# Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-21546 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** August 30, 1999 - **Citation:** 64 FR 47234 ## Text SUMMARY: This action proposes to reestablish emission guidelines for existing small municipal waste combustion (MWC) units. When implemented, these emission guidelines will result in stringent emission limits for organics (dioxins/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, and particulate matter), and acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides). Emission guidelines for small MWC units were originally promulgated in December 1995 but were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in March 1997. DATES: Comments: Comments on these proposed emission guidelines and comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) document associated with these emission guidelines must be received on or before October 29, 1999. Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held if requests to speak are received by September 14, 1999. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission guidelines. If requests to speak are received, the public hearing will take place in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, approximately 30 days after August 30, 1999 and will begin at 10:00 a.m. A message regarding the status of the public hearing may be accessed by calling (919) 541-5264. ADDRESSES: Comments: Submit comments on these proposed emission guidelines (in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), Attention Docket No. A-98-18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically. Send electronic submittals to: ``'A-and-R-D[email protected]'''. Submit electronic comments in American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments on these proposed emission guidelines may be filed online at any Federal Depository Library. For additional information on comments and public hearing see the Supplementary Information section. Docket: Docket No. A-98-18 for this proposal and associated Docket Nos. A-90-45 and A-89-08 contain supporting information for these emission guidelines. These dockets are available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548. The dockets are 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. Walt Stevenson at (919) 541-5264, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, e- mail: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment Information Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect Version 5.1 or 6.1 file format (or ASCII file format). Address all comments and data for this proposal, whether on paper or in electronic form, such as through e-mail or disk, to Docket No. A-98-18. Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it Confidential Business Information. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Room 944, Durham, NC 27701. Do not submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) electronically. The EPA will disclose information identified as Confidential Business Information only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter. Public Hearing If a public hearing is held, it will take place at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony at the public hearing should notify Ms. Libby Bradley, Combustion Group, Emission Standard Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5578, at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Bradley to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The final hearing status and location may be obtained by calling (919) 541-5264. World Wide Web Site Electronic versions of this notice, the proposed regulatory text, and other background information are available at the World Wide Web site that EPA has established for these proposed emission guidelines for small MWC units. The address is: ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/129/ mwc/rimwc2.html.'' For assistance in downloading files, call the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) HELP line at (919) 541-5384. Regulated Entities No entities would be directly regulated by this action because this proposal is an emission guideline, which requires additional State or Federal action for implementation. However, the promulgation of State or Federal plans implementing these emission guidelines would affect the following categories of sources: [[Page 47235]] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category NAICS codes SIC codes Examples of regulated entities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industry, Federal government, and State/local/ 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors or incinerators tribal governments. 92411 9511 at waste-to-energy facilities that generate electricity or steam from the combustion of garbage (typically municipal waste); and solid waste combustors or incinerators at facilities that combust garbage (typically municipal waste) and do not recover energy from the waste. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding the entities EPA expects to be regulated by applicable State or Federal plans implementing these emission guidelines for small MWC units. These emission guidelines would primarily impact facilities in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 562213 and 92411, formerly Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 4953 and 9511, respectively. Not all facilities classified under these codes would be affected. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by State or Federal plans implementing these emission guidelines, carefully examine the applicability criteria in section II.A of this preamble and in Secs. 60.1550 through 60.1565 of these proposed emission guidelines. