will result from

the control of these hazardous air

pollutants (HAP’s) and criteria

pollutants. For the HAP’s, dioxin/furan

compounds have been associated with

chloracne, reproductive/developmental

effects, immune system toxicity, and

cancer (probable human carcinogen).

Particulate-associated metals including

Pb and Cd are toxic and can cause

effects such as mucous membrane

irritation, gastrointestinal effects,

nervous system disorders, skin

irritation, and reproductive and

developmental disorders. In regard to

volatile metals, Hg in all forms may be

characterized as quite toxic with each

form exhibiting different health effects,

including gastrointestinal and

respiratory tract disturbances, central

nervous system effects, and

developmental effects. Additionally,

HCl is corrosive and effects the eyes,

skin, and mucus membranes, and

dermatitis has been reported from longterm exposure.

Table 12 provides the estimated social

benefits associated with reductions in

PM and SO2 emissions from MWC’s and

their distribution across public and

private MWC’s. The estimated social

benefit of reduced PM and SO2

emissions is $106 million with $60.3

million being attributed to reductions at

publicly-owned MWC facilities. These

benefits would be experienced annually

by the residents of these municipalities.

Proper allocation of these benefits

would be based on the expected

emission reductions at public and

private MWC’s. However, due to lack of

data at the model plant level, these

benefits are allocated across public and

private MWC’s in the same proportion

as the estimated national compliance

costs (i.e., 56.7 percent for public and

43.3 percent for private).

TABLE 12.—SOCIAL BENEFIT ESTIMATES FOR SO2 and PM Emission

Reductions by Ownership ($1990)

Ownership categorySocial benefits ($10 3 per year) a b

PM SO2 Total

Public .... 30,779 29,475 60,254

Private ... 23,521 22,525 46,046

TABLE 12.—SOCIAL BENEFIT ESTIMATES FOR SO2 and PM Emission

Reductions by Ownership

($1990)—Continued

Ownership categorySocial benefits ($10 3 per year) a b

PM SO2 Total

Total ...... 54,300 52,000 106,300

aBenefit estimates are $1,200 per Mg of

SO2 reduced and $17,700 per Mg of PM reduced. (This estimate is derived valuing all

mortalities at $4.4 million per life saved. This

approach does not consider the length of the

changes in longevity resulting from PM exposure). Social benefits attributable to public and

private MWC’s are proportionate to their share

of the total annual costs. b Does not include benefit credits for dioxins/

furans, Cd, and Hg control.

Table 13 presents a comparison of the

estimated social costs and benefits of

the guidelines. Unfortunately, because

benefit estimates are not computed for

all pollutants, the social benefit

provided in table 13 is a partial

estimate. Because of this fact, the net

benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs)

shown in table 13 cannot be used to

reach conclusions regarding the total net

benefits of the rule for existing sources.

TABLE 13.—SOCIAL COSTS AND PARTIAL SOCIAL BENEFITS FROM REDUCING EMISSIONS AT MWC’S BY

OWNERSHIP ($1990, 10 3 PER

YEAR)

Ownership category Total social costs

Partial

social

benefits

Public ........................ 251,107 60,254

Private ....................... 191,893 46,046

Total ............... 443,000 106,300

3. Effects on the National Economy

The Unfunded Mandates Act requires

that the EPA estimate ‘‘the effect’’ of this

rule

‘‘on the national economy, such as the effect

on productivity, economic growth, full

employment, creation of productive jobs, and

international competitiveness of the U.S.

goods and services, if and to the extent that

the EPA in its sole discretion determines that
65412 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

accurate estimates are reasonably

feasible and that such effect is relevant

and material.’’

As stated in the Unfunded Mandates

Act, such macroeconomic effects tend to

be measurable, in nationwide

econometric models, only if the

economic impact of the regulation

reaches 0.25 to 0.5 percent of gross

domestic product (in the range of $1.5

billion to $3 billion). A regulation with

a smaller aggregate effect is highly

unlikely to have any measurable impact

in macroeconomic terms unless it is

highly focused on a particular

geographic region or economic sector.

For this reason, no estimate of this rule’s

effect on the national economy has been

conducted.

4. Consultation with Government

Officials

The Unfunded Mandates Act requires

that the EPA describe the extent of the

EPA’s consultation with affected State,

local, and tribal officials, summarize the

officials’ comments or concerns, and

summarize the EPA’s response to those

comments or concerns. In addition,

section 203 of the Clean Air Act requires

that the EPA develop a plan for

informing and advising small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by a proposal.

Throughout the development of these

rules (pre-proposal through prepromulgation phases), the EPA

consulted with representatives of

affected State and local governments,

including the U.S. Conference of

Mayors, the National League of Cities,

the National Association of Counties,

the Solid Waste Association of North

America, and the Municipal Waste

Management Association, to inform

them of the proposed rule and

determine their concerns. (The EPA also

consulted with representatives from

other entities affected by the proposed

rule, such as the Integrated Waste

Services Association, the Sierra Club,

and the Natural Resources Defense

Council.)

As part of EPA’s consultation efforts

in this rulemaking, the EPA mailed a

copy of the regulatory summary (FACT

SHEET) for the September 20, 1994

proposed MWC standards and

guidelines to every elected official in an

area with either an operating MWC, an

MWC under construction, or a planned

MWC. (The EPA also mailed copies of

the summary to all owners and

operators of these MWC’s.) This mailout

exceeded 400 informational packages.

Since approximately half of the MWC’s

are owned and/or operated by

municipalities, with this effort, the EPA

was able to ensure that every affected

State and local government was made

aware of the proposed rule and had the

necessary information to provide

comment.

In addition, over a 3-month period,

EPA staff consulted with State and local

government representatives to discuss

their comments regarding the final draft

package. Letters were received during

this time period from the U.S.

Conference Mayors and the Integrated

Waste Services Association (see docket

A–90–45, items IV–D–44 and IV-D–85,

respectively), which raised various

concerns; however, in subsequent

meetings, the EPA learned that State

and local officials, as well as industry

representatives, were mainly concerned

with the following sections of the final

draft emission guidelines: (1) The

achievability for some MWC’s of the

final draft NOX emission limit included

in the emission guidelines; (2) the fact

that because the EPA had not

subcategorized by combustor type for

purposes of determining the NOX

emission limit as it had when it

determined the CO emission limit, some

MWC’s would be forced to install

retrofit technology in order to meet the

more stringent NOX limit, (3) the

achievability for MWC’s with large new

ESP’s of the final draft dioxin/furan

emission limit included in the emission

guidelines; and (4) the inconsistency

between some of the definitions in the

draft rules with the definitions given in

40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea, which

establishes emission limits for MWC’s

that commence construction after

December 20, 1989, but on or before

September 20, 1994.

As a result of these consultations, the

EPA decided to modify the final

regulatory package to address these

concerns. The final emission guidelines

promulgated today:

(1) Subcategorize MWC’s by

combustor type for the purpose of

establishing different NOx emission

guidelines; and

(2) Establish separate dioxin/furan

emission guidelines for MWC’s with

ESP-based systems and MWC’s with

nonESP-based systems. In addition, in

order to address the fourth concern

identified by State and local

governments, the EPA is publishing

today under a separate Federal Register

notice, a direct final rule that modifies

the applicability and definitions

sections of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea

to improve clarity and make them

consistent with those provided in the

standards and emission guidelines

promulgated in this notice.

Documentation of the EPA’s

consideration of comments on the

proposed standards and guidelines is

provided in the BID’s for the proposed

and final standards and guidelines.

Refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

and ADDRESSES sections of this

preamble for information on how to

acquire copies of these documents.

As discussed in section IV.F, the

number of affected small entities is not

expected to be substantial. The full

analysis of potential regulatory impacts

on households, small governments, and

small businesses is included in the

economic impact analysis in the docket

and listed under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Because the number of

affected small entities is expected to be

insubstantial (i.e., the EPA considers

that the regulation is likely to affect less

than 20 percent of small entities with

MWC’s—see section IV.F for a more

detailed explanation), no plan to inform

and advise small governments is

required under section 203 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act. However, as

described above, the EPA has

communicated and consulted with

small governments and businesses that

will be affected by the standards and

guidelines, keeping them informed

about the content of this promulgation.

Refer to section III.C. for a description

of these communications.

E. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 on October 26,

1993, entitled ‘‘Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership.’’ Under

Executive Order 12875, the EPA is

required to consult with representatives

of affected State, local, and tribal

governments, and keep these affected

parties informed about the content and

effect of the promulgated standards and

emission guidelines. Section III.A of this

notice provides a brief summary of the

need for the final standards and

guidelines. Sections IV.C and V.C

provide brief summaries of the cost of

the final guidelines and standards.

Section III.C provides a brief account of

the actions that the EPA has taken to

communicate and consult with the

affected parties. The discussion

provided below provides a brief

summary of the content of the final

standards and guidelines. For more

information on the content of the final

standards and guidelines, refer to

sections IV.A and V.A of this notice.

The promulgated standards and

guidelines establish emission

limitations for new and existing MWC

units located at MWC plants with plant

capacities to combust greater than 35

Mg/day of MSW. The standards and

guidelines do not specify which type of

air pollution control equipment must be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65413

used at MWC’s to meet the promulgated

emission limitations. The EPA expects,

however, that, as a result of the

promulgated standards and guidelines,

most new and existing MWC’s at large

MWC plants (plants with greater than

225 Mg/day capacity) will use SD/FF

systems with activated carbon injection

(new plants) or retrofit SD/FF or SD/ESP

systems with activated carbon injection

(existing plants) for dioxins/furans,

metals, and acid gas control, and will

use SNCR for NOX control. New MWC’s

at small MWC plants (plants with 35 to

225 Mg/day capacity) are expected to

install SD/FF systems with activated

carbon injection, and existing MWC’s at

small plants are expected to install DSI/

ESP systems with activated carbon

injection. Selective noncatalytic

reduction technology would not be

necessary for either new or existing

MWC’s at small MWC plants.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Section 605 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) requires Federal agencies to give

special consideration to the impacts of

regulations on small entities, which are

small businesses, small organizations,

and small governments. The major

purpose of the RFA is to keep

paperwork and regulatory requirements

from getting out of proportion to the

scale of the entities being regulated

without compromising the objectives of,

in this case, the Clean Air Act.

If a regulation is likely to have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

EPA may give special consideration to

those small entities when analyzing

regulatory alternatives and drafting the

regulation. In the case at hand, the EPA

considers that a regulation that is likely

to affect 20 percent or more of small

entities with MWC’s is a regulation that

will affect a substantial number of small

entities.

Definitions of small entities are

flexible. For analysis of the regulations

being proposed today, the EPA

considers a small business in this

industry to be one with gross annual

revenue less than $6 million, and a

small government to be one that serves

a population less than 50,000. (A typical

city of 50,000 generates about 90 Mg/

day of MSW.) Most small governments

dispose of their MSW by landfilling

and, therefore, will not be affected by

regulation of MWC emissions. In regard

to small organizations such as

independent not-for-profit enterprises,

the EPA finds that they have no more

than a very minor involvement with

MWC’s, and for that reason the EPA has

not found it necessary to study potential

direct impacts on small organizations.

The final regulations do not apply to

MWC plants with capacity less than 35

Mg/day. The EPA estimates that few if

any small-entity MWC’s would be

affected by today’s promulgated

standards and guidelines.

Thus, the number of affected small

entities is not expected to be substantial,

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is

not required. Nevertheless, the EPA has

conducted an extensive analysis of

potential regulatory impacts on

households, small governments, and

small businesses. The analysis is

summarized in the preambles to the

proposed standards (59 FR 48198) and

guidelines (59 FR 48228.) The full

analysis is included in the economic

impact assessment in the docket and is

listed at the beginning of today’s notice

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

On December 20, 1989, the EPA

proposed standards and guidelines for

MWC’s that applied to all sizes of

MWC’s. The 1989 proposal had no

lower size cutoff. Small businesses,

small governments, and groups

representing small-entity interests

commented extensively on the need to

lighten the potential regulatory burden

on small entities. Most commenters

suggested a small size cutoff

considerably smaller than the one now

being proposed. The most frequently

suggested levels were 5 to 11 Mg/day,

18 Mg/day, 23 Mg/day, and 45 Mg/day.

The EPA has used these suggestions and

the information submitted by these

commenters, as well as information

from other sources, to fulfill the intent

of the RFA. The EPA has incorporated

into the standards and guidelines being

promulgated today several features that

will mitigate and, in most cases

eliminate, any potential, adverse

economic impacts on small entities.

These features are as follows:

(1) The standards and guidelines will

apply only to MWC’s with a plant

capacity of greater than 35 Mg/day. This

cutoff eliminates from the purview of

the regulation and guidelines the

overwhelming majority of projected new

and existing very small MWC’s;

(2) The standards and guidelines are

‘‘tiered’’ so that the stringency (and

therefore potential economic burden) of

the emission standards and guidelines

increases as the size of the MWC plant

increases. Plants with capacities less

than or equal to 35 Mg/day are not

covered under the final standards and

guidelines. Plants with capacities of 35

to 225 Mg/day are not required to

control NOx. Only plants with capacities

larger than 225 Mg/day—plants not

often associated with small entities—are

subject to a full complement of rigorous

standards;

(3) As opposed to design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standards,

the standards for new sources and the

guidelines for existing sources consist

predominantly of emission limits.

Emission limits give MWC owners and

operators of new and existing MWC’s

the freedom to select the most

economical means of compliance.

(4) The guidelines are not the usual

type of regulation governed by the RFA.

The guidelines will not apply directly to

any MWC’s, but will be used as a guide

by individual State air pollution control

agencies in developing site-specific

regulations for MWC’s. States are

allowed some flexibility in

implementing the guidelines.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the EPA certifies that the

standards and guidelines will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because the number of small entities

affected is not substantial.

G. Clean Air Act Procedural

Requirements

The following procedural

requirements of the Clean Air Act are

addressed: Administrative listing,

periodic review, external participation,

and economic impact assessment.

1. Administrator Listing—Sections 111

and 129 of the Clean Air Act

As prescribed by section 111 of the

Clean Air Act, establishment of

standards of performance and emission

guidelines for MWC’s is based on the

Administrator’s determination (52 FR

25399, July 7, 1987) that these sources

contribute significantly to air pollution

that may reasonably be anticipated to

endanger public health or welfare.

Additionally, section 129 of the 1990

Amendments to the Clean Air Act

directs the Administrator to promulgate

revised standards for new MWC’s and

guidelines for existing MWC’s.

2. Periodic Review—Sections 111 and

129 of the Clean Air Act

Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act require that the standards and

guidelines be reviewed not later than 5

years following the initial promulgation.

At that time and at 5-year intervals

thereafter, the Administrator shall

review the standards and guidelines and

revise them if necessary. This review

will include an assessment of such

factors as the need for integration with

other programs, the existence of

alternative methods, enforceability,

improvements in emission control

technology, and reporting requirements.
65414 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3. External Participation

In accordance with section 117 of the

Clean Air Act, publication of this

promulgation was preceded by

consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and

Federal departments and agencies.

4. Economic Impact Assessment

Section 317A of the Clean Air Act

requires the EPA to prepare an

economic impact assessment for any

standards or guidelines promulgated

under section 111(b) of the Clean Air

Act. An economic impact assessment

was prepared for the promulgated

standards and guidelines. In the manner

described in the sections of this

preamble regarding the impacts of and

rationale for the promulgated standards

and guidelines, the EPA considered all

aspects of the economic impact

assessment in promulgating the

standards and guidelines. The economic

impact assessment is included in the list

of key technical documents at the

beginning of today’s notice under

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental Protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Incorporation by reference,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: October 31, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 60, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414,

7416, 7429, and 7601.

2. Section 60.17 of subpart A of part

60 is amended by revising paragraphs

(h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 60.17 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) ASME QRO–1–1994, Standard for

the Qualification and Certification of

Resource Recovery Facility Operators,

IBR approved for §§ 60.56a, 60.54b(a)

and 60.54b(b).

(2) ASME PTC 4.1–1964 (Reaffirmed

1991), Power Test Codes: Test Code for

Steam Generating Units (with 1968 and

1969 Addenda), IBR approved for

§§ 60.46b, 60.58a(h)(6)(ii), and

60.58b(i)(6)(ii).

(3) ASME Interim Supplement 19.5 on

Instruments and Apparatus:

Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th

Edition (1971), IBR approved for

§§ 60.58a(h)(6)(ii) and 60.58b(i)(6)(ii).

* * * * *

3. Section 60.23 of subpart B of part

60 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 60.23 Adoption and submittal of State

plans; public hearings.