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to your small MWC unit or any other question or comment, please submit comments to Docket No. A-98-18 or refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. Each section heading of the preamble is presented as a question and the text in the section answers the question. I. Background Information II. Summary of These Proposed Emission Guidelines A. What sources would be directly or indirectly regulated by these proposed emission guidelines? B. Has the small MWC unit population been subcategorized within this proposal? C. What pollutants would be regulated by these proposed emission guidelines? D. What is the format of the proposed emission limits in these emission guidelines? E. Where can I find a more detailed summary of these proposed emission guidelines? III. Changes in These Proposed Emission Guidelines Relative to the 1995 Emission Guidelines A. How has the conversion to plain language affected these emission guidelines? B. How has the size definition of the small MWC category been revised? C. How has the population of small MWC units been subcategorized? D. What are the proposed emission limits? E. Have carbon monoxide emission limits been revised for fluidized bed combustion units that cofire wood and refuse derived fuel? F. Have any changes been made to the operator certification requirements? G. Have any changes been made to the operating practice requirements? H. Have any changes been made to the monitoring and stack testing requirements? I. Have any changes been made to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements? IV. What Would be the Impacts of These Proposed Emission Guidelines? A. Air Impacts B. Cost and Economic Impacts V. Companion Proposal for New Small MWC Units VI. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B VII. Administrative Requirements A. Public Hearing B. Docket C. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review H. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership I. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations J. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks K. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments L. Executive Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document ASCII--American Standard Code for Information Interchange ASME--American Society of Mechanical Engineers CBI--Confidential Business Information CFR--Code of Federal Regulations DSI/ESP/CI--dry sorbent injection/electrostatic precipitator/carbon injection EPA--Environmental Protection Agency ESP--electrostatic precipitator FR--Federal Register ICR--Information Collection Request kg/year--kilograms per year MACT--maximum achievable control technology mg/dscm--milligrams per dry standard cubic meter Mg/year--megagrams per year MSW--municipal solid waste MWC--municipal waste combustion NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System ng/dscm--nanograms per dry standard cubic meter NSPS--new source performance standards NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS--Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB--Office of Management and Budget OP--Office of Policy Pub. L.--Public Law ppmv--parts per million by volume RDF--refuse-derived fuel RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SD/ESP/CI--spray dryer/electrostatic precipitator/carbon injection SD/FF/CI/SNCR--spray dryer/fabric filter/carbon injection/selective noncatalytic reduction SIC--Standard Industrial Classification TTN--Technology Transfer Network UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act U.S.C.--United States Code I. Background Information On September 20, 1994, EPA proposed emission guidelines for large and small MWC units under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. Those emission guidelines covered all MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant combustion capacity larger than 35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste (MSW), which is approximately 39 tons per day of MSW. The subpart Cb emission guidelines for large and small MWC units were promulgated on December 19, 1995. The 1995 emission guidelines divided the MWC unit population into MWC units located at large MWC plants and MWC units located at small MWC plants based on the total aggregate capacity of all MWC units at the MWC plant. The large plant category included all MWC units located at MWC plants with aggregate plant combustion capacities greater than 225 megagrams per day (approximately 248 tons per [[Page 47236]] day). The small plant category comprised all MWC units located at MWC plants with aggregate plant combustion capacities of 35 to 225 megagrams per day (approximately 39 to 248 tons per day). Following promulgation of the 1995 emission guidelines, a petition for review was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the use of aggregate plant capacity as the basis for initial categorization of the MWC unit population. An initial opinion was issued by the court on December 6, 1996 (Davis County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F. 3d 1395, D.C. Cir. 1996). The initial opinion would have vacated (canceled) the 1995 emission guidelines for both large and small MWC units. The EPA filed a petition for rehearing on February 4, 1997 requesting the court to reconsider the remedy portion of its opinion and to vacate these emission guidelines only as they apply to small MWC units (units having an individual capacity of 35 to 250 tons per day). The court granted EPA's petition, reconsidered its opinion, and issued a revised opinion on March 