(a) * * *

(1) Unless otherwise specified in the

applicable subpart, within 9 months

after notice of the availability of a final

guideline document is published under

§ 60.22(a), each State shall adopt and

submit to the Administrator, in

accordance with § 60.4 of subpart A of

this part, a plan for the control of the

designated pollutant to which the

guideline document applies.

* * * * *

4. Section 60.24 of subpart B of part

60 is amended by revising paragraph (f)

introductory text to read as follows:

§ 60.24 Emission standards and

compliance schedules.

* * * * *

(f) Unless otherwise specified in the

applicable subpart on a case-by-case

basis for particular designated facilities

or classes of facilities, States may

provide for the application of less

stringent emissions standards or longer

compliance schedules than those

otherwise required by paragraph (c) of

this section, provided that the State

demonstrates with respect to each such

facility (or class of facilities):

* * * * *

5. Subpart C of part 60 is amended by

revising § 60.30 to read as follows:

§ 60.30 Scope.

The following subparts contain

emission guidelines and compliance

times for the control of certain

designated pollutants in accordance

with section 111(d) and section 129 of

the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this

part.

(a) Subpart Ca—[Removed and

Reserved]

(b) Subpart Cb—Municipal Waste

Combustors

(c) Subpart Cc—[Reserved]

(d) Subpart Cd—Sulfuric Acid

Production Plants

Subpart Ca—[Removed and Reserved]

5a. Part 60 is amended by removing

and reserving subpart Ca.

Subpart Cb—[Redesignated as

Subpart Cd]

Subpart Cc—[Reserved]

6. Part 60 is amended by

redesignating subpart Cb as Cd,

reserving subpart Cc, and revising the

new subpart Cd to read as follows:

Subpart Cd—Emissions Guidelines and

Compliance Times for Sulfuric Acid

Production Units

Sec.

60.30d Designated facilities.

60.31d Emission guidelines.

60.32d Compliance times.

Subpart Cd—Emission Guidelines and

Compliance Times for Sulfuric Acid

Production Units

§ 60.30d Designated facilities.

Sulfuric acid production units. The

designated facility to which §§ 60.31d

and 60.32d apply is each existing

‘‘sulfuric acid production unit’’ as

defined in § 60.81(a) of subpart H of this

part.

§ 60.31d Emissions guidelines.

Sulfuric acid production units. The

emission guideline for designated

facilities is 0.25 grams sulfuric acid mist

(as measured by EPA Reference Method

8 of appendix A of this part) per

kilogram (0.5 pounds per ton) of sulfuric

acid produced, the production being

expressed as 100 percent sulfuric acid.

§ 60.32d Compliance times.

Sulfuric acid production units.

Planning, awarding of contracts, and

installation of equipment capable of

attaining the level of the emission

guideline established under § 60.31d

can be accomplished within 17 months

after the effective date of a State

emission standard for sulfuric acid mist.

7. Part 60 is further amended by

adding a new subpart Cb to read as

follows:

Subpart Cb—Emissions Guidelines and

Compliance Times for Municipal Waste

Combustors That Are Constructed on or

Before December 19, 1995

Sec.

60.30b Scope.

60.31b Definitions.

60.32b Designated facilities.

60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal

waste combustor metals, acid gases,

organics, and nitrogen oxides.

60.34b Emission guidelines for municipal

waste combustor operating practices.

60.35b Emission guidelines for municipal

waste combustor operator training and

certification.

60.36b Emission guidelines for municipal

waste combustor fugitive ash emissions.

60.37b Emission guidelines for air curtain

incinerators.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65415

60.38b Compliance and performance

testing.

60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping

guidelines, and compliance schedules.

Subpart Cb—Emissions Guidelines

and Compliance Schedules for

Municipal Waste Combustors

§ 60.30b Scope.

This subpart contains emission

guidelines and compliance schedules

for the control of certain designated

pollutants from certain municipal waste

combustors in accordance with section

111(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air

Act and subpart B of this part. The

provisions in these emission guidelines

supersede the provisions of § 60.24(f) of

subpart B of this part.

§ 60.31b Definitions.

Terms used but not defined in this

subpart have the meaning given them in

the Clean Air Act and subparts A, B,

and Eb of this part.

Municipal waste combustor plant

means one or more municipal waste

combustor units at the same location for

which construction was commenced on

or before September 20, 1994.

Municipal waste combustor plant

capacity means the aggregate municipal

waste combustor unit capacity of all

municipal waste combustor units at a

municipal waste combustor plant for

which construction was commenced on

or before September 20, 1994.

§ 60.32b Designated facilities.

(a) The designated facility to which

these guidelines apply is each

municipal waste combustor unit located

within a municipal waste combustor

plant with an aggregate municipal waste

combustor plant capacity greater than

35 megagrams per day of municipal

solid waste for which construction was

commenced on or before September 20,

1994.

(b) Any waste combustion unit at a

medical, industrial, or other type of

waste combustor plant that is capable of

combusting more than 35 megagrams

per day of municipal solid waste and is

subject to a federally enforceable permit

limiting the plantwide maximum

amount of municipal solid waste that

may be combusted to less than or equal

to 10 megagrams per day is not subject

to this subpart if the owner or operator:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of an

exemption claim,

(2) Provides a copy of the federally

enforceable permit that limits the firing

of municipal solid waste to less than 10

megagrams per day, and

(3) Keeps records of the amount of

municipal solid waste fired on a daily

basis.

(c) Physical or operational changes

made to an existing municipal waste

combustor unit primarily for the

purpose of complying with emission

guidelines under this subpart are not

considered in determining whether the

unit is a modified or reconstructed

facility under subpart Ea or subpart Eb

of this part.

(d) A qualifying small power

production facility, as defined in section

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

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

homogeneous waste (such as automotive

tires or used oil, but not including

refuse-derived fuel) for the production

of electric energy is not subject to this

subpart if the owner or operator of the

facility notifies the Administrator of this

exemption and provides data

documenting that the facility qualifies

for this exemption.

(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility,

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

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.

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

waste (such as automotive tires or used

oil, but not including refuse-derived

fuel) for the production of electric

energy and steam or forms of useful

energy (such as heat) that are used for

industrial, commercial, heating, or

cooling purposes, is not subject to this

subpart if the owner or operator of the

facility notifies the Administrator of this

exemption and provides data

documenting that the facility qualifies

for this exemption.

(f) Any unit combusting a single-item

waste stream of tires is not subject to

this subpart if the owner or operator of

the unit:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of an

exemption claim, and

(2) Provides data documenting that

the unit qualifies for this exemption.

(g) Any unit required to have a permit

under section 3005 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act is not subject to this

subpart.

(h) Any materials recovery facility

(including primary or secondary

smelters) that combusts waste for the

primary purpose of recovering metals is

not subject to this subpart.

(i) Any cofired combustor, as defined

under § 60.51b of subpart Eb of this part,

that meets the capacity specifications in

paragraph (a) of this section is not

subject to this subpart if the owner or

operator of the cofired combustor:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of an

exemption claim,

(2) Provides a copy of the federally

enforceable permit (specified in the

definition of cofired combustor in this

section), and

(3) Keeps a record on a calendar

quarter basis of the weight of municipal

solid waste combusted at the cofired

combustor and the weight of all other

fuels combusted at the cofired

combustor.

(j) Air curtain incinerators, as defined

under § 60.51b of subpart Eb of this part,

that meet the capacity specifications in

paragraph (a) of this section, and that

combust a fuel stream composed of 100

percent yard waste are exempt from all

provisions of this subpart except the

opacity standard under § 60.37b, the

testing procedures under § 60.38b, and

the reporting and recordkeeping

provisions under § 60.39b.

(k) Air curtain incinerators that meet

the capacity specifications in paragraph

(a) of this section and that combust

municipal solid waste other than yard

waste are subject to all provisions of this

subpart.

(l) Pyrolysis/combustion units that are

an integrated part of a plastics/rubber

recycling unit (as defined in § 60.51b)

are not subject to this subpart if the

owner or operator of the plastics/rubber

recycling unit keeps records of the

weight of plastics, rubber, and/or rubber

tires processed on a calendar quarter

basis; the weight of chemical plant

feedstocks and petroleum refinery

feedstocks produced and marketed on a

calendar quarter basis; and the name

and address of the purchaser of the

feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline,

diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual

oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,

liquified petroleum gas, propane, or

butane produced by chemical plants or

petroleum refineries that use feedstocks

produced by plastics/rubber recycling

units are not subject to this subpart.

§ 60.33b Emission guidelines for

municipal waste combustor metals, acid

gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.

(a) The emission limits for municipal

waste combustor metals are specified in

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

section.

(1) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for particulate

matter and opacity at least as protective

as the emission limits for particulate

matter and opacity specified in

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

this section.

(i) The emission limit for particulate

matter contained in the gases discharged

to the atmosphere from a designated

facility located within a large municipal

waste combustor plant is 27 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter, corrected

to 7 percent oxygen.

(ii) The emission limit for particulate

matter contained in the gases discharged

to the atmosphere from a designated

facility located within a small

municipal waste combustor plant is 70
65416 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

milligrams per dry standard cubic

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(iii) The emission limit for opacity

exhibited by the gases discharged to the

atmosphere from a designated facility

located within a small or large

municipal waste combustor plant is 10

percent (6-minute average).

(2) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for cadmium

and lead at least as protective as the

emission limits for cadmium and lead

specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through

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

(i) The emission limit for cadmium

contained in the gases discharged to the

atmosphere from a designated facility

located within a large municipal waste

combustor plant is 0.040 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7

percent oxygen.

(ii) The emission limit for cadmium

contained in the gases discharged to the

atmosphere from a designated facility

located within a small municipal waste

combustor plant is 0.10 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7

percent oxygen.

(iii) The emission limit for lead

contained in the gases discharged to the

atmosphere from a designated facility

located within a large municipal waste

combustor plant is 0.49 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7

percent oxygen.

(iv) The emission limit for lead

contained in the gases discharged to the

atmosphere from a designated facility

located within a small municipal waste

combustor plant is 1.6 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7

percent oxygen.

(3) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for mercury at

least as protective as the emission limits

specified in this paragraph. The

emission limit for mercury contained in

the gases discharged to the atmosphere

from a designated facility located within

a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant is 0.080 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter or 15 percent

of the potential mercury emission

concentration (an 85-percent reduction

by weight), corrected to 7 percent

oxygen, whichever is less stringent.

(b) The emission limits for municipal

waste combustor acid gases, expressed

as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen

chloride, are specified in paragraphs

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.

(1) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for sulfur

dioxide at least as protective as the

emission limits for sulfur dioxide

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and

(b)(1)(ii) of this section.

(i) The emission limit for sulfur

dioxide contained in the gases

discharged to the atmosphere from a

designated facility located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant is 31

parts per million by volume or 25

percent of the potential sulfur dioxide

emission concentration (75-percent

reduction by weight or volume),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry

basis), whichever is less stringent.

Compliance with this emission limit is

based on a 24-hour daily geometric

mean.

(ii) The emission limit for sulfur

dioxide contained in the gases

discharged to the atmosphere from a

designated facility located within a

small municipal waste combustor plant

is 80 parts per million by volume or 50

percent of the potential sulfur dioxide

emission concentration (50-percent

reduction by weight or volume),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry

basis), whichever is less stringent.

Compliance with this emission limit is

based on a 24-hour geometric mean.

(2) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for hydrogen

chloride at least as protective as the

emission limits for hydrogen chloride

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(b)(2)(ii) of this section.

(i) The emission limit for hydrogen

chloride contained in the gases

discharged to the atmosphere from a

designated facility located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant is 31

parts per million by volume or 5 percent

of the potential hydrogen chloride

emission concentration (95-percent

reduction by weight or volume),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry

basis), whichever is less stringent.

(ii) The emission limit for hydrogen

chloride contained in the gases

discharged to the atmosphere from an

affected facility located within a small

municipal waste combustor plant is 250

parts per million by volume or 50

percent of the potential hydrogen

chloride emission concentration (50-

percent reduction by weight or volume),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry

basis), whichever is less stringent.

(c) The emission limits for municipal

waste combustor organics, expressed as

total mass dioxins/furans, are specified

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

section.

(1) For approval, a State plan shall

include an emission limit for dioxins/

furans contained in the gases discharged

to the atmosphere from a designated

facility located within a large municipal

waste combustor plant at least as

protective as the emission limit for

dioxins/furans specified in either

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

section, as applicable.

(i) The emission limit for designated

facilities that employ an electrostatic

precipitator-based emission control

system is 60 nanograms per dry

standard cubic meter (total mass),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(ii) The emission limit for designated

facilities that do not employ an

electrostatic precipitator-based emission

control system is 30 nanograms per dry

standard cubic meter (total mass),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(2) For approval, a State plan shall

include an emission limit for dioxins/

furans contained in the gases discharged

to the atmosphere from a designated

facility located within a small

municipal waste combustor plant at

least as protective as the emission limit

for dioxins/furans specified in this

paragraph. The emission limit for

dioxins/furans for designated facilities

located within a small municipal waste

combustor plant is 125 nanograms per

dry standard cubic meter (total mass),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(d) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for nitrogen

oxides at least as protective as the

emission limits listed in table 1 of this

subpart for designated facilities located

within large municipal waste combustor

plants. Table 1 provides emission limits

for the nitrogen oxides concentration

level for each type of designated facility.

TABLE 1.—NITROGEN OXIDES GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES

AT LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANTS

Municipal waste combustor

technology

Nitrogen oxides emission limit

(parts per

million by

volume) a

Mass burn waterwall ................. 200

Mass burn rotary waterwall ...... 250

Refuse-derived fuel combustor 250

Fluidized bed combustor .......... 240

Mass burn refractory combustors ........................................ no limit

Otherb ....................................... 200

a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.

bExcludes mass burn refractory municipal

waste combustors.

(1) A State plan may allow nitrogen

oxides emissions averaging as specified

in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(v)

of this section.

(i) An owner or operator of a large

municipal waste combustor plant may

elect to implement a nitrogen oxides

emissions averaging plan for the

designated facilities that are located at

that plant and that are subject to subpart

Cb, except as specified in paragraphs
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65417

(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(i)(B) of this

section.

(A) Municipal waste combustor units

subject to subpart Ea or Eb cannot be

included in the emissions averaging

plan.

(B) Mass burn refractory municipal

waste combustor units cannot be

included in the emissions averaging

plan.

(ii) The designated facilities included

in the nitrogen oxides emissions

averaging plan must be identified in the

initial compliance report specified in

§ 60.59b(f) or in the annual report

specified in § 60.59b(g), as applicable,

prior to implementing the averaging

plan. The designated facilities being

included in the averaging plan may be

redesignated each calendar year. Partial

year redesignation is allowable with

State approval.

(iii) To implement the emissions

averaging plan, the average daily (24-

hour) nitrogen oxides emission

concentration level for gases discharged

from the designated facilities being

included in the emissions averaging

plan must be no greater than the levels

specified in table 2 of this subpart.

Table 2 provides emission limits for the

nitrogen oxides concentration level for

each type of designated facility.

TABLE 2.—NITROGEN OXIDES LIMITS

FOR EXISTING DESIGNATED FACILITIES INCLUDED IN AN EMISSIONS

AVERAGING PLAN AT LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANTS

Municipal waste combustor

technology

Nitrogen oxides emission limit

(parts per

million by

volume)a

Mass burn waterwall ................. 180

Mass burn rotary waterwall ...... 220

Refuse-derived fuel combustor 230

Fluidized bed combustor .......... 220

Otherb ....................................... 180

a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.

b Excludes mass burn refractory municipal

waste combustors. Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors may not be included

in an emissions averaging plan.

(iv) Under the emissions averaging

plan, the average daily nitrogen oxides

emissions specified in paragraph

(d)(1)(iii) of this section shall be

calculated using equation (1).

Designated facilities that are offline

shall not be included in calculating the

average daily nitrogen oxides emission

level.

NO

NO S

S

X

X i

i

h

i

i

hr h

i

24

1

1

1 − =

( )( )

( )

=

=

∑

∑

( )

where:

NOX 24-hr=24-hr daily average nitrogen

oxides emission concentration level

for the emissions averaging plan

(parts per million by volume

corrected to 7 percent oxygen).

NOX i-hr=24-hr daily average nitrogen

oxides emission concentration level

for designated facility i (parts per

million by volume, corrected to 7

percent oxygen), calculated

according to the procedures in

§ 60.58b(h) of this subpart.