21, 1997 (Davis County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 108 F. 3d 1454, D.C. Cir. 1997). The revised opinion remanded to EPA the 1995 emission guidelines for the large MWC unit category for amendment to be consistent with the court's final opinion and vacated these emission guidelines only as they applied to small MWC units. Amendments to the 1995 emission guidelines incorporating the court's final opinion were published on August 25, 1997 (62 FR 45116). The amendments made the subpart Cb emission guidelines consistent with the court's decision and included other minor technical corrections to improve clarity. The principal change was to remove small MWC units from the applicability of subpart Cb. This was accomplished by increasing the lower size cutoff for large MWC units from 35 megagrams per day on a plant capacity basis to 250 tons per day on a unit capacity basis. No adverse comments were received on the proposal and they became effective on October 24, 1997. With the increase in the lower size cutoff for large MWC units from 248 tons per day on a plant capacity basis to 250 tons per day on a unit capacity basis, 45 MWC units that were previously in the large MWC plant category were moved into the newly classified small MWC unit category. These units are commonly referred to as ``Davis class'' MWC units (referencing the name of the court's opinion that clarifies that EPA must move these units from the large MWC unit category to the small MWC unit category). Today's proposal would reestablish emission guidelines for existing small municipal waste combustion capacities of 35 to 250 tons per day of MSW. II. Summary of These Proposed Emission Guidelines This section summarizes these proposed emission guidelines for small MWC units, including identification of the subcategories used in this proposal for small MWC units. Overall, these proposed emission guidelines for small MWC units are functionally equivalent to the 1995 emission guidelines for small MWC units. A. What Sources Would be Directly or Indirectly Regulated by These Proposed Emission Guidelines? Today's proposed emission guidelines would not directly regulate small MWC units, but they would require States to develop plans to limit air emissions from existing small MWC units. In this proposal and in associated State plans, a small MWC unit would be defined as any MWC unit with a combustion design capacity of 35 to 250 tons per day. B. Has the Small MWC Unit Population Been Subcategorized Within this Proposal? Yes, within these proposed emission guidelines, the small MWC unit population is subcategorized based on: (1) Aggregate capacity of the plant where the individual MWC unit is located, and (2) combustor type. The resulting subcategories are as follows: (1) Class A units are defined as nonrefractory-type small MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant capacity greater than 250 tons per day of MSW, (2) Class B units are refractory-type small MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant capacity greater than 250 tons per day of MSW, and (3) Class C units are all small MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant capacity less than or equal to 250 tons per day of MSW. C. What Pollutants Would be Regulated by These Proposed Emission Guidelines? Section 129 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish numerical emission limits for dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Section 129 specifies that EPA may also: * * * promulgate numerical emission limitations or provide for the monitoring of post-combustion concentrations of surrogate substances, parameters, or periods of residence times in excess of stated temperatures with respect to pollutants other than those listed [above] * * *. Therefore, in addition to emission limits, EPA is proposing guidelines for unit operating load, flue gas temperature at the particulate matter control device inlet, and carbon feed rate as part of the good combustion practice requirements. The EPA is also proposing requirements for the control of fugitive ash emissions. All of these requirements were contained in the 1995 emission guidelines. D. What is the Format of the Proposed Emission Limits in These Emission Guidelines? The format of the proposed emission limits is identical to the format of the emission limits in the 1995 emission guidelines. The format is in the form of emission limits based on pollutant concentration. Alternative percentage reduction requirements are provided for mercury, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen chloride. Opacity and fugitive ash requirements are identical to the 1995 emission guidelines. In addition to controlling stack emissions, these proposed emission guidelines incorporate the same good combustion practice requirements (i.e., operator training, operator certification, and operating requirements) that were included in the 1995 emission guidelines. Additionally, this proposal includes a clarification to the operator certification requirements to address periods when the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor must be offsite. Section III.F provides more detail on the differences in operator certification requirements between these proposed subpart BBBB guidelines and the 1995 subpart Cb guidelines. Today's proposal also includes a revision to the activated carbon feed rate requirement. (Section III.G provides additional information on proposed changes to the carbon feed rate requirements.) E. Where Can I Find a More Detailed Summary of These Proposed Emission Guidelines? A concise summary of these proposed emission guidelines can be