Si=maximum demonstrated municipal

waste combustor unit load for

designated facility i (pounds per

hour steam or feedwater flow as

determined in the most recent

dioxin/furan performance test).

h=total number of designated facilities

being included in the daily

emissions average.

(v) For any day in which any

designated facility included in the

emissions averaging plan is offline, the

owner or operator of the municipal

waste combustor plant must

demonstrate compliance according to

either paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) of this

section or both paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(B)

and (d)(1)(v)(C) of this section.

(A) Compliance with the applicable

limits specified in table 2 of this subpart

shall be demonstrated using the

averaging procedure specified in

paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section for

the designated facilities that are online.

(B) For each of the designated

facilities included in the emissions

averaging plan, the nitrogen oxides

emissions on a daily average basis shall

be calculated and shall be equal to or

less than the maximum daily nitrogen

oxides emission level achieved by that

designated facility on any of the days

during which the emissions averaging

plan was achieved with all designated

facilities online during the most recent

calendar quarter. The requirements of

this paragraph do not apply during the

first quarter of operation under the

emissions averaging plan.

(C) The average nitrogen oxides

emissions (kilograms per day)

calculated according to paragraph

(d)(1)(v)(C)(2) of this section shall not

exceed the average nitrogen oxides

emissions (kilograms per day)

calculated according to paragraph

(d)(1)(v)(C)(1) of this section.

(1) For all days during which the

emissions averaging plan was

implemented and achieved and during

which all designated facilities were

online, the average nitrogen oxides

emissions shall be calculated. The

average nitrogen oxides emissions

(kilograms per day) shall be calculated

on a calendar year basis according to

paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(i) through

(d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(iii) of this section.

(i) For each designated facility

included in the emissions averaging

plan, the daily amount of nitrogen

oxides emitted (kilograms per day) shall

be calculated based on the hourly

nitrogen oxides data required under

§ 60.38b(a) and specified under

§ 60.58b(h)(5) of subpart Eb of this part,

the flue gas flow rate determined using

table 19–1 of EPA Reference Method 19

or a State-approved method, and the

hourly average steam or feedwater flow

rate.

(ii) The daily total nitrogen oxides

emissions shall be calculated as the sum

of the daily nitrogen oxides emissions

from each designated facility calculated

under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(i) of this

section.

(iii) The average nitrogen oxides

emissions (kilograms per day) on a

calendar year basis shall be calculated

as the sum of all daily total nitrogen

oxides emissions calculated under

paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(ii) of this

section divided by the number of

calendar days for which a daily total

was calculated.

(2) For all days during which one or

more of the designated facilities under

the emissions averaging plan was

offline, the average nitrogen oxides

emissions shall be calculated. The

average nitrogen oxides emissions

(kilograms per day) shall be calculated

on a calendar year basis according to

paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(i) through

(d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(iii) of this section.

(i) For each designated facility

included in the emissions averaging

plan, the daily amount of nitrogen

oxides emitted (kilograms per day) shall

be calculated based on the hourly

nitrogen oxides data required under

§ 60.38b(a) and specified under

§ 60.58b(h)(5) of subpart Eb of this part,

the flue gas flow rate determined using

table 19–1 of EPA Reference Method 19

or a State-approved method, and the

hourly average steam or feedwater flow

rate.

(ii) The daily total nitrogen oxides

emissions shall be calculated as the sum

of the daily nitrogen oxides emissions

from each designated facility calculated

under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(i) of this

section.

(iii) The average nitrogen oxides

emissions (kilograms per day) on a

calendar year basis shall be calculated
65418 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

as the sum of all daily total nitrogen

oxides emissions calculated under

paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(ii) of this

section divided by the number of

calendar days for which a daily total

was calculated.

(2) A State plan may establish a

program to allow owners or operators of

municipal waste combustor plants to

engage in trading of nitrogen oxides

emission credits. A trading program

must be approved by the Administrator

before implementation.

§ 60.34b Emission guidelines for

municipal waste combustor operating

practices.

(a) For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for carbon

monoxide at least as protective as the

emission limits for carbon monoxide

listed in table 3 of this subpart. Table 3

provides emission limits for the carbon

monoxide concentration level for each

type of designated facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant.

TABLE 3.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES

Municipal waste combustor technology

Carbon

monoxide

emissions

level (parts

per million

by volume)a

Averaging

time (hrs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buddling fluidized bed combustor ................................................................................................................................... 100 4

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

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

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

a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. Calculated as an arithmetic average.

(b) For approval, a State plan shall

include requirements for municipal

waste combustor operating practices at

least as protective as those requirements

listed in § 60.53b(b) and (c) of subpart

Eb of this part.

§ 60.35b Emission guidelines for

municipal waste combustor operator

training and certification.

For approval, a State plan shall

include requirements for designated

facilities located within small or large

municipal waste combustor plants for

municipal waste combustor operator

training and certification at least as

protective as those requirements listed

in § 60.54b of subpart Eb of this part.

The State plan shall require compliance

with these requirements according to

the schedule specified in § 60.39b(c)(4).

§ 60.36b Emission guidelines for

municipal waste combustor fugitive ash

emissions.

For approval, a State plan shall

include requirements for municipal

waste combustor fugitive ash emissions

at least as protective as those

requirements listed in § 60.55b of

subpart Eb of this part.

§ 60.37b Emission guidelines for air

curtain incinerators.

For approval, a State plan shall

include emission limits for opacity for

air curtain incinerators at least as

protective as those listed in § 60.56b of

subpart Eb of this part.

§ 60.38b Compliance and performance

testing.

(a) For approval, a State plan shall

include the performance testing

methods listed in § 60.58b of subpart Eb

of this part, as applicable, except as

provided for under § 60.24(b)(2) of

subpart B of this part and paragraphs (b)

and (c) of this section.

(b) For approval, a State plan shall

include for designated facilities at large

municipal waste combustor plants the

alternative performance testing schedule

for dioxins/furans specified in

§ 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this

part, as applicable, for those designated

facilities that achieve a dioxin/furan

emission level less than or equal to 15

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

total mass, corrected to 7 percent

oxygen.

(c) For approval, a State plan shall

include for designated facilities at small

municipal waste combustor plants the

alternative performance testing schedule

for dioxins/furans specified in

§ 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this

part, as applicable, for those designated

facilities that achieve a dioxin/furan

emission level less than or equal to 30

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

total mass, corrected to 7 percent

oxygen.

§ 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping

guidelines and compliance schedules.

(a) For approval, a State plan shall

include the reporting and recordkeeping

provisions listed in § 60.59b of subpart

Eb of this part, as applicable, except for

the siting requirements under

§ 60.59b(a), (b)(5), and (d)(11) of subpart

Eb of this part.

(b) Not later than December 19, 1996,

each State in which a designated facility

is operating shall submit to the

Administrator a plan to implement and

enforce the emission guidelines. The

compliance schedule specified in this

paragraph is in accordance with section

129(b)(2) of the Act and supersedes the

compliance schedule provided in

§ 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of this part.

(c) For approval, a State plan shall

include the compliance schedules

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(5) of this section.

(1) A State plan shall allow

designated facilities located within large

municipal waste combustor plants to

comply with all requirements of a State

plan (or close) within 1 year after

approval of the State plan, except as

provided by paragraph (c)(1)(i) and

(c)(1)(ii) of this section.

(i) A State plan that allows designated

facilities more than 1 year but less than

3 years following the date of issuance of

a revised construction or operation

permit, if a permit modification is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65419

required, or more than 1 year but less

than 3 years following approval of the

State plan, if a permit modification is

not required, shall include measurable

and enforceable incremental steps of

progress toward compliance. Suggested

measurable and enforceable activities

are specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A)

through (c)(1)(i)(J) of this section.

(A) Date for obtaining services of an

architectural and engineering firm

regarding the air pollution control

device(s);

(B) Date for obtaining design drawings

of the air pollution control device(s);

(C) Date for submittal of permit

modifications, if necessary;

(D) Date for submittal of the final

control plan to the Administrator.

[§ 60.21 (h)(1) of subpart B of this part.];

(E) Date for ordering the air pollution

control device(s);

(F) Date for obtaining the major

components of the air pollution control

device(s);

(G) Date for initiation of site

preparation for installation of the air

pollution control device(s);

(H) Date for initiation of installation

of the air pollution control device(s);

(I) Date for initial startup of the air

pollution control device(s); and

(J) Date for initial performance test(s)

of the air pollution control device(s).

(ii) A State plan that allows

designated facilities more than 1 year

but up to 3 years after State plan

approval to close shall require a closure

agreement. The closure agreement must

include the date of plant closure.

(2) If the State plan requirements for

a designated facility located within a

large municipal waste combustor plant

include a compliance schedule longer

than 1 year after approval of the State

plan in accordance with paragraph

(c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the

State plan submittal (for approval) shall

include performance test results for

dioxin/furan emissions for each

designated facility that has a

compliance schedule longer than 1 year

following the approval of the State plan,

and the performance test results shall

have been conducted during or after

1990. The performance test shall be

conducted according to the procedures

in § 60.38b.

(3) A State plan shall allow

designated facilities located within

small municipal waste combustor plants

to comply with all requirements of the

State plan (or close) within 3 years

following the date of issuance of a

revised construction or operation

permit, if a permit modification is

required, or within 3 years following

approval of the State plan, if a permit

modification is not required.

(4) A State plan shall require

compliance with the municipal waste

combustor operator training and

certification requirements under

§ 60.35b according to the schedule

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through

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

(i) For designated facilities located

within small municipal waste

combustor plants, the State plan shall

require compliance with the municipal

waste combustor operator training and

certification requirements specified

under § 60.54b (a) through (c) of subpart

Eb of this part by the date 6 months after

startup of a designated facility or 18

months after State plan approval,

whichever is later.

(ii) For designated facilities located

within large municipal waste combustor

plants, the State plan shall require

compliance with the municipal waste

combustor operator training and

certification requirements specified

under § 60.54b (a) through (c) of subpart

Eb of this part by the date 6 months after

the date of startup or 12 months after

State plan approval, whichever is later.

(iii) For designated facilities located

within small or large municipal waste

combustor plants, the State plan shall

require compliance with the

requirements specified in § 60.54b (d),

(f), and (g) of subpart Eb of this part no

later than 6 months after startup or 12

months after State plan approval,

whichever is later.

(A) The requirement specified in

§ 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of this part

does not apply to chief facility

operators, shift supervisors, and control

room operators who have obtained full

certification from the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers on or before

the date of State plan approval.

(B) The owner or operator may

request that the Administrator waive the

requirement specified in § 60.54b(d) of

subpart Eb of this part for chief facility

operators, shift supervisors, and control

room operators who have obtained

provisional certification from the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers on or before the date of State

plan approval.

(C) The initial training requirements

specified in § 60.54b(f)(1) of subpart Eb

of this part shall be completed no later

than the date specified in paragraph

(c)(4)(iii)(C)(1), (c)(4)(iii)(C)(2), or

(c)(4)(iii)(C)(3), of this section

whichever is later.

(1) The date 6 months after the date

of startup of the affected facility;

(2) Twelve months after State plan

approval; or

(3) The date prior to the day when the

person assumes responsibilities

affecting municipal waste combustor

unit operation.

(5) A State plan shall require all

designated facilities for which

construction, modification, or

reconstruction is commenced after June

26, 1987 that are located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant to

comply with the emission limit for

mercury specified in § 60.33b(a)(3) and

the emission limit for dioxins/furans

specified in § 60.33b(c)(1) within 1 year

following issuance of a revised

construction or operation permit, if a

permit modification is required, or

within 1 year following approval of the

State plan, whichever is later.

(d) In the event no plan for

implementing the emission guidelines is

adopted, all designated facilities

meeting the applicability requirements

under § 60.32b shall be in compliance

with the guidelines no later than

December 19, 2000.

8. Part 60 is amended by adding

subpart Eb as follows:

Subpart Eb—Standards of Performance for

Municipal Waste Combustors for Which

Construction is Commenced After

September 20, 1994

Sec.

60.50b Applicability and delegation of

authority.

60.51b Definitions.

60.52b Standards for municipal waste

combustor metals, acid gases, organics,

and nitrogen oxides.

60.53b Standards for municipal waste

combustor operating practices.

60.54b Standards for municipal waste

combustor operator training and

certification.

60.55b Standards for municipal waste

combustor fugitive ash emissions.

60.56b Standards for air curtain

incinerators.

60.57b Siting requirements.

60.58b Compliance and performance

testing.

60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Subpart Eb—Standards of

Performance for Municipal Waste

Combustors for Which Construction is

Commenced After September 20, 1994

§ 60.50b Applicability and delegation of

authority.

(a) The affected facility to which this

subpart applies is each municipal waste

combustor unit located within a

municipal waste combustor plant with

an aggregate municipal waste combustor

plant capacity greater than 35

megagrams per day of municipal solid

waste for which construction is

commenced after September 20, 1994 or

for which modification or

reconstruction is commenced after June

19, 1996.
65420 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Any waste combustion unit at a

medical, industrial, or other type of

waste combustor plant that is capable of

combusting more than 35 megagrams

per day of municipal solid waste and is

subject to a federally enforceable permit

limiting the plantwide maximum

amount of municipal solid waste that

may be combusted to less than or equal

to 10 megagrams per day is not subject

to this subpart if the owner or operator:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of an

exemption claim;

(2) Provides a copy of the federally

enforceable permit that limits the firing

of municipal solid waste to less than 10

megagrams per day; and

(3) Keeps records of the amount of

municipal solid waste fired on a daily

basis.

(c) An affected facility to which this

subpart applies is not subject to subpart

E or Ea of this part.

(d) Physical or operational changes

made to an existing municipal waste

combustor unit primarily for the

purpose of complying with emission

guidelines under subpart Cb are not

considered a modification or

reconstruction and do not result in an

existing municipal waste combustor

unit becoming subject to this subpart.

(e) A qualifying small power

production facility, as defined in section

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

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

homogeneous waste (such as automotive

tires or used oil, but not including

refuse-derived fuel) for the production

of electric energy is not subject to this

subpart if the owner or operator of the

facility notifies the Administrator of this

exemption and provides data

documenting that the facility qualifies

for this exemption.

(f) A qualifying cogeneration facility,

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

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.

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

waste (such as automotive tires or used

oil, but not including refuse-derived

fuel) for the production of electric

energy and steam or forms of useful

energy (such as heat) that are used for

industrial, commercial, heating, or

cooling purposes, is not subject to this

subpart if the owner or operator of the

facility notifies the Administrator of this

exemption and provides data

documenting that the facility qualifies

for this exemption.

(g) Any unit combusting a single-item

waste stream of tires is not subject to

this subpart if the owner or operator of

the unit:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of an

exemption claim; and

(3) Provides data documenting that

the unit qualifies for this exemption.

(h) Any unit required to have a permit

under section 3005 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act is not subject to this

subpart.

(i) Any materials recovery facility

(including primary or secondary

smelters) that combusts waste for the

primary purpose of recovering metals is

not subject to this subpart.

(j) Any cofired combustor, as defined

under § 60.51b, located at a plant that

meets the capacity specifications in

paragraph (a) of this section is not

subject to this subpart if the owner or

operator of the cofired combustor:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of an

exemption claim;

(2) Provides a copy of the federally

enforceable permit (specified in the

definition of cofired combustor in this

section); and

(3) Keeps a record on a calendar

quarter basis of the weight of municipal

solid waste combusted at the cofired

combustor and the weight of all other

fuels combusted at the cofired

combustor.

(k) Air curtain incinerators, as defined

under § 60.51b, located at a plant that

meet the capacity specifications in

paragraph (a) of this section and that

combust a fuel stream composed of 100

percent yard waste are exempt from all

provisions of this subpart except the

opacity limit under § 60.56b, the testing

procedures under § 60.58b(l), and the

reporting and recordkeeping provisions

under § 60.59b (e) and (i).

(l) Air curtain incinerators located at

plants that meet the capacity

specifications in paragraph (a) of this

section combusting municipal solid

waste other than yard waste are subject

to all provisions of this subpart.

(m) Pyrolysis/combustion units that

are an integrated part of a plastics/

rubber recycling unit (as defined in

§ 60.51b) are not subject to this subpart

if the owner or operator of the plastics/

rubber recycling unit keeps records of

the weight of plastics, rubber, and/or

rubber tires processed on a calendar

quarter basis; the weight of chemical

plant feedstocks and petroleum refinery

feedstocks produced and marketed on a

calendar quarter basis; and the name

and address of the purchaser of the

feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline,

diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual

oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,

liquified petroleum gas, propane, or

butane produced by chemical plants or

petroleum refineries that use feedstocks

produced by plastics/rubber recycling

units are not subject to this subpart.

(n) The following authorities shall be

retained by the Administrator and not

transferred to a State: None.

(o) This subpart shall become

effective June 19, 1996.

§ 60.51b Definitions.

Air curtain incinerator means an

incinerator that operates by forcefully

projecting a curtain of air across an open

chamber or pit in which burning occurs.

Incinerators of this type can be

constructed above or below ground and

with or without refractory walls and

floor.

Batch municipal waste combustor

means a municipal waste combustor

unit designed so that it cannot combust

municipal solid waste continuously 24

hours per day because the design does

not allow waste to be fed to the unit or

ash to be removed while combustion is

occurring.

Bubbling fluidized bed combustor

means a fluidized bed combustor in

which the majority of the bed material

remains in a fluidized state in the

primary combustion zone.

Calendar quarter means a consecutive

3-month period (nonoverlapping)

beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1,

and October 1.

Calendar year means the period

including 365 days starting January 1

and ending on December 31.

Chief facility operator means the

person in direct charge and control of

the operation of a municipal waste

combustor and who is responsible for

daily onsite supervision, technical

direction, management, and overall

performance of the facility.

Circulating fluidized bed combustor

means a fluidized bed combustor in

which the majority of the fluidized bed

material is carried out of the primary

combustion zone and is transported

back to the primary zone through a

recirculation loop.

Clean wood means untreated wood or

untreated wood products including

clean untreated lumber, tree stumps

(whole or chipped), and tree limbs

(whole or chipped). Clean wood does

not include yard waste, which is

defined elsewhere in this section, or

construction, renovation, and

demolition wastes (including but not

limited to railroad ties and telephone

poles), which are exempt from the

definition of municipal solid waste in

this section.

Cofired combustor means a unit

combusting municipal solid waste with

nonmunicipal solid waste fuel (e.g.,

coal, industrial process waste) and

subject to a federally enforceable permit

limiting the unit to combusting a fuel

feed stream, 30 percent or less of the

weight of which is comprised, in

aggregate, of municipal solid waste as

measured on a calendar quarter basis.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65421

Continuous emission monitoring

system means a monitoring system for

continuously measuring the emissions

of a pollutant from an affected facility.

Dioxin/furan means tetra- through

octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and

dibenzofurans.

Federally enforceable means all

limitations and conditions that are

enforceable by the Administrator

including the requirements of 40 CFR

parts 60, 61, and 63, requirements

within any applicable State

implementation plan, and any permit

requirements established under 40 CFR

52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 and 40

CFR 51.24.

First calendar half means the period

starting on January 1 and ending on

June 30 in any year.

Four-hour block average or 4-hour

block average means the average of all

hourly emission concentrations when

the affected facility is operating and

combusting municipal solid waste

measured over 4-hour periods of time

from 12:00 midnight to 4 a.m., 4 a.m. to

8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 12:00 noon, 12:00 noon

to 4 p.m., 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and 8 p.m.

to 12:00 midnight.

Large municipal waste combustor

plant means a municipal waste

combustor plant with a municipal waste

combustor aggregate plant capacity for

affected facilities that is greater than 225

megagrams per day of municipal solid

waste.

Mass burn refractory municipal waste

combustor means a field-erected

combustor that combusts municipal

solid waste in a refractory wall furnace.

Unless otherwise specified, this

includes combustors with a cylindrical

rotary refractory wall furnace.

Mass burn rotary waterwall municipal

waste combustor means a field-erected

combustor that combusts municipal

solid waste in a cylindrical rotary

waterwall furnace.

Mass burn waterwall municipal waste

combustor means a field-erected

combustor that combusts municipal

solid waste in a waterwall furnace.

Materials separation plan means a

plan that identifies both a goal and an

approach to separate certain

components of municipal solid waste

for a given service area in order to make

the separated materials available for

recycling. A materials separation plan

may include elements such as dropoff

facilities, buy-back or deposit-return

incentives, curbside pickup programs,

or centralized mechanical separation

systems. A materials separation plan

may include different goals or

approaches for different subareas in the

service area, and may include no

materials separation activities for

certain subareas or, if warranted, an

entire service area.

Maximum demonstrated municipal

waste combustor unit load means the

highest 4-hour arithmetic average

municipal waste combustor unit load

achieved during four consecutive hours

during the most recent dioxin/furan

performance test demonstrating

compliance with the applicable limit for

municipal waste combustor organics

specified under § 60.52b(c).

Maximum demonstrated particulate

matter control device temperature

means the highest 4-hour arithmetic

average flue gas temperature measured

at the particulate matter control device

inlet during four consecutive hours

during the most recent dioxin/furan

performance test demonstrating

compliance with the applicable limit for

municipal waste combustor organics

specified under § 60.52b(c).

Modification or modified municipal

waste combustor unit means a

municipal waste combustor unit to

which changes have been made after

June 19, 1996 if the cumulative cost of

the changes, over the life of the unit,

exceed 50 percent of the original cost of

construction and installation of the unit

(not including the cost of any land

purchased in connection with such

construction or installation) updated to

current costs; or any physical change in

the municipal waste combustor unit or

change in the method of operation of the

municipal waste combustor unit

increases the amount of any air

pollutant emitted by the unit for which

standards have been established under

section 129 or section 111. Increases in

the amount of any air pollutant emitted

by the municipal waste combustor unit

are determined at 100-percent physical

load capability and downstream of all

air pollution control devices, with no

consideration given for load restrictions

based on permits or other nonphysical

operational restrictions.

Modular excess-air municipal waste

combustor means a combustor that

combusts municipal solid waste and

that is not field-erected and has

multiple combustion chambers, all of

which are designed to operate at

conditions with combustion air amounts

in excess of theoretical air requirements.

Modular starved-air municipal waste

combustor means a combustor that

combusts municipal solid waste and

that is not field-erected and has

multiple combustion chambers in which

the primary combustion chamber is

designed to operate at substoichiometric

conditions.

Municipal solid waste or municipaltype solid waste or MSW means

household, commercial/retail, and/or

institutional waste. Household waste

includes material discarded by single

and multiple residential dwellings,

hotels, motels, and other similar

permanent or temporary housing

establishments or facilities.

Commercial/retail waste includes

material discarded by stores, offices,

restaurants, warehouses,

nonmanufacturing activities at

industrial facilities, and other similar

establishments or facilities. Institutional

waste includes material discarded by

schools, nonmedical waste discarded by

hospitals, material discarded by

nonmanufacturing activities at prisons

and government facilities, and material

discarded by other similar

establishments or facilities. Household,

commercial/retail, and institutional

waste does not include used oil; sewage

sludge; wood pallets; construction,

renovation, and demolition wastes

(which includes but is not limited to

railroad ties and telephone poles); clean

wood; industrial process or

manufacturing wastes; medical waste; or

motor vehicles (including motor vehicle

parts or vehicle fluff). Household,

commercial/retail, and institutional

wastes include:

(1) Yard waste;

(2) Refuse-derived fuel; and

(3) Motor vehicle maintenance

materials limited to vehicle batteries

and tires except as specified in

§ 60.50b(g).

Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or

municipal waste combustor unit: (1)

Means any setting or equipment that

combusts solid, liquid, or gasified

municipal solid waste including, but

not limited to, field-erected incinerators

(with or without heat recovery),

modular incinerators (starved-air or

excess-air), boilers (i.e., steam

generating units), furnaces (whether

suspension-fired, grate-fired, mass-fired,

air curtain incinerators, or fluidized

bed-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion

units. Municipal waste combustors do

not include pyrolysis/combustion units

located at a plastics/rubber recycling

unit (as specified in § 60.50b(m) of this

section). Municipal waste combustors

do not include internal combustion

engines, gas turbines, or other

combustion devices that combust

landfill gases collected by landfill gas

collection systems.

(2) The boundaries of a municipal

solid waste combustor are defined as

follows. The municipal waste

combustor unit includes, but is not

limited to, the municipal solid waste

fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas

system, bottom ash system, and the

combustor water system. The municipal

waste combustor boundary starts at the
65422 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

municipal solid waste pit or hopper and

extends through:

(i) The combustor flue gas system,

which ends immediately following the

heat recovery equipment or, if there is

no heat recovery equipment,

immediately following the combustion

chamber,

(ii) The combustor bottom ash system,

which ends at the truck loading station

or similar ash handling equipment that

transfer the ash to final disposal,

including all ash handling systems that

are connected to the bottom ash

handling system; and

(iii) The combustor water system,

which starts at the feed water pump and

ends at the piping exiting the steam

drum or superheater.

(3) The municipal waste combustor

unit does not include air pollution

control equipment, the stack, water

treatment equipment, or the turbinegenerator set.

Municipal waste combustor acid gases

means all acid gases emitted in the

exhaust gases from municipal waste

combustor units including, but not

limited to, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen

chloride gases.

Municipal waste combustor metals

means metals and metal compounds

emitted in the exhaust gases from

municipal waste combustor units.

Municipal waste combustor organics

means organic compounds emitted in

the exhaust gases from municipal waste

combustor units and includes tetrathrough octa- chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans.

Municipal waste combustor plant

means one or more municipal waste

combustor units at the same location for

which construction, modification, or

reconstruction is commenced after

September 20, 1994.

Municipal waste combustor plant

capacity means the aggregate municipal

waste combustor unit capacity of all

municipal waste combustor units at a

municipal waste combustor plant for

which construction, modification, or

reconstruction of the units commenced

after September 20, 1994. Any

municipal waste combustor units for

which construction, modification, or

reconstruction is commenced on or

before September 20, 1994 are not

included for determining applicability

under this subpart.

Municipal waste combustor unit

capacity means the maximum charging

rate of a municipal waste combustor

unit expressed in megagrams per day of

municipal solid waste combusted,

calculated according to the procedures

under § 60.58b(j). Section 60.58b(j)

includes procedures for determining

municipal waste combustor unit

capacity for continuous and batch feed

municipal waste combustors.

Municipal waste combustor unit load

means the steam load of the municipal

waste combustor unit measured as

specified in § 60.58b(i)(6).

Particulate matter means total

particulate matter emitted from

municipal waste combustor units as

measured by EPA Reference Method 5

(see § 60.58b(c)).

Plastics/rubber recycling unit means

an integrated processing unit where

plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tires are

the only feed materials (incidental

contaminants may be included in the

feed materials) and they are processed

into a chemical plant feedstock or

petroleum refinery feedstock, where the

feedstock is marketed to and used by a

chemical plant or petroleum refinery as

input feedstock. The combined weight

of the chemical plant feedstock and

petroleum refinery feedstock produced

by the plastics/rubber recycling unit on

a calendar quarter basis shall be more

than 70 percent of the combined weight

of the plastics, rubber, and rubber tires

processed by the plastics/rubber

recycling unit on a calendar quarter

basis. The plastics, rubber, and/or

rubber tire feed materials to the plastics/

rubber recycling unit may originate from

the separation or diversion of plastics,

rubber, or rubber tires from MSW or

industrial solid waste, and may include

manufacturing scraps, trimmings, and

off-specification plastics, rubber, and

rubber tire discards. The plastics,

rubber, and rubber tire feed materials to

the plastics/rubber recycling unit may

contain incidental contaminants (e.g.,

paper labels on plastic bottles, metal

rings on plastic bottle caps, etc.).

Potential hydrogen chloride emission

concentration means the hydrogen

chloride emission concentration that

would occur from combustion of

municipal solid waste in the absence of

any emission controls for municipal

waste combustor acid gases.

Potential mercury emission

concentration means the mercury

emission concentration that would

occur from combustion of municipal

solid waste in the absence of any

mercury emissions control.

Potential sulfur dioxide emissions

means the sulfur dioxide emission

concentration that would occur from

combustion of municipal solid waste in

the absence of any emission controls for

municipal waste combustor acid gases.

Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel

mixed fuel-fired combustor means a

combustor that fires coal and refusederived fuel simultaneously, in which

pulverized coal is introduced into an air

stream that carries the coal to the

combustion chamber of the unit where

it is fired in suspension. This includes

both conventional pulverized coal and

micropulverized coal.

Pyrolysis/combustion unit means a

unit that produces gases, liquids, or

solids through the heating of municipal

solid waste, and the gases, liquids, or

solids produced are combusted and

emissions vented to the atmosphere.

Reconstruction means rebuilding a

municipal waste combustor unit for

which the reconstruction commenced

after June 19, 1996, and the cumulative

costs of the construction over the life of

the unit exceed 50 percent of the

original cost of construction and

installation of the unit (not including

any cost of land purchased in

connection with such construction or

installation) updated to current costs

(current dollars).

Refractory unit or refractory wall

furnace means a combustion unit

having no energy recovery (e.g., via a

waterwall) in the furnace (i.e., radiant

heat transfer section) of the combustor.

Refuse-derived/fuel means a type of

municipal solid waste produced by

processing municipal solid waste

through shredding and size

classification. This includes all classes

of refuse-derived fuel including lowdensity fluff refuse-derived fuel through

densified refuse-derived fuel and

pelletized refuse-derived fuel.

Refuse-derived fuel stoker means a

steam generating unit that combusts

refuse-derived fuel in a semisuspension

firing mode using air-fed distributors.

Same location means the same or

contiguous property that is under

common ownership or control including

properties that are separated only by a

street, road, highway, or other public

right-of-way. Common ownership or

control includes properties that are

owned, leased, or operated by the same

entity, parent entity, subsidiary,

subdivision, or any combination thereof

including any municipality or other

governmental unit, or any quasigovernmental authority (e.g., a public

utility district or regional waste disposal

authority).

Second calendar half means the

period starting July 1 and ending on

December 31 in any year.

Shift supervisor means the person

who is in direct charge and control of

the operation of a municipal waste

combustor and who is responsible for

onsite supervision, technical direction,

management, and overall performance

of the facility during an assigned shift.

Small municipal waste combustor

plant means a municipal waste

combustor plant with a municipal waste

combustor plant capacity for affected
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65423

facilities that is greater than 35

megagrams per day but equal to or less

than 225 megagrams per day of

municipal solid waste.

Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived

fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor means a

combustor that fires coal and refusederived fuel simultaneously, in which

coal is introduced to the combustion

zone by a mechanism that throws the

fuel onto a grate from above.

Combustion takes place both in

suspension and on the grate.

Standard conditions means a

temperature of 20° C and a pressure of

101.3 kilopascals.

Total mass dioxin/furan or total mass

means the total mass of tetra- through

octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and

dibenzofurans, as determined using EPA

Reference Method 23 and the

procedures specified under § 60.58b(g).

Twenty-four hour daily average or 24-

hour daily average means either the

arithmetic mean or geometric mean (as

specified) of all hourly emission

concentrations when the affected

facility is operating and combusting

municipal solid waste measured over a

24-hour period between 12:00 midnight

and the following midnight.

Untreated lumber means wood or

wood products that have been cut or

shaped and include wet, air-dried, and

kiln-dried wood products. Untreated

lumber does not include wood products

that have been painted, pigmentstained, or ‘‘pressure-treated.’’ Pressuretreating compounds include, but are not

limited to, chromate copper arsenate,

pentachlorophenol, and creosote.

Waterwall furnace means a

combustion unit having energy (heat)

recovery in the furnace (i.e., radiant heat

transfer section) of the combustor.

Yard waste means grass, grass

clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings

from bushes and shrubs that are

generated by residential, commercial/

retail, institutional, and/or industrial

sources as part of maintenance activities

associated with yards or other private or

public lands. Yard waste does not

include construction, renovation, and

demolition wastes, which are exempt

from the definition of municipal solid

waste in this section. Yard waste does

not include clean wood, which is

exempt from the definition of municipal

solid waste in this section.

§ 60.52b Standards for municipal waste

combustor metals, acid gases, organics,

and nitrogen oxides.

(a) The limits for municipal waste

combustor metals are specified in

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

section.

(1) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain particulate matter in excess of

24 milligrams per dry standard cubic

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(2) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity

(6-minute average).

(3) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain cadmium in excess of 0.020

milligrams per dry standard cubic

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(4) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from the

affected facility any gases that contain

lead in excess of 0.20 milligrams per dry

standard cubic meter, corrected to 7

percent oxygen.

(5) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from the

affected facility any gases that contain

mercury in excess of 0.080 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter or 15

percent of the potential mercury

emission concentration (85-percent

reduction by weight), corrected to 7

percent oxygen, whichever is less

stringent.

(b) The limits for municipal waste

combustor acid gases are specified in

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

section.

(1) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain sulfur dioxide in excess of 30

parts per million by volume or 20

percent of the potential sulfur dioxide

emission concentration (80-percent

reduction by weight or volume),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry

basis), whichever is less stringent. The

averaging time is specified under

§ 60.58b(e).