found either in: (1) Tables 2 through 5 of the proposed subpart BBBB emission guidelines following this preamble; or (2) the Technical Fact Sheet for this proposal that can be downloaded from the EPA World Wide Web site for small MWC units [[Page 47237]] (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/129/mwc/rimwc2.html). III. Changes in These Proposed Emission Guidelines Relative to the 1995 Emission Guidelines This section summarizes changes in the proposed emission guidelines compared to the 1995 emission guidelines. Overall, these emission guidelines are functionally equivalent to the 1995 emission guidelines, with minimal changes. The most significant change is the use of the plain language style for organizing and writing these emission guidelines. These proposed emission guidelines retain subcategorization by aggregate plant capacity and only a few emission limits have been revised. Compared to the 1995 emission guidelines for large and small MWC units, these proposed emission guidelines have identical requirements for all small MWC units except for Class B units. The requirements for the Class A and Class C units remain the same as the 1995 requirements, except that the nitrogen oxides emission limit for Class A units has been changed to reflect revised MACT floors. A. How Has the Conversion to Plain Language Affected These Emission Guidelines? These proposed emission guidelines are organized and written in the plain language style. This style has not affected the content of these proposed emission guidelines when compared to the 1995 emission guidelines. However, it has changed their appearance. The EPA considers the question and answer format of the plain language style to be more user friendly and understandable to all audiences when compared with previous rules that were not written in this style. The question and answer format that is used in the regulatory text for this proposal significantly minimizes cross-referencing within these emission guidelines. Additionally, these proposed emission guidelines have been drafted as a stand-alone subpart without the cross-referencing to the NSPS required by the 1995 emission guidelines. To improve the presentation of these emission guidelines requirements, additional tables have been added. B. How Has the Size Definition of the Small MWC Category Been Revised? As a result of the 1997 court decision, both the upper and lower size definitions (cutoffs) have been changed so that the small MWC unit category is based on the capacity of an individual MWC unit rather than on the total capacity of the plant where an MWC unit is located. Additionally, English units of measure (tons per day capacity) are used instead of metric units of measure (megagrams per day capacity). 1. Upper Size Cutoff The upper size cutoff for small MWC units is proposed as 250 tons per day on a unit capacity basis. In the 1995 emission guidelines, the upper size cutoff was 225 megagrams per day (approximately 248 tons per day) based on total plant capacity. This revised upper size cutoff is consistent with the 1997 court ruling. 2. Lower Size Cutoff The lower size cutoff for small MWC units is proposed as 35 tons per day on a unit capacity basis. In the 1995 emission guidelines, the lower size cutoff for small MWC units was 35 megagrams per day (approximately 39 tons per day) based on total plant capacity. In this proposal, the lower size cutoff has been changed to a unit capacity basis to make both the upper size cutoff and lower size cutoff based on a unit capacity basis (Docket No. A-98-18). C. How has the Population of Small MWC Units Been Subcategorized? These proposed emission guidelines retain the use of aggregate plant capacity to subcategorize small MWC units. After first dividing the MWC unit population into units above 250 tons per day (large units) and units less than 250 tons per day (small units), the court's decision allowed EPA to: * * * exercise its discretion to distinguish among units within a category and create subcategories of small units, for which it can then calculate MACT floors and standards separately. Thus, the court allowed EPA to subcategorize by unit location (aggregate plant capacity) at its discretion. The EPA has elected to retain the subcategorization used in the 1995 emission guidelines. Therefore, today's proposal establishes separate subcategories for small MWC units at: (1) Facilities with aggregate plant capacities greater than 250 tons per day (Davis class units), and (2) facilities with aggregate plant capacities less than or equal to 250 tons per day (non-Davis class units). The EPA has noted that design and operational characteristics of refractory-type units are noticeably different than those of nonrefractory-type units. Further analysis of MWC unit operation showed that refractory-type MWC units generate approximately 50 percent more flue gas (exhaust) per ton of waste burned than nonrefractory-type MWC units. Higher levels of excess combustion air are used with refractory units by design to avoid overheating the refractory walls (Docket No. A-98-18). Because of this technical difference, EPA has elected to subdivide the Davis class units into a Davis refractory-type class and a Davis nonrefractory-type class. In summary, today's proposal divides the small MWC unit population into three classes. Class A comprises small nonrefractory-type MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant capacity greater than 250 tons per day of MSW. Class B comprises small refractory-type MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant capacity greater than 250 tons per day of MSW. Class C comprises all small MWC units located at plants with an aggregate plant capacity less than or equal to 250 tons per day of MSW. D. What are the Proposed Emission Limits? 1. Summary of the Proposed Emission Limits for Small MWC Units To propose emission limits for small MWC units, EPA had to recalculate the MACT floors to account for changes in the small MWC unit definition (from a plant basis to a unit basis and from metric units of measure to English units) and the establishment of the three MWC unit subcategories. After establishing the MACT floor for each pollutant in each small MWC unit subcategory, EPA considered the cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements associated with any alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor in selecting MACT for each pollutant. For each of the three MWC unit subcategories (Classes A, B, and C), EPA is proposing emission limits for organics (dioxins/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, and opacity), and acid gases (sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride). In addition, a nitrogen oxides emission limit is proposed for Class A units. The emission limits proposed for Class A and Class C units are identical to those promulgated in the 1995 emission guidelines for large and small MWC plants, respectively, except that the nitrogen oxides emission limit for Class A units has changed to reflect the revised MACT floor. The emission limits proposed today for the Class B units are less stringent than those contained in the 1995 emission guidelines for large MWC plants. [[Page 47238]] 2. Summary of the MACT Floor for Small MWC Units To calculate the MACT floors, the small MWC unit population had to first be subdivided. This was done by modifying the MWC unit population in the 1995 MWC inventory database to: (1) Incorporate the 45 Davis class MWC units into the small MWC unit category, and (2) assign those 45 units to the Class A or Class B subcategories. The remaining small MWC units originally in the 1995 MWC inventory database are Class C units. After establishing the small MWC unit population in each of the three classes, the MACT floors were calculated using a similar method and the same emissions data that were used to calculate the MACT floors for the 1995 emission guidelines. In summary, the MACT floor for each pollutant in each of the three classes was determined by: (1) Identifying the most stringent emission limitations achieved by the small MWC units, and (2) calculating the average emission limitation of the best performing 12 percent of units in each class. In identifying the most stringent emission limitations achieved by small MWC units, EPA relied on permit limits. Where EPA did not have permit information for a sufficient number of units to account for 12 percent of the units in a particular class, EPA used an uncontrolled default emission value based on AP-42 emission factors and test data to account for the additional number of units necessary to represent 12 percent of the units in the class. The default values were also used for a small MWC unit if: (1) The unit was not in compliance with its permit; or (2) the unit had a permit limit value higher than typical uncontrolled emissions from small MWC units. The EPA believes the uncontrolled default emission values used are a reasonable surrogate for actual data for the following reasons. First, EPA made an exhaustive effort to obtain permit information for each small MWC unit. Some small MWC units did not have permits, while others had permits which did not contain emission limitations for one or more of the pollutants specified in section 129. The EPA believes that it is reasonable to assume that uncontrolled emission values reasonably reflect actual emissions for such units. Second, EPA believes that the uncontrolled emission default values used reasonably reflect uncontrolled emissions for small MWC units. The MACT floor development for this proposal is discussed in more detail in ``Determination of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units'' (Docket No. A-98-18), the September 1995 EPA report ``Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information Document for Promulgated Standards and Guidelines--Public Comments and Responses'' (EPA-453/R-95-013b), and the 1994 proposal preamble (59 FR 48228). 3. Emission Limits for Class A Units Class A units in this proposal are nonrefractory Davis class units that were in the large MWC plant population in the 1995 emission guidelines. Table 1 presents the MACT floor emission levels for Class A units. Table 1.--MACT Floor Emission Levels for Class A MWC Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pollutant a MACT floor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) b................................ 1000 Cadmium (mg/dscm)......................................... 0.45 Lead (mg/dscm)............................................ 1.0 Mercury (mg/dscm)......................................... 0.37 Particulate matter (mg/dscm).............................. 34 Sulfur dioxide (ppmv)..................................... 50 Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).................................. 50 Nitrogen oxides (ppmv).................................... 