(2) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain hydrogen chloride in excess of

25 parts per million by volume or 5

percent of the potential hydrogen

chloride emission concentration (95-

percent reduction by weight or volume),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry

basis), whichever is less stringent.

(c) The limits for municipal waste

combustor organics are specified in

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

section.

(1) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant for which construction,

modification, or reconstruction

commences after September 20, 1994,

but on or before November 20, 1997

shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from that affected facility

any gases that contain dioxin/furan

emissions that exceed 30 nanograms per

dry standard cubic meter (total mass),

corrected to 7 percent oxygen, for the

first 3 years following the date of initial

startup. After the first 3 years following

the date of initial startup, no owner or

operator shall cause to be discharged

into the atmosphere from that affected

facility any gases that contain dioxin/

furan total mass emissions that exceed

13 nanograms per dry standard cubic

meter (total mass), corrected to 7

percent oxygen.

(2) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant for which construction,
65424 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

modification, or reconstruction

commences after November 20, 1997

shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from that affected facility

any gases that contain dioxin/furan total

mass emissions that exceed 13

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

(total mass), corrected to 7 percent

oxygen.

(d) The limits for nitrogen oxides are

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)

of this section.

(1) During the first year of operation

after the date on which the initial

performance test is completed or is

required to be completed under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain nitrogen oxides in excess of 180

parts per million by volume, corrected

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The

averaging time is specified under

§ 60.58b(h).

(2) After the first year of operation

following the date on which the initial

performance test is completed or is

required to be completed under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain nitrogen oxides in excess of 150

parts per million by volume, corrected

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The

averaging time is specified under

§ 60.58b(h).

§ 60.53b Standards for municipal waste

combustor operating practices.

(a) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that affected facility any gases that

contain carbon monoxide in excess of

the emission limits specified in table 1

of this subpart.

TABLE 1.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING STANDARDS

Municipal waste combustor technology

Carbon monoxide emission

limit (parts per

million by volume) a

Averaging time

(hours)

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

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

Mass burn rotary waterwall ............................................................................................................................. 100 24

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

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

Refuse-derived fuel stoker ............................................................................................................................... 150 24

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

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

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

Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ............................................................. 150 24

a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The

averaging times are specified in greater detail in § 60.58b(i).

(b) No owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall cause such facility to operate

at a load level greater than 110 percent

of the maximum demonstrated

municipal waste combustor unit load as

defined in § 60.51b, except as specified

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

section. The averaging time is specified

under § 60.58b(i).

(1) During the annual dioxin/furan

performance test and the 2 weeks

preceding the annual dioxin/furan

performance test, no municipal waste

combustor unit load limit is applicable.

(2) The municipal waste combustor

unit load limit may be waived in

accordance with permission granted by

the Administrator or delegated State

regulatory authority for the purpose of

evaluating system performance, testing

new technology or control technologies,

diagnostic testing, or related activities

for the purpose of improving facility

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

(c) No owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall cause such facility to operate

at a temperature, measured at the

particulate matter control device inlet,

exceeding 17 °C above the maximum

demonstrated particulate matter control

device temperature as defined in

§ 60.51b, except as specified in

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

section. The averaging time is specified

under § 60.58b(i). The requirements

specified in this paragraph apply to

each particulate matter control device

utilized at the affected facility.

(1) During the annual dioxin/furan

performance test and the 2 weeks

preceding the annual dioxin/furan

performance test, no particulate matter

control device temperature limitations

are applicable.

(2) The particulate matter control

device temperature limits may be

waived in accordance with permission

granted by the Administrator or

delegated State regulatory authority for

the purpose of evaluating system

performance, testing new technology or

control technologies, diagnostic testing,

or related activities for the purpose of

improving facility performance or

advancing the state-of-the-art for

controlling facility emissions.

§ 60.54b Standards for municipal waste

combustor operator training and

certification.

(a) No later than the date 6 months

after the date of startup of an affected

facility located within a small or large

municipal waste combustor plant or on

December 19, 1996, whichever is later,

each chief facility operator and shift

supervisor shall obtain and maintain a

current provisional operator

certification from either the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers [QRO–

1–1994 (incorporated by reference—see

§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part)] or a

State certification program.

(b) Not later than the date 6 months

after the date of startup of an affected

facility located within a small or large

municipal waste combustor plant or on

December 19, 1996, whichever is later,

each chief facility operator and shift
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65425

supervisor shall have completed full

certification or shall have scheduled a

full certification exam with either the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers [QRO–1–1994 (incorporated

by reference—see § 60.17 of subpart A of

this part)] or a State certification

program.

(c) No owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall allow the facility to be

operated at any time unless one of the

following persons is on duty and at the

affected facility: A fully certified chief

facility operator, a provisionally

certified chief facility operator who is

scheduled to take the full certification

exam according to the schedule

specified in paragraph (b) of this

section, a fully certified shift supervisor,

or a provisionally certified shift

supervisor who is scheduled to take the

full certification exam according to the

schedule specified in paragraph (b) of

this section.

(i) The requirement specified in

paragraph (c) of this section shall take

effect 6 months after the date of startup

of the affected facility or on December

19, 1996, whichever is later.

(ii) If one of the persons listed in

paragraph (c) of this section must leave

the affected facility during their

operating shift, a provisionally certified

control room operator who is onsite at

the affected facility may fulfill the

requirement in paragraph (c) of this

section.

(d) All chief facility operators, shift

supervisors, and control room operators

at affected facilities located within a

small or large municipal waste

combustor plant must complete the EPA

or State municipal waste combustor

operator training course no later than

the date 6 months after the date of

startup of the affected facility or by

December 19, 1996, whichever is later.

(e) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall develop and update on a

yearly basis a site-specific operating

manual that shall, at a minimum,

address the elements of municipal waste

combustor unit operation specified in

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

section.

(1) A summary of the applicable

standards under this subpart;

(2) A description of basic combustion

theory applicable to a municipal waste

combustor unit;

(3) Procedures for receiving, handling,

and feeding municipal solid waste;

(4) Municipal waste combustor unit

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

procedures;

(5) Procedures for maintaining proper

combustion air supply levels;

(6) Procedures for operating the

municipal waste combustor unit within

the standards established under this

subpart;

(7) Procedures for responding to

periodic upset or off-specification

conditions;

(8) Procedures for minimizing

particulate matter carryover;

(9) Procedures for handling ash;

(10) Procedures for monitoring

municipal waste combustor unit

emissions; and

(11) Reporting and recordkeeping

procedures.

(f) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall establish a training program

to review the operating manual

according to the schedule specified in

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

section with each person who has

responsibilities affecting the operation

of an affected facility including, but not

limited to, chief facility operators, shift

supervisors, control room operators, ash

handlers, maintenance personnel, and

crane/load handlers.

(1) Each person specified in paragraph

(f) of this section shall undergo initial

training no later than the date specified

in paragraph (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), or

(f)(1)(iii) of this section whichever is

later.

(i) The date 6 months after the date of

startup of the affected facility;

(ii) The date prior to the day the

person assumes responsibilities

affecting municipal waste combustor

unit operation; or

(iii) December 19, 1996.

(2) Annually, following the initial

review required by paragraph (f)(1) of

this section.

(g) The operating manual required by

paragraph (e) of this section shall be

kept in a readily accessible location for

all persons required to undergo training

under paragraph (f) of this section. The

operating manual and records of

training shall be available for inspection

by the EPA or its delegated enforcement

agency upon request.

§ 60.55b Standards for municipal waste

combustor fugitive ash emissions.

(a) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, no owner or

operator of an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant shall cause to be

discharged to the atmosphere visible

emissions of combustion ash from an

ash conveying system (including

conveyor transfer points) in excess of 5

percent of the observation period (i.e., 9

minutes per 3-hour period), as

determined by EPA Reference Method

22 observations as specified in

§ 60.58b(k), except as provided in

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b) The emission limit specified in

paragraph (a) of this section does not

cover visible emissions discharged

inside buildings or enclosures of ash

conveying systems; however, the

emission limit specified in paragraph (a)

of this section does cover visible

emissions discharged to the atmosphere

from buildings or enclosures of ash

conveying systems.

(c) The provisions specified in

paragraph (a) of this section do not

apply during maintenance and repair of

ash conveying systems.

§ 60.56b Standards for air curtain

incinerators.

On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is completed or

is required to be completed under § 60.8

of subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator of an air curtain incinerator

located at a plant with a plant capacity

to combust greater than 35 megagrams

per day of municipal solid waste and

that combusts a fuel feed stream

composed of 100 percent yard waste

and no other municipal solid waste

materials shall at no time cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from

that incinerator any gases that exhibit

greater than 10-percent opacity (6-

minute average), except that an opacity

level of up to 35 percent (6-minute

average) is permitted during startup

periods during the first 30 minutes of

operation of the unit.

§ 60.57b Siting requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant, for which the initial application

for a construction permit under 40 CFR

part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as

applicable, is submitted after December

19, 1995, shall prepare a materials

separation plan, as defined in § 60.51b,

for the affected facility and its service

area, and shall comply with the

requirements specified in paragraphs

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

initial application is defined as

representing a good faith submittal for

complying with the requirements under

40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as

applicable, as determined by the

Administrator.

(1) The owner or operator shall

prepare a preliminary draft materials

separation plan and shall make the plan

available to the public as specified in
65426 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this

section.

(i) The owner or operator shall

distribute the preliminary draft

materials separation plan to the

principal public libraries in the area

where the affected facility is to be

constructed.

(ii) The owner or operator shall

publish a notification of a public

meeting in the principal newspaper(s)

serving the area where the affected

facility is to be constructed and where

the waste treated by the affected facility

will primarily be collected. As a

minimum, the notification shall include

the information specified in paragraphs

(a)(1)(ii)(A) through (a)(1)(ii)(D) of this

section.

(A) The date, time, and location of the

public meeting.

(B) The location of the public libraries

where the preliminary draft materials

separation plan may be found, including

normal business hours of the libraries.

(C) An agenda of the issues to be

discussed at the public meeting.

(D) The dates that the public comment

period on the preliminary draft

materials separation plan begins and

ends.

(2) The owner or operator shall

conduct a public meeting, accept

comments on the preliminary draft

materials separation plan, and comply

with the requirements specified in

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of

this section.

(i) The public meeting shall be

conducted in the county where the

affected facility is to be located.

(ii) The public meeting shall be

scheduled to occur 30 days or more after

making the preliminary draft materials

separation plan available to the public

as specified under paragraph (a)(1) of

this section.

(iii) Suggested issues to be addressed

at the public meeting are listed in

paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through

(a)(2)(iii)(H) of this section.

(A) The expected size of the service

area for the affected facility.

(B) The amount of waste generation

anticipated for the service area.

(C) The types and estimated amounts

of materials proposed for separation.

(D) The methods proposed for

materials separation.

(E) The amount of residual waste to be

disposed.

(F) Alternate disposal methods for

handling the residual waste.

(G) Identification of the location(s)

where responses to public comment on

the preliminary draft materials

separation plan will be available for

inspection, as specified in paragraphs

(a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section.

(H) Identification of the locations

where the final draft materials

separation plan will be available for

inspection, as specified in paragraph

(a)(7).

(iv) Nothing in this section shall

preclude an owner or operator from

combining this public meeting with any

other public meeting required as part of

any other Federal, State, or local permit

review process except the public

meeting required under paragraph (b)(4)

of this section.

(3) Following the public meeting

required by paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

prepare responses to the comments

received at the public meeting.

(4) The owner or operator shall make

the document summarizing responses to

public comments available to the public

(including distribution to the principal

public libraries used to announce the

meeting) in the service area where the

affected facility is to be located.

(5) The owner or operator shall

prepare a final draft materials separation

plan for the affected facility considering

the public comments received at the

public meeting.

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

owner or operator shall submit to the

Administrator a copy of the notification

of the public meeting, a transcript of the

public meeting, the document

summarizing responses to public

comments, and copies of both the

preliminary and final draft materials

separation plans on or before the time

the facility’s application for a

construction permit is submitted under

40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as

applicable.

(7) As part of the distribution of the

siting analysis required under paragraph

(b)(3) of this section, the owner or

operator shall make the final draft

materials separation plan required

under paragraph (a)(5) of this section

available to the public, as specified in

paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(8) As part of the public meeting for

review of the siting analysis required

under paragraph (b)(4) of this section,

the owner or operator shall address

questions concerning the final draft

materials separation plan required by

paragraph (a)(5) of this section

including discussion of how the final

draft materials separation plan has

changed from the preliminary draft

materials separation plan that was

discussed at the first public meeting

required by paragraph (a)(2) of this

section.

(9) If the owner or operator receives

any comments on the final draft

materials separation plan during the

public meeting required in paragraph

(b)(4) of this section, the owner or

operator shall respond to those

comments in the document prepared in

accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this

section.

(10) The owner or operator shall

prepare a final materials separation plan

and shall submit, as required under

§ 60.59b(b)(5)(ii), the final materials

separation plan as part of the initial

notification of construction.

(b) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant, for which the initial application

for a construction permit under 40 CFR

part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as

applicable, is submitted after December

19, 1995 shall prepare a siting analysis

in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)

and (b)(2) of this section and shall

comply with the requirements specified

in paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(7) of

this section.

(1) The siting analysis shall be an

analysis of the impact of the affected

facility on ambient air quality, visibility,

soils, and vegetation.

(2) The analysis shall consider air

pollution control alternatives that

minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the

maximum extent practicable, potential

risks to the public health or the

environment.

(3) The owner or operator shall make

the siting analysis and final draft

materials separation plan required by

paragraph (a)(5) of this section available

to the public as specified in paragraphs

(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this section.

(i) The owner or operator shall

distribute the siting analysis and final

draft materials separation plan to the

principal public libraries in the area

where the affected facility is to be

constructed.

(ii) The owner or operator shall

publish a notification of a public

meeting in the principal newspaper(s)

serving the area where the affected

facility is to be constructed and where

the waste treated by the affected facility

will primarily be collected. As a

minimum, the notification shall include

the information specified in paragraphs

(b)(3)(ii)(A) through (b)(3)(ii)(D) of this

section.

(A) The date, time, and location of the

public meeting.

(B) The location of the public libraries

where the siting analyses and final draft

materials separation plan may be found,

including normal business hours.

(C) An agenda of the issues to be

discussed at the public meeting.

(D) The dates that the public comment

period on the siting analyses and final

draft materials separation plan begins

and ends.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65427

(4) The owner or operator shall

conduct a public meeting and accept

comments on the siting analysis and the

final draft materials separation plan

required under paragraph (a)(5) of this

section. The public meeting shall be

conducted in the county where the

affected facility is to be located and

shall be scheduled to occur 30 days or

more after making the siting analysis

available to the public as specified

under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(5) The owner or operator shall

prepare responses to the comments on

the siting analysis and the final draft

materials separation plan that are

received at the public meeting.

(6) The owner or operator shall make

the document summarizing responses to

public comments available to the public

(including distribution to all public

libraries) in the service area where the

affected facility is to be located.

(7) As required under § 60.59b(b)(5),

the owner or operator shall submit a

copy of the notification of the public

meeting, a transcript of the public

meeting, the document summarizing

responses to public comments, and the

siting analysis as part of the initial

notification of construction.

(c) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant, for which construction is

commenced after September 20, 1994

shall prepare a siting analysis in

accordance with 40 CFR part 51,

Subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, and

shall submit the siting analysis as part

of the initial notification of

construction. Affected facilities subject

to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section

are not subject to this paragraph.

§ 60.58b Compliance and performance

testing.

(a) The provisions for startup,

shutdown, and malfunction are

provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)

of this section.

(1) Except as provided by § 60.56b,

the standards under this subpart apply

at all times except during periods of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Duration of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction periods are limited to 3

hours per occurrence.

(i) The startup period commences

when the affected facility begins the

continuous burning of municipal solid

waste and does not include any warmup

period when the affected facility is

combusting fossil fuel or other

nonmunicipal solid waste fuel, and no

municipal solid waste is being fed to the

combustor.

(ii) Continuous burning is the

continuous, semicontinuous, or batch

feeding of municipal solid waste for

purposes of waste disposal, energy

production, or providing heat to the

combustion system in preparation for

waste disposal or energy production.

The use of municipal solid waste solely

to provide thermal protection of the

grate or hearth during the startup period

when municipal solid waste is not being

fed to the grate is not considered to be

continuous burning.

(2) The opacity limits for air curtain

incinerators specified in § 60.56b apply

at all times as specified under § 60.56b

except during periods of malfunction.

Duration of malfunction periods are

limited to 3 hours per occurrence.

(b) The owner or operator of a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall install, calibrate, maintain,

and operate a continuous emission

monitoring system and record the

output of the system for measuring the

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the

flue gas at each location where carbon

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen

oxides emissions are monitored and

shall comply with the test procedures

and test methods specified in

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

section.

(1) The span value of the oxygen (or

carbon dioxide) monitor shall be 25

percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide).

(2) The monitor shall be installed,

evaluated, and operated in accordance

with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part.

(3) The initial performance evaluation

shall be completed no later than 180

days after the date of initial startup of

the municipal waste combustor, as

specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part.

(4) The monitor shall conform to

Performance Specification 3 in

appendix B of this part except for

section 2.3 (relative accuracy

requirement).

(5) The quality assurance procedures

of appendix F of this part except for

section 5.1.1 (relative accuracy test

audit) shall apply to the monitor.

(6) If carbon dioxide is selected for

use in diluent corrections, the

relationship between oxygen and carbon

dioxide levels shall be established

during the initial performance test

according to the procedures and

methods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)

through (b)(6)(iv) of this section. This

relationship may be reestablished

during performance compliance tests.

(i) The emission rate correction factor

and the integrated bag sampling and

analysis procedure of EPA Reference

Method 3B shall be used to determine

the oxygen concentration at the same

location as the carbon dioxide monitor.

(ii) Samples shall be taken for at least

30 minutes in each hour.

(iii) Each sample shall represent a 1-

hour average.

(iv) A minimum of three runs shall be

performed.

(7) As required by § 60.59b(f)(5), the

relationship between carbon dioxide

and oxygen concentrations that is

established in accordance with

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

submitted to the EPA as part of the

initial performance test report.

(c) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(11) of this section shall be used to

determine compliance with the

emission limits for particulate matter

and opacity under § 60.52b(a)(1) and

(a)(2).

(1) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall

be used to select sampling site and

number of traverse points.

(2) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall

be used for gas analysis.

(3) The EPA Reference Method 5 shall

be used for determining compliance

with the particulate matter emission

limit. The minimum sample volume

shall be 1.7 cubic meters. The probe and

filter holder heating systems in the

sample train shall be set to provide a gas

temperature no greater than 160±14 °C.

An oxygen or carbon dioxide

measurement shall be obtained

simultaneously with each Method 5 run.

(4) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the particulate

matter emission limit be determined

using carbon dioxide measurements

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent

oxygen. The relationship between

oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the

affected facility shall be established as

specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this

section.

(5) As specified under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part, all performance

tests shall consist of three test runs. The

average of the particulate matter

emission concentrations from the three

test runs is used to determine

compliance.

(6) In accordance with paragraphs

(c)(7) and (c)(11) of this section, EPA

Reference Method 9 shall be used for

determining compliance with the

opacity limit except as provided under

§ 60.11(e) of subpart A of this part.

(7) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall conduct an initial

performance test for particulate matter

emissions and opacity as required under

§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part.

(8) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous
65428 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

opacity monitoring system for

measuring opacity and shall follow the

methods and procedures specified in

paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (c)(8)(iv) of

this section.

(i) The output of the continuous

opacity monitoring system shall be

recorded on a 6-minute average basis.

(ii) The continuous opacity

monitoring system shall be installed,

evaluated, and operated in accordance

with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part.

(iii) The continuous opacity

monitoring system shall conform to

Performance Specification 1 in

appendix B of this part.

(iv) The initial performance

evaluation shall be completed no later

than 180 days after the date of the initial

startup of the municipal waste

combustor unit, as specified under

§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part.

(9) Following the date that the initial

performance test for particulate matter

is completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part for an affected facility located

within a large municipal waste

combustor plant, the owner or operator

shall conduct a performance test for

particulate matter on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test).

(10) Following the date that the initial

performance test for particulate matter

is completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part for an affected facility located

within a small municipal waste

combustor plant, the owner or operator

shall conduct a performance test for

particulate matter on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test). If all performance tests over a 3-

year period indicate compliance with

the particulate matter emission limit,

the owner or operator may elect not to

conduct a performance test for the

subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a

performance test for particulate matter

shall be conducted every third year (no

more than 36 months following the

previous performance test) at a small

municipal waste combustor plant. If a

performance test conducted every third

year indicates compliance with the

particulate matter emission limit, the

owner or operator may elect not to

conduct a performance test for an

additional 2 years. If any performance

test indicates noncompliance with the

particulate matter emission limit,

performance tests shall be required

annually until all annual performance

tests over a 3-year period indicate

compliance with the particulate matter

emission limit.

(11) Following the date that the initial

performance test for opacity is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part for an affected facility located

within a small or large municipal waste

combustor plant, the owner or operator

shall conduct a performance test for

opacity on an annual basis (no more

than 12 calendar months following the

previous performance test) using the test

method specified in paragraph (c)(6) of

this section.

(d) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)

of this section shall be used to

determine compliance with the

emission limits for cadmium, lead, and

mercury under § 60.52b(a).

(1) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through

(d)(1)(ix) of this section shall be used to

determine compliance with the

emission limits for cadmium and lead

under § 60.52b(a) (3) and (4).

(i) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall

be used for determining the location and

number of sampling points.

(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall

be used for flue gas analysis.

(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29

shall be used for determining

compliance with the cadmium and lead

emission limits.

(iv) An oxygen or carbon dioxide

measurement shall be obtained

simultaneously with each Method 29

test run for cadmium and lead required

under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this

section.

(v) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the cadmium or

lead emission limit be determined using

carbon dioxide measurements corrected

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.

The relationship between oxygen and

carbon dioxide levels for the affected

facility shall be established as specified

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

(vi) All performance tests shall consist

of a minimum of three test runs

conducted under representative full

load operating conditions. The average

of the cadmium or lead emission

concentrations from three test runs or

more shall be used to determine

compliance.

(vii) Following the date of the initial

performance test or the date on which

the initial performance test is required

to be completed under § 60.8 of subpart

A of this part, the owner or operator of

an affected facility located within a

large municipal waste combustor plant

shall conduct a performance test for

compliance with the emission limits for

cadmium and lead on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test).

(viii) Following the date that the

initial performance test for cadmium is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part for an affected facility located

within a small municipal waste

combustor plant, the owner or operator

shall conduct a performance test for

cadmium emissions on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test). If all performance tests over a 3-

year period indicate compliance with

the cadmium emission limit, the owner

or operator may elect not to conduct a

performance test for the subsequent 2

years. At a minimum, a performance test

for cadmium shall be conducted every

third year (no more than 36 months

following the previous performance test)

at a small municipal waste combustor

plant. If a performance test conducted

every third year indicates compliance

with the cadmium emission limit, the

owner or operator may elect not to

conduct a performance test for an

additional 2 years. If any performance

test indicates noncompliance with the

cadmium emission limit, performance

tests shall be conducted annually until

all annual performance tests over a 3-

year period indicate compliance with

the cadmium emission limit.

(ix) Following the date that the initial

performance test for lead is completed

or is required to be completed under

§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an

affected facility located within a small

municipal waste combustor plant, the

owner or operator shall conduct a

performance test for lead emissions on

an annual basis (no more than 12

calendar months following the previous

performance test). If all three

performance tests over a 3-year period

indicate compliance with the lead

emission limit, the owner or operator

may elect not to conduct a performance

test for the subsequent 2 years. At a

minimum, a performance test for lead

shall be conducted every third year (no

more than 36 months following the

previous performance test) at a small

municipal waste combustor plant. If a

performance test conducted every third

year indicates compliance with the lead

emission limit, the owner or operator

may elect not to conduct a performance

test for an additional 2 years. If any

performance test indicates

noncompliance with the lead emission

limit, performance tests shall be

conducted annually until all annual

performance tests over a 3-year period

indicate compliance with the lead

emission limit.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65429

(2) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through

(d)(2)(xi) of this section shall be used to

determine compliance with the mercury

emission limit under § 60.52b(a)(5).

(i) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall

be used for determining the location and

number of sampling points.

(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall

be used for flue gas analysis.

(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29

shall be used to determine the mercury

emission concentration. The minimum

sample volume when using Method 29

for mercury shall be 1.7 cubic meters.

(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide)

measurement shall be obtained

simultaneously with each Method 29

test run for mercury required under

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

(v) The percent reduction in the

potential mercury emissions (%PHg) is

computed using equation 1:

% ( ) P

E E

E Hg

i o

i

( ) =

 −









 ×100 1

where:

%PHg = percent reduction of the potential

mercury emissions achieved.

Ei = potential mercury emission

concentration measured at the control

device inlet, corrected to 7 percent

oxygen (dry basis).

Eo = controlled mercury emission

concentration measured at the mercury

control device outlet, corrected to 7

percent oxygen (dry basis).

(vi) All performance tests shall consist

of a minimum of three test runs

conducted under representative full

load operating conditions. The average

of the mercury emission concentrations

or percent reductions from three test

runs or more is used to determine

compliance.

(vii) An owner or operator may

request that compliance with the

mercury emission limit be determined

using carbon dioxide measurements

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent

oxygen. The relationship between

oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the

affected facility shall be established as

specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this

section.

(viii) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall conduct an initial

performance test for mercury emissions

as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part.

(ix) Following the date that the initial

performance test for mercury is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part, the owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant shall

conduct a performance test for mercury

emissions on a annual basis (no more

than 12 calendar months from the

previous performance test).

(x) Following the date that the initial

performance test for mercury is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part for an affected facility located

within a small municipal waste

combustor plant, the owner or operator

shall conduct a performance test for

mercury emissions on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test). If all three performance tests over

a 3-year period indicate compliance

with the mercury emission limit, the

owner or operator may elect not to

conduct a performance test for the

subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a

performance test for mercury shall be

conducted every third year (no more

than 36 months following the previous

performance test) at a small municipal

waste combustor plant. If a performance

test conducted every third year

indicates compliance with the mercury

emission limit, the owner or operator

may elect not to conduct a performance

test for an additional 2 years. If any

performance test indicates

noncompliance with the mercury

emission limit, performance tests shall

be conducted annually until all annual

performance tests over a 3-year period

indicate compliance with the mercury

emission limit.

(xi) The owner or operator of an

affected facility where activated carbon

injection is used to comply with the

mercury emission limit shall follow the

procedures specified in paragraph (m) of

this section for measuring and

calculating carbon usage.

(e) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through

(e)(14) of this section shall be used for

determining compliance with the sulfur

dioxide emission limit under

§ 60.52b(b)(1).

(1) The EPA Reference Method 19,

section 4.3, shall be used to calculate

the daily geometric average sulfur

dioxide emission concentration.

(2) The EPA Reference Method 19,

section 5.4, shall be used to determine

the daily geometric average percent

reduction in the potential sulfur dioxide

emission concentration.

(3) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the sulfur dioxide

emission limit be determined using

carbon dioxide measurements corrected

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.

The relationship between oxygen and

carbon dioxide levels for the affected

facility shall be established as specified

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

(4) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall conduct an initial

performance test for sulfur dioxide

emissions as required under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part. Compliance with

the sulfur dioxide emission limit

(concentration or percent reduction)

shall be determined by using the

continuous emission monitoring system

specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this

section to measure sulfur dioxide and

calculating a 24-hour daily geometric

average emission concentration or a 24-

hour daily geometric average percent

reduction using EPA Reference Method

19, sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable.

(5) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous

emission monitoring system for

measuring sulfur dioxide emissions

discharged to the atmosphere and

record the output of the system.

(6) Following the date that the initial

performance test for sulfur dioxide is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part, compliance with the sulfur

dioxide emission limit shall be

determined based on the 24-hour daily

geometric average of the hourly

arithmetic average emission

concentrations using continuous

emission monitoring system outlet data

if compliance is based on an emission

concentration, or continuous emission

monitoring system inlet and outlet data

if compliance is based on a percent

reduction.

(7) At a minimum, valid continuous

monitoring system hourly averages shall

be obtained as specified in paragraphs

(e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) for 75 percent of

the operating hours per day for 90

percent of the operating days per

calendar quarter that the affected facility

is combusting municipal solid waste.

(i) At least two data points per hour

shall be used to calculate each 1-hour

arithmetic average.

(ii) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour

arithmetic average shall be corrected to

7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of

the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)

continuous emission monitoring system

data.

(8) The 1-hour arithmetic averages

required under paragraph (e)(6) of this

section shall be expressed in parts per

million corrected to 7 percent oxygen

(dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-

hour daily geometric average emission

concentrations and daily geometric

average emission percent reductions.

The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be

calculated using the data points
65430 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

required under § 60.13(e)(2) of subpart

A of this part.

(9) All valid continuous emission

monitoring system data shall be used in

calculating average emission

concentrations and percent reductions

even if the minimum continuous

emission monitoring system data

requirements of paragraph (e)(7) of this

section are not met.

(10) The procedures under § 60.13 of

subpart A of this part shall be followed

for installation, evaluation, and

operation of the continuous emission

monitoring system.

(11) The initial performance

evaluation shall be completed no later

than 180 days after the date of initial

startup of the municipal waste

combustor as specified under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part.

(12) The continuous emission

monitoring system shall be operated

according to Performance Specification

2 in appendix B of this part.

(i) During each relative accuracy test

run of the continuous emission

monitoring system required by

Performance Specification 2 in

appendix B of this part, sulfur dioxide

and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data

shall be collected concurrently (or

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by

both the continuous emission monitors

and the test methods specified in

paragraphs (e)(12)(i)(A) and (e)(12)(i)(B)

of this section.

(A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference

Method 6, 6A, or 6C shall be used.

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B shall

be used.

(ii) The span value of the continuous

emissions monitoring system at the inlet

to the sulfur dioxide control device

shall be 125 percent of the maximum

estimated hourly potential sulfur

dioxide emissions of the municipal

waste combustor unit. The span value of

the continuous emission monitoring

system at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide

control device shall be 50 percent of the

maximum estimated hourly potential

sulfur dioxide emissions of the

municipal waste combustor unit.

(13) Quarterly accuracy

determinations and daily calibration

drift tests shall be performed in

accordance with procedure 1 in

appendix F of this part.

(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions

data are not obtained because of

continuous emission monitoring system

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,

and zero and span adjustments,

emissions data shall be obtained by

using other monitoring systems as

approved by the Administrator or EPA

Reference Method 19 to provide, as

necessary, valid emissions data for a

minimum of 75 percent of the hours per

day that the affected facility is operated

and combusting municipal solid waste

for 90 percent of the days per calendar

quarter that the affected facility is

operated and combusting municipal

solid waste.

(f) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through

(f)(8) of this section shall be used for

determining compliance with the

hydrogen chloride emission limit under

§ 60.52b(b)(2).

(1) The EPA Reference Method 26 or

26A, as applicable, shall be used to

determine the hydrogen chloride

emission concentration. The minimum

sampling time for Method 26 shall be 1

hour.

(2) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide)

measurement shall be obtained

simultaneously with each Method 26

test run for hydrogen chloride required

by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(3) The percent reduction in potential

hydrogen chloride emissions (% PHCl) is

computed using equation 2:

% ( ) P

E E

E

HCl

i o

i

( ) =

 −









 ×100 2

where:

%PHCl=percent reduction of the potential

hydrogen chloride emissions achieved.

Ei=potential hydrogen chloride emission

concentration measured at the control

device inlet, corrected to 7 percent

oxygen (dry basis).

Eo=controlled hydrogen chloride emission

concentration measured at the control

device outlet, corrected to 7 percent

oxygen (dry basis).

(4) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the hydrogen

chloride emission limit be determined

using carbon dioxide measurements

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent

oxygen. The relationship between

oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the

affected facility shall be established as

specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this

section.

(5) As specified under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part, all performance

tests shall consist of three test runs. The

average of the hydrogen chloride

emission concentrations or percent

reductions from the three test runs is

used to determine compliance.

(6) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall conduct an initial

performance test for hydrogen chloride

as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part.

(7) Following the date that the initial

performance test for hydrogen chloride

is completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part, the owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant shall

conduct a performance test for hydrogen

chloride emissions on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test).