171 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a All concentrations are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. b Total mass of tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. The EPA has concluded that a SD/FF/CI/SNCR air pollution control system is needed to achieve the MACT floor emission levels for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter presented in table 1. This is the same air pollution control technology that served as the basis of these emission guidelines promulgated in 1995 for large MWC plants. This air pollution control technology would also provide substantial reductions of dioxins/furans, cadmium, and lead. Therefore, EPA is proposing the same emission limits for Class A units for all pollutants, except nitrogen oxides, as those promulgated for large MWC plants in the 1995 emission guidelines. The EPA is proposing a single emission limit for nitrogen oxides of 171 ppmv. Unlike the emission limits promulgated in 1995 that had separate nitrogen oxides limits for each different combustion unit design type (e.g., mass burn waterwall, fluidized bed combustor, mass burn rotary waterwall), EPA is proposing one nitrogen oxides emission limit for all combustion unit design types within Class A. This proposed nitrogen oxides emission limit is the MACT floor emission level. The EPA has concluded that this limit could be achieved with the same control technology (SNCR) that served as the basis of the nitrogen oxides emission limits for large MWC plants in 1995 (Docket No. A-90- 45). This single nitrogen oxides emission limit also simplifies these emission guidelines. Table 2 presents the proposed emission limits for Class A units. Table 2.--Emission Limits for Class A MWC Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pollutant a Emission limit ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) b................ 30/60 c Cadmium (mg/dscm)......................... 0.04 Lead (mg/dscm)............................ 0.49 Mercury (mg/dscm)......................... 0.08 (or 85-percent reduction) Particulate matter (mg/dscm).............. 27 Sulfur dioxide (ppmv)..................... 31 (or 75-percent reduction) Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).................. 31 (or 95-percent reduction) Nitrogen oxides (ppmv).................... 171 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a All concentrations are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. b Total mass of tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. c The emission limit is 60 ng/dscm for MWC units using an electrostatic precipitator-based air pollution control system and is 30 ng/dscm for MWC units using a non-electrostatic precipitator-based air pollution control system. The 1994 proposal preamble (59 FR 48228) provides thorough documentation of: (1) the capability of an SD/FF/CI/SNCR air pollution control system to meet the emission limits being proposed, and (2) the rationale for selection of these limits for Class A units. 4. Emission Limits for Class B Units Class B units in this proposal are the refractory-type MWC units in the Davis class that were in the large MWC plant population for the 1995 emission guidelines. Table 3 presents the MACT floor emission levels for Class B units. Table 3.--MACT Floor Emission Levels for Class B MWC units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MACT Pollutant a floor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) b.................................... 123 Cadmium (mg/dscm)............................................. 1.2 Lead (mg/dscm)................................................ 1.8 Mercury (mg/dscm)............................................. 0.29 Particulate matter (mg/dscm).................................. 34 Sulfur dioxide (ppmv)......................................... 55 Hydrogen chloride (ppmv)...................................... 200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a All concentrations are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. [[Page 47239]] b Total mass of tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. The EPA has concluded that a DSI/ESP/CI air pollution control system is needed to achieve the MACT floor emission levels for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, and particulate matter presented in table 3. Unlike the MACT floors for large MWC plants for the 1995 emission guidelines, which requires an air pollution control technology equivalent to a SD/ESP/CI or SD/FF/CI, it is not necessary to use this technology to meet these MACT floors for Class B units. The EPA considered the feasibility of going beyond the MACT floor level of technology and proposing the same emission limits for Class B units as those for Class A units (i.e., emission limits based on SD/ ESP/CI or SD/FF/CI technology). However, the refractory-type combustor design of Class B units is distinctly different from the nonrefractory- type design of Class A units. The design and operational characteristics of refractory and nonrefractory-type units were evaluated (Docket No. A-98-18). This evaluation demonstrated that refractory-type MWC units (Class B) generate approximately 50 percent more flue gas (exhaust volume) per ton of waste burned than nonrefractory-type MWC units (Class A). Higher levels of excess air are used in refractory-type units by design to avoid overheating the refractory walls. Large flue gas exhaust volume from refractory-type units result in more flue gas to be cleaned. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is reasonable to propose emission limits for Class B units based on SD/FF/CI or SD/ESP/CI technology. For this reason, EPA proposes to set the emission limits for Class B units based on the MACT floor level control technology (DSI/ESP/CI). For dioxins/furans, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen chloride, the proposed emission limits are the MACT floor emission levels. For cadmium, lead, and mercury, EPA is proposing emission limits that are more stringent than the MACT floor level but have been demonstrated to be achievable by DSI/ESP/CI technology. The emission limits for these three pollutants are the same as the limits in the 1995 emission guidelines for small MWC plants where DSI/ESP/CI technology was the basis of the MACT limits. The proposed emission limits for Class B units are summarized in table 4. Table 4.