(8) Following the date that the initial

performance test for hydrogen chloride

is completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of this part, the

owner or operator of an affected facility

located within a small municipal waste

combustor plant shall conduct a

performance test for hydrogen chloride

emissions on an annual basis (no more

than 12 calendar months following the

previous performance test). If all

performance tests over a 3-year period

indicate compliance with the hydrogen

chloride emission limit, the owner or

operator may elect not to conduct a

performance test for the subsequent 2

years. At a minimum, a performance test

for hydrogen chloride shall be

conducted every third year (no more

than 36 months following the previous

performance test) at a small municipal

waste combustor plant. If a performance

test conducted every third year

indicates compliance with the hydrogen

chloride emission limit, the owner or

operator may elect not to conduct a

performance test for an additional 2

years. If any performance test indicates

noncompliance with the hydrogen

chloride emission limit, performance

tests shall be conducted annually until

all annual performance tests over a 3-

year period indicate compliance with

the hydrogen chloride emission limit.

(g) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through

(g)(9) of this section shall be used to

determine compliance with the limits

for dioxin/furan emissions under

§ 60.52b(c).

(1) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall

be used for determining the location and

number of sampling points.

(2) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall

be used for flue gas analysis.

(3) The EPA Reference Method 23

shall be used for determining the

dioxin/furan emission concentration.

(i) The minimum sample time shall be

4 hours per test run.

(ii) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide)

measurement shall be obtained

simultaneously with each Method 23

test run for dioxins/furans.

(4) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall conduct an initial

performance test for dioxin/furan

emissions in accordance with paragraph

(g)(3) of this section, as required under

§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65431

(5) Following the date that the initial

performance test for dioxins/furans is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part, the owner or operator of an

affected facility located within small

and large municipal waste combustor

plants shall conduct performance tests

for dioxin/furan emissions in

accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this

section, according to one of the

schedules specified in paragraphs

(g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of this section.

(i) For affected facilities located

within small and large municipal waste

combustor plants, performance tests

shall be conducted on an annual basis

(no more than 12 calendar months

following the previous performance

test.)

(ii) For affected facilities located

within small municipal waste

combustor plants where all performance

tests for an affected facility over a 3-year

period indicate compliance with the

dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner

or operator may elect not to conduct a

performance test for the subsequent 2

years for that affected facility. At a

minimum, a performance test for

dioxin/furan emissions shall be

conducted every third year (no more

than 36 months following the previous

performance test) for each affected

facility. If a performance test conducted

every third year indicates compliance

with the dioxin/furan emission limit,

the owner or operator may elect not to

conduct a performance test on the

affected facility for an additional 2

years. If any performance test indicates

noncompliance with the dioxin/furan

emission limit, performance tests shall

be conducted annually until all annual

performance tests for the affected

facility over a 3-year period indicate

compliance with the dioxin/furan

emission limit.

(iii) For affected facilities located

within small or large municipal waste

combustor plants where all performance

tests for all affected facilities over a 2-

year period indicate that dioxin/furan

emissions are less than or equal to 7

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

(total mass) for all affected facilities

located within a municipal waste

combustor plant, the owner or operator

of the municipal waste combustor plant

may elect to conduct annual

performance tests for one affected

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

municipal waste combustor plant. At a

minimum, a performance test for

dioxin/furan emissions shall be

conducted annually (no more than 12

months following the previous

performance test) for one affected

facility at the municipal waste

combustor plant. Each year a different

affected facility at the municipal waste

combustor plant shall be tested, and the

affected facilities at the plant shall be

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

unit 3, as applicable). If each annual

performance test continues to indicate a

dioxin/furan emission level less than or

equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard

cubic meter (total mass), the owner or

operator may continue conducting a

performance test on only one affected

facility per year. If any annual

performance test indicates a dioxin/

furan emission level greater than 7

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

(total mass), performance tests thereafter

shall be conducted annually on all

affected facilities at the plant until and

unless all annual performance tests for

all affected facilities at the plant over a

2-year period indicate a dioxin/furan

emission level less than or equal to 7

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

(total mass).

(6) The owner or operator of an

affected facility that selects to follow the

performance testing schedule specified

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

shall follow the procedures specified in

§ 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting the selection

of this schedule.

(7) The owner or operator of an

affected facility where activated carbon

is used to comply with the dioxin/furan

emission limits specified in § 60.52b(c)

or the dioxin/furan emission level

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

section shall follow the procedures

specified in paragraph (m) of this

section for measuring and calculating

the carbon usage rate.

(8) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the dioxin/furan

emission limit be determined using

carbon dioxide measurements corrected

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.

The relationship between oxygen and

carbon dioxide levels for the affected

facility shall be established as specified

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

(9) As specified under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part, all performance

tests shall consist of three test runs. The

average of the dioxin/furan emission

concentrations from the three test runs

is used to determine compliance.

(h) The procedures and test methods

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through

(h)(12) of this section shall be used to

determine compliance with the nitrogen

oxides emission limit for municipal

waste combustors located at large

municipal waste combustor plants

under § 60.52b(d) (no nitrogen oxides

performance tests are required for

affected facilities located within small

municipal waste combustor plants).

(1) The EPA Reference Method 19,

section 4.1, shall be used for

determining the daily arithmetic average

nitrogen oxides emission concentration.

(2) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the nitrogen

oxides emission limit be determined

using carbon dioxide measurements

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent

oxygen. The relationship between

oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the

affected facility shall be established as

specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this

section.

(3) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant

subject to the nitrogen oxides limit

under § 60.52b(d) shall conduct an

initial performance test for nitrogen

oxides as required under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part. Compliance with

the nitrogen oxides emission limit shall

be determined by using the continuous

emission monitoring system specified in

paragraph (h)(4) of this section for

measuring nitrogen oxides and

calculating a 24-hour daily arithmetic

average emission concentration using

EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1.

(4) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a large

municipal waste combustor plant

subject to the nitrogen oxides emission

limit under § 60.52b(d) shall install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate a

continuous emission monitoring system

for measuring nitrogen oxides

discharged to the atmosphere, and

record the output of the system.

(5) Following the date that the initial

performance test for nitrogen oxides is

completed or is required to be

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part, compliance with the emission

limit for nitrogen oxides required under

§ 60.52b(d) shall be determined based

on the 24-hour daily arithmetic average

of the hourly emission concentrations

using continuous emission monitoring

system outlet data.

(6) At a minimum, valid continuous

emission monitoring system hourly

averages shall be obtained as specified

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

this section for 75 percent of the

operating hours per day for 90 percent

of the operating days per calendar

quarter that the affected facility is

combusting municipal solid waste.

(i) At least 2 data points per hour

shall be used to calculate each 1-hour

arithmetic average.

(ii) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour

arithmetic average shall be corrected to

7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of

the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
65432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

continuous emission monitoring system

data.

(7) The 1-hour arithmetic averages

required by paragraph (h)(5) of this

section shall be expressed in parts per

million by volume (dry basis) and used

to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic

average concentrations. The 1-hour

arithmetic averages shall be calculated

using the data points required under

§ 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A of this part.

(8) All valid continuous emission

monitoring system data must be used in

calculating emission averages even if

the minimum continuous emission

monitoring system data requirements of

paragraph (h)(6) of this section are not

met.

(9) The procedures under § 60.13 of

subpart A of this part shall be followed

for installation, evaluation, and

operation of the continuous emission

monitoring system. The initial

performance evaluation shall be

completed no later than 180 days after

the date of initial startup of the

municipal waste combustor unit, as

specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part.

(10) The owner or operator shall

operate the continuous emission

monitoring system according to

Performance Specification 2 in

appendix B of this part and shall follow

the procedures and methods specified

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

this section.

(i) During each relative accuracy test

run of the continuous emission

monitoring system required by

Performance Specification 2 of

appendix B of this part, nitrogen oxides

and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data

shall be collected concurrently (or

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by

both the continuous emission monitors

and the test methods specified in

paragraphs (h)(10)(i)(A) and (h)(10)(i)(B)

of this section.

(A) For nitrogen oxides, EPA

Reference Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E

shall be used.

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B shall

be used.

(ii) The span value of the continuous

emission monitoring system shall be

125 percent of the maximum estimated

hourly potential nitrogen oxide

emissions of the municipal waste

combustor unit.

(11) Quarterly accuracy

determinations and daily calibration

drift tests shall be performed in

accordance with procedure 1 in

appendix F of this part.

(12) When nitrogen oxides continuous

emissions data are not obtained because

of continuous emission monitoring

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration

checks, and zero and span adjustments,

emissions data shall be obtained using

other monitoring systems as approved

by the Administrator or EPA Reference

Method 19 to provide, as necessary,

valid emissions data for a minimum of

75 percent of the hours per day for 90

percent of the days per calendar quarter

the unit is operated and combusting

municipal solid waste.

(i) The procedures specified in

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

section shall be used for determining

compliance with the operating

requirements under § 60.53b.

(1) Compliance with the carbon

monoxide emission limits in § 60.53b(a)

shall be determined using a 4-hour

block arithmetic average for all types of

affected facilities except mass burn

rotary waterwall municipal waste

combustors and refuse-derived fuel

stokers.

(2) For affected mass burn rotary

waterwall municipal waste combustors

and refuse-derived fuel stokers,

compliance with the carbon monoxide

emission limits in § 60.53b(a) shall be

determined using a 24-hour daily

arithmetic average.

(3) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous

emission monitoring system for

measuring carbon monoxide at the

combustor outlet and record the output

of the system and shall follow the

procedures and methods specified in

paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (i)(3)(iii) of

this section.

(i) The continuous emission

monitoring system shall be operated

according to Performance Specification

4A in appendix B of this part.

(ii) During each relative accuracy test

run of the continuous emission

monitoring system required by

Performance Specification 4A in

appendix B of this part, carbon

monoxide and oxygen (or carbon

dioxide) data shall be collected

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-

minute period) by both the continuous

emission monitors and the test methods

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

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

(A) For carbon monoxide, EPA

Reference Method 10, 10A, or 10B shall

be used.

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B shall

be used.

(iii) The span value of the continuous

emission monitoring system shall be

125 percent of the maximum estimated

hourly potential carbon monoxide

emissions of the municipal waste

combustor unit.

(4) The 4-hour block and 24-hour

daily arithmetic averages specified in

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

section shall be calculated from 1-hour

arithmetic averages expressed in parts

per million by volume corrected to 7

percent oxygen (dry basis). The 1-hour

arithmetic averages shall be calculated

using the data points generated by the

continuous emission monitoring system.

At least two data points shall be used to

calculate each 1-hour arithmetic

average.

(5) An owner or operator may request

that compliance with the carbon

monoxide emission limit be determined

using carbon dioxide measurements

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent

oxygen. The relationship between

oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the

affected facility shall be established as

specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this

section.

(6) The procedures specified in

paragraphs (i)(6)(i) through (i)(6)(v) of

this section shall be used to determine

compliance with load level

requirements under § 60.53b(b).

(i) The owner or operator of an

affected facility with steam generation

capability shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a steam flow

meter or a feedwater flow meter;

measure steam (or feedwater) flow in

kilograms per hour (or pounds per hour)

on a continuous basis; and record the

output of the monitor. Steam (or

feedwater) flow shall be calculated in 4-

hour block arithmetic averages.

(ii) The method included in the

‘‘American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code

for Steam Generating Units, Power Test

Code 4.1—1964 (R1991)’’ section 4

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17

of subpart A of this part) shall be used

for calculating the steam (or feedwater)

flow required under paragraph (i)(6)(i)

of this section. The recommendations in

‘‘American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Interim Supplement 19.5 on

Instruments and Apparatus:

Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th

edition (1971),’’ chapter 4 (incorporated

by reference—see § 60.17 of subpart A of

this part) shall be followed for design,

construction, installation, calibration,

and use of nozzles and orifices except

as specified in (i)(6)(iii) of this section.

(iii) Measurement devices such as

flow nozzles and orifices are not

required to be recalibrated after they are

installed.

(iv) All signal conversion elements

associated with steam (or feedwater

flow) measurements must be calibrated

according to the manufacturer’s

instructions before each dioxin/furan
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65433

performance test, and at least once per

year.

(a) [Reserved].

(7) To determine compliance with the

maximum particulate matter control

device temperature requirements under

§ 60.53b(c), the owner or operator of an

affected facility shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a device for

measuring on a continuous basis the

temperature of the flue gas stream at the

inlet to each particulate matter control

device utilized by the affected facility.

Temperature shall be calculated in 4-

hour block arithmetic averages.

(8) The maximum demonstrated

municipal waste combustor unit load

shall be determined during the initial

performance test for dioxins/furans and

each subsequent performance test

during which compliance with the

dioxin/furan emission limit specified in

§ 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum

demonstrated municipal waste

combustor unit load shall be the highest

4-hour arithmetic average load achieved

during four consecutive hours during

the most recent test during which

compliance with the dioxin/furan

emission limit was achieved.

(9) For each particulate matter control

device employed at the affected facility,

the maximum demonstrated particulate

matter control device temperature shall

be determined during the initial

performance test for dioxins/furans and

each subsequent performance test

during which compliance with the

dioxin/furan emission limit specified in

§ 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum

demonstrated particulate matter control

device temperature shall be the highest

4-hour arithmetic average temperature

achieved at the particulate matter

control device inlet during four

consecutive hours during the most

recent test during which compliance

with the dioxin/furan limit was

achieved.

(10) At a minimum, valid continuous

emission monitoring system hourly

averages shall be obtained as specified

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

this section for 75 percent of the

operating hours per day for 90 percent

of the operating days per calendar

quarter that the affected facility is

combusting municipal solid waste.

(i) At least two data points per hour

shall be used to calculate each 1-hour

arithmetic average.

(ii) At a minimum, each carbon

monoxide 1-hour arithmetic average

shall be corrected to 7 percent oxygen

on an hourly basis using the 1-hour

arithmetic average of the oxygen (or

carbon dioxide) continuous emission

monitoring system data.

(11) All valid continuous emission

monitoring system data must be used in

calculating the parameters specified

under paragraph (i) of this section even

if the minimum data requirements of

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

met. When carbon monoxide

continuous emission data are not

obtained because of continuous

emission monitoring system

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,

and zero and span adjustments,

emissions data shall be obtained using

other monitoring systems as approved

by the Administrator or EPA Reference

Method 10 to provide, as necessary, the

minimum valid emission data.

(12) Quarterly accuracy

determinations and daily calibration

drift tests for the carbon monoxide

continuous emission monitoring system

shall be performed in accordance with

procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.

(j) The procedures specified in

paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section

shall be used for calculating municipal

waste combustor unit capacity as

defined under § 60.51b.

(1) For municipal waste combustor

units capable of combusting municipal

solid waste continuously for a 24-hour

period, municipal waste combustor unit

capacity, in megagrams per day of

municipal solid waste combusted, shall

be calculated based on 24 hours of

operation at the maximum charging rate.

The maximum charging rate shall be

determined as specified in paragraphs

(j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this section as

applicable.

(i) For combustors that are designed

based on heat capacity, the maximum

charging rate shall be calculated based

on the maximum design heat input

capacity of the unit and a heating value

of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram.

(ii) For combustors that are not

designed based on heat capacity, the

maximum charging rate shall be the

maximum design charging rate.

(2) For batch feed municipal waste

combustor units, municipal waste

combustor unit capacity, in megagrams

per day of municipal solid waste

combusted, shall be calculated as the

maximum design amount of municipal

solid waste that can be charged per

batch multiplied by the maximum

number of batches that could be

processed in a 24-hour period. The

maximum number of batches that could

be processed in a 24-hour period is

calculated as 24 hours divided by the

design number of hours required to

process one batch of municipal solid

waste, and may include fractional

batches (e.g., if one batch requires 16

hours, then 24/16, or 1.5 batches, could

be combusted in a 24-hour period). For

batch combustors that are designed

based on heat capacity, the design

heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per

kilogram for all municipal solid waste

shall be used in calculating the

municipal waste combustor unit

capacity in megagrams per day of

municipal solid waste.

(k) The procedures specified in

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

section shall be used for determining

compliance with the fugitive ash

emission limit under § 60.55b.

(1) The EPA Reference Method 22

shall be used for determining

compliance with the fugitive ash

emission limit under § 60.55b. The

minimum observation time shall be a

series of three 1-hour observations. The

observation period shall include times

when the facility is transferring ash

from the municipal waste combustor

unit to the area where ash is stored or

loaded into containers or trucks.

(2) The average duration of visible

emissions per hour shall be calculated

from the three 1-hour observations. The

average shall be used to determine

compliance with § 60.55b.

(3) The owner or operator of an

affected facility shall conduct an initial

performance test for fugitive ash

emissions as required under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part.

(l) The procedures specified in

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

section shall be used to determine

compliance with the opacity limit for air

curtain incinerators under § 60.56b.

(1) The EPA Reference Method 9 shall

be used for determining compliance

with the opacity limit.

(2) The owner or operator of the air

curtain incinerator shall conduct an

initial performance test for opacity as

required under § 60.8 of subpart A of

this part.

(3) Following the date that the initial

performance test is completed or is

required to be completed under § 60.8 of

subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator of the air curtain incinerator

shall conduct a performance test for

opacity on an annual basis (no more

than 12 calendar months following the

previous performance test).

(m) The owner or operator of an

affected facility where activated carbon

injection is used to comply with the

mercury emission limit under

§ 60.52b(a)(5), or the dioxin/furan

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

the dioxin/furan emission level

specified in § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) shall

follow the procedures specified in

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

section.

(1) During the performance tests for

dioxins/furans and mercury, as
65434 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

applicable, the owner or operator shall

estimate an average carbon mass feed

rate based on carbon injection system

operating parameters such as the screw

feeder speed, hopper volume, hopper

refill frequency, or other parameters

appropriate to the feed system being

employed, as specified in paragraphs

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

(i) An average carbon mass feed rate

in kilograms per hour or pounds per

hour shall be estimated during the

initial performance test for mercury

emissions and each subsequent

performance test for mercury emissions.

(ii) An average carbon mass feed rate

in kilograms per hour or pounds per

hour shall be estimated during the

initial performance test for dioxin/furan

emissions and each subsequent

performance test for dioxin/furan

emissions.

(2) During operation of the affected

facility, the carbon injection system

operating parameter(s) that are the

primary indicator(s) of the carbon mass

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

equal or exceed the level(s) documented

during the performance tests specified

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

of this section.

(3) The owner or operator shall

estimate the total carbon usage of the

plant (kilograms or pounds) for each

calendar quarter by two independent

methods, according to the procedures in

paragraphs (m)(3)(i) and (m)(3)(ii) of this

section.

(i) The weight of carbon delivered to

the plant.

(ii) Estimate the average carbon mass

feed rate in kilograms per hour or

pounds per hour for each hour of

operation for each affected facility based

on the parameters specified under

paragraph (m)(1) of this section, and

sum the results for all affected facilities

at the plant for the total number of

hours of operation during the calendar

quarter.

§ 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located at a municipal

waste combustor plant with a capacity

to combust greater than 35 megagrams

per day shall submit, on or before the

date the application for a construction

permit is submitted under 40 CFR part

51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable,

the items specified in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(4) of this section.

(1) The preliminary and final draft

materials separation plans required by

§ 60.57b(a)(1) and (a)(5).

(2) A copy of the notification of the

public meeting required by

§ 60.57b(a)(1)(ii).

(3) A transcript of the public meeting

required by § 60.57b(a)(2).

(4) A copy of the document

summarizing responses to public

comments required by § 60.57b(a)(3).

(b) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located at a municipal

waste combustor plant with a capacity

to combust greater than 35 megagrams

per day shall submit a notification of

construction, which includes the

information specified in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section.

(1) Intent to construct.

(2) Planned initial startup date.

(3) The types of fuels that the owner

or operator plans to combust in the

affected facility.

(4) The municipal waste combustor

unit capacity, municipal waste

combustor plant capacity, and

supporting capacity calculations

prepared in accordance with § 60.58b(j).

(5) Documents associated with the

siting requirements under § 60.57b (a)

and (b), as specified in paragraphs

(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(v) of this section.

(i) The siting analysis required by

§ 60.57b (b)(1) and (b)(2).

(ii) The final materials separation plan

for the affected facility required by

§ 60.57b(a)(10).

(iii) A copy of the notification of the

public meeting required by

§ 60.57b(b)(3)(ii).

(iv) A transcript of the public meeting

required by § 60.57b(b)(4).

(v) A copy of the document

summarizing responses to public

comments required by § 60.57b (a)(9)

and (b)(5).

(c) The owner or operator of an air

curtain incinerator subject to the opacity

limit under § 60.56b shall provide a

notification of construction that

includes the information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section.

(d) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant and subject to the standards under

§§ 60.52b, 60.53b, 60.54b, 60.55b, and

60.57b shall maintain records of the

information specified in paragraphs

(d)(1) through (d)(15) of this section, as

applicable, for each affected facility for

a period of at least 5 years.

(1) The calendar date of each record.

(2) The emission concentrations and

parameters measured using continuous

monitoring systems as specified under

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

section.

(i) The measurements specified in

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

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

recorded and be available for submittal

to the Administrator or review onsite by

an inspector.

(A) All 6-minute average opacity

levels as specified under § 60.58b(c).

(B) All 1-hour average sulfur dioxide

emission concentrations as specified

under § 60.58b(e).

(C) All 1-hour average nitrogen oxides

emission concentrations as specified

under § 60.58b(h) (large municipal

waste combustor plants only).

(D) All 1-hour average carbon

monoxide emission concentrations,

municipal waste combustor unit load

measurements, and particulate matter

control device inlet temperatures as

specified under § 60.58b(i).

(ii) The average concentrations and

percent reductions, as applicable,

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

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

be computed and recorded, and shall be

available for submittal to the

Administrator or review on-site by an

inspector.

(A) All 24-hour daily geometric

average sulfur dioxide emission

concentrations and all 24-hour daily

geometric average percent reductions in

sulfur dioxide emissions as specified

under § 60.58b(e).

(B) All 24-hour daily arithmetic

average nitrogen oxides emission

concentrations as specified under

§ 60.58b(h) (large municipal waste

combustor plants only).

(C) All 4-hour block or 24-hour daily

arithmetic average carbon monoxide

emission concentrations, as applicable,

as specified under § 60.58b(i).

(D) All 4-hour block arithmetic

average municipal waste combustor unit

load levels and particulate matter

control device inlet temperatures as

specified under § 60.58b(i).

(3) Identification of the calendar dates

when any of the average emission

concentrations, percent reductions, or

operating parameters recorded under

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

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

opacity levels recorded under paragraph

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

applicable limits, with reasons for such

exceedances and a description of

corrective actions taken.

(4) For affected facilities that apply

activated carbon for mercury or dioxin/

furan control, the records specified in

paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(v) of

this section.

(i) The average carbon mass feed rate

(in kilograms per hour or pounds per

hour) estimated as required under

§ 60.58b(m)(1)(i) of this section during

the initial mercury performance test and

all subsequent annual performance

tests, with supporting calculations.

(ii) The average carbon mass feed rate

(in kilograms per hour or pounds per

hour) estimated as required under
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65435

§ 60.58b(m)(1)(ii) of this section during

the initial dioxin/furan performance test

and all subsequent annual performance

tests, with supporting calculations.

(iii) The average carbon mass feed rate

(in kilograms per hour or pounds per

hour) estimated for each hour of

operation as required under

§ 60.58b(m)(3)(ii) of this section, with

supporting calculations.

(iv) The total carbon usage for each

calendar quarter estimated as specified

by paragraph 60.58b(m)(3) of this

section, with supporting calculations.

(v) Carbon injection system operating

parameter data for the parameter(s) that

are the primary indicator(s) of carbon

feed rate (e.g., screw feeder speed).

(5) [Reserved]

(6) Identification of the calendar dates

for which the minimum number of

hours of any of the data specified in

paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(v) of

this section have not been obtained

including reasons for not obtaining

sufficient data and a description of

corrective actions taken.

(i) Sulfur dioxide emissions data;

(ii) Nitrogen oxides emissions data

(large municipal waste combustor plants

only);

(iii) Carbon monoxide emissions data;

(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit

load data; and

(v) Particulate matter control device

temperature data.

(7) Identification of each occurrence

that sulfur dioxide emissions data,

nitrogen oxides emissions data (large

municipal waste combustors only), or

operational data (i.e., carbon monoxide

emissions, unit load, and particulate

matter control device temperature) have

been excluded from the calculation of

average emission concentrations or

parameters, and the reasons for

excluding the data.

(8) The results of daily drift tests and

quarterly accuracy determinations for

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (large

municipal waste combustors only), and

carbon monoxide continuous emission

monitoring systems, as required under

appendix F of this part, procedure 1.

(9) The test reports documenting the

results of the initial performance test

and all annual performance tests listed

in paragraphs (d)(9)(i) and (d)(9)(ii) of

this section shall be recorded along with

supporting calculations.

(i) The results of the initial

performance test and all annual

performance tests conducted to

determine compliance with the

particulate matter, opacity, cadmium,

lead, mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen

chloride, and fugitive ash emission

limits.

(ii) For the initial dioxin/furan

performance test and all subsequent

dioxin/furan performance tests recorded

under paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section,

the maximum demonstrated municipal

waste combustor unit load and

maximum demonstrated particulate

matter control device temperature (for

each particulate matter control device).

(10) [Reserved]

(11) For each municipal waste

combustor subject to the siting

provisions under § 60.57b, the siting

analysis, the final materials separation

plan, a record of the location and date

of the public meetings, and the

documentation of the responses to

public comments received at the public

meetings.

(12) The records specified in

paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through (d)(12)(iii)

of this section.

(i) Records showing the names of the

municipal waste combustor chief

facility operator, shift supervisors, and

control room operators who have been

provisionally certified by the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers or an

equivalent State-approved certification

program as required by § 60.54b(a)

including the dates of initial and

renewal certifications and

documentation of current certification.

(ii) Records showing the names of the

municipal waste combustor chief

facility operator, shift supervisors, and

control room operators who have been

fully certified by the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers or an

equivalent State-approved certification

program as required by § 60.54b(a)

including the dates of initial and

renewal certifications and

documentation of current certification.

(iii) Records showing the names of the

municipal waste combustor chief

facility operator, shift supervisors, and

control room operators who have

completed the EPA municipal waste

combustor operator training course or a

State-approved equivalent course as

required by § 60.54b(d) including

documentation of training completion.

(13) Records showing the names of

persons who have completed a review

of the operating manual as required by

§ 60.54b(f) including the date of the

initial review and subsequent annual

reviews.

(14) For affected facilities that apply

activated carbon for mercury or dioxin/

furan control, identification of the

calendar dates when the average carbon

mass feed rates recorded under

(d)(4)(iii) of this section were less than

either of the hourly carbon feed rates

estimated during performance tests for

mercury or dioxin/furan emissions and

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

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

with reasons for such feed rates and a

description of corrective actions taken.

(15) For affected facilities that apply

activated carbon for mercury or dioxin/

furan control, identification of the

calendar dates when the carbon

injection system operating parameter(s)

that are the primary indicator(s) of

carbon mass feed rate (e.g., screw feeder

speed) recorded under paragraph

(d)(4)(v) of this section are below the

level(s) estimated during the

performance tests as specified in

§ 60.58b(m)(1)(i) and § 60.58b(m)(1)(ii)

of this section, with reasons for such

occurrences and a description of

corrective actions taken.

(e) The owner or operator of an air

curtain incinerator subject to the opacity

limit under § 60.56b shall maintain

records of results of the initial opacity

performance test and subsequent

performance tests required by

§ 60.58b(l) for a period of at least 5

years.

(f) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall submit the information

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through

(f)(6) of this section in the initial

performance test report.

(1) The initial performance test data

as recorded under paragraphs

(d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D) of this

section for the initial performance test

for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

carbon monoxide, municipal waste

combustor unit load level, and

particulate matter control device inlet

temperature.

(2) The test report documenting the

initial performance test recorded under

paragraph (d)(9) of this section for

particulate matter, opacity, cadmium,

lead, mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen

chloride, and fugitive ash emissions.

(3) The performance evaluation of the

continuous emission monitoring system

using the applicable performance

specifications in appendix B of this part.

(4) The maximum demonstrated

municipal waste combustor unit load

and maximum demonstrated particulate

matter control device inlet

temperature(s) established during the

initial dioxin/furan performance test as

recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this

section.

(5) For affected facilities that apply

activated carbon injection for mercury

control, the owner or operator shall

submit the average carbon mass feed

rate recorded under paragraph (d)(4)(i)

of this section.

(6) For those affected facilities that

apply activated carbon injection for

dioxin/furan control, the owner or
65436 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

operator shall submit the average carbon

mass feed rate recorded under

paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section.

(g) Following the first year of

municipal combustor operation, the

owner or operator of an affected facility

located within a small or large

municipal waste combustor plant shall

submit an annual report including the

information specified in paragraphs

(g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section, as

applicable, no later than February 1 of

each year following the calendar year in

which the data were collected (once the

unit is subject to permitting

requirements under Title V of the Act,

the owner or operator of an affected

facility must submit these reports

semiannually).

(1) A summary of data collected for all

pollutants and parameters regulated

under this subpart, which includes the

information specified in paragraphs

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

(i) A list of the particulate matter,

opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury,

dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and

fugitive ash emission levels achieved

during the performance tests recorded

under paragraph (d)(9) of this section.

(ii) A list of the highest emission level

recorded for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal

waste combustor unit load level, and

particulate matter control device inlet

temperature based on the data recorded

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

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

(iii) List the highest opacity level

measured, based on the data recorded

under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of this

section.

(iv) The total number of days that the

minimum number of hours of data for

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon

monoxide, municipal waste combustor

unit load, and particulate matter control

device temperature data were not

obtained based on the data recorded

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

(v) The total number of hours that

data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

carbon monoxide, municipal waste

combustor unit load, and particulate

matter control device temperature were

excluded from the calculation of average

emission concentrations or parameters

based on the data recorded under

paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

(2) The summary of data reported

under paragraph (g)(1) of this section

shall also provide the types of data

specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through

(g)(1)(vi) of this section for the calendar

year preceding the year being reported,

in order to provide the Administrator

with a summary of the performance of

the affected facility over a 2-year period.

(3) The summary of data including the

information specified in paragraphs

(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section shall

highlight any emission or parameter

levels that did not achieve the emission

or parameter limits specified under this

subpart.

(4) A notification of intent to begin

the reduced dioxin/furan performance

testing schedule specified in

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

the following calendar year.

(h) The owner or operator of an

affected facility located within a small

or large municipal waste combustor

plant shall submit a semiannual report

that includes the information specified

in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of

this section for any recorded pollutant

or parameter that does not comply with

the pollutant or parameter limit

specified under this subpart, according

to the schedule specified under

paragraph (h)(6) of this section.

(1) The semiannual report shall

include information recorded under

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

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon

monoxide, municipal waste combustor

unit load level, particulate matter

control device inlet temperature, and

opacity.

(2) For each date recorded as required

by paragraph (d)(3) of this section and

reported as required by paragraph (h)(1)

of this section, the semiannual report

shall include the sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,

municipal waste combustor unit load

level, particulate matter control device

inlet temperature, or opacity data, as

applicable, recorded under paragraphs

(d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D) and

(d)(2)(i)(A) of this section, as applicable.

(3) If the test reports recorded under

paragraph (d)(9) of this section

document any particulate matter,

opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury,

dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and

fugitive ash emission levels that were

above the applicable pollutant limits,

the semiannual report shall include a

copy of the test report documenting the

emission levels and the corrective

actions taken.

(4) The semiannual report shall

include the information recorded under

paragraph (d)(15) of this section for the

carbon injection system operating

parameter(s) that are the primary

indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate.

(5) For each operating date reported as

required by paragraph (h)(4) of this

section, the semiannual report shall

include the carbon feed rate data

recorded under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of

this section.

(6) Semiannual reports required by

paragraph (h) of this section shall be

submitted according to the schedule

specified in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and

(h)(6)(ii) of this section.

(i) If the data reported in accordance

with paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of

this section were collected during the

first calendar half, then the report shall

be submitted by August 1 following the

first calendar half.

(ii) If the data reported in accordance

with paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of

this section were collected during the

second calendar half, then the report

shall be submitted by February 1

following the second calendar half.

(i) The owner or operator of an air

curtain incinerator subject to the opacity

limit under § 60.56b shall submit the

results of the initial opacity

performance test and all subsequent

annual performance tests recorded

under paragraph (e) of this section.

Annual performance tests shall be

submitted by February 1 of the year

following the year of the performance

test.

(j) All reports specified under

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), and

(i) of this section shall be submitted as

a paper copy, postmarked on or before

the submittal dates specified under

these paragraphs, and maintained onsite

as a paper copy for a period of 5 years.

(k) All records specified under

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section

shall be maintained onsite in either

paper copy or computer-readable

format, unless an alternative format is

approved by the Administrator.

(l) If an owner or operator would

prefer to select a different annual or

semiannual date for submitting the

periodic reports required by paragraphs

(g), (h) and (i) of this section, then the

dates may be changed by mutual

agreement between the owner or

operator and the Administrator

according to the procedures specified in

§ 60.19(c) of subpart A of this part.

[FR Doc. 95–30257 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P