--Emission Limits for Class B MWC Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pollutant a Emission limit ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) b................ 123 Cadmium (mg/dscm)......................... 0.1 Lead (mg/dscm)............................ 1.6 Mercury (mg/dscm)......................... 0.08 (or 85-percent reduction) Particulate matter (mg/dscm).............. 34 Sulfur dioxide (ppmv)..................... 55 (or 50-percent reduction) Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).................. 200 (or 50-percent reduction) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a All concentrations are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. b Total mass of tetra through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Thorough documentation of the capability of a DSI/ESP/CI system to meet these proposed emission limits is available in the 1994 proposal (59 FR 48228) and the document ``Municipal Waste Combustors--Background Information for Proposed Standards: Post-Combustion Technology Performance'' (Docket No. A-89-08). As in the 1995 emission guidelines for large refractory-type MWC units, no nitrogen oxides emission limit is proposed for Class B units (see the 1994 proposal preamble, 59 FR 48228). 5. Emission Limits for Class C Units Class C units in this proposal are those units that were in the small MWC plant population in the 1995 emission guidelines. Table 5 presents the MACT floor emission levels for Class C units. Table 5.--Mact Floor Emission Levels for Class C MWC Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pollutant a MACT floor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) b................................ 837 Cadmium (mg/dscm)......................................... 1.2 Lead (mg/dscm)............................................ 23 Mercury (mg/dscm)......................................... 0.65 Particulate matter (mg/dscm).............................. 91 Sulfur dioxide (ppmv)..................................... 85 Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).................................. 291 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a All concentrations are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. b Total mass of tetra through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. The EPA has concluded that a DSI/ESP air pollution control system is needed to achieve the MACT floor emission levels for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and particulate matter presented in table 5. This is the same air pollution control technology (DSI/ESP) used as the basis of the emission limits promulgated in 1995 for small MWC plants. This air pollution control technology would also provide substantial reductions in cadmium and lead. The MACT floor for mercury is at a level typical for units that are uncontrolled. As discussed in the 1994 proposal preamble (59 FR 48249), for units that would need a DSI/ESP system to meet MACT floor requirements, activated carbon injection could be added to a DSI/ESP system at a minimal incremental cost. The addition of a CI air pollution control system would provide substantial reductions in dioxins/furans and mercury. The EPA considers that the cost to install CI is reasonable given the potential health effects associated with the bioaccumulation of mercury in the environment and the toxic nature of dioxins/furans. Therefore, EPA is proposing the same emission limits for Class C units as those promulgated for small MWC plants in the 1995 emission guidelines as MACT. These emission limits reflect MACT performance and are based on the performance of a DSI/ESP/CI air pollution control technology. Table 6 presents the proposed emission limits for Class C units. Table 6.--Emission Limits for Class C MWC Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pollutant a Emission limit ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) b................ 125 Cadmium (mg/dscm)......................... 0.1 Lead (mg/dscm)............................ 1.6 Mercury (mg/dscm)......................... 0.08 (or 85-percent reduction) Particulate matter (mg/dscm).............. 70 Sulfur dioxide (ppmv)..................... 80 (or 50-percent reduction) Hydrogen chloride (ppmv).................. 250 (or 50-percent reduction) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a All concentrations are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. b Total mass of tetra through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. These proposed emission limits are identical to those promulgated in the 1995 emission guidelines for small MWC units. Because of this, the 1994 proposal preamble (59 FR 48228) provides thorough documentation of: (1) The capability of a DSI/ESP/CI system to meet the emission limits being proposed, and (2) the rationale for selection of these limits for Class C units. As in the 1995 emission guidelines for small MWC units, no nitrogen oxides emission limit is proposed for Class C units. [[Page 47240]] E. Have Carbon Monoxide Emission Limits Been Revised for Fluidized Bed Combustion Units That Cofire Wood and Refuse-derived Fuel? The EPA has concluded that another MWC unit category should be established for carbon monoxide emission limits. Fluidized bed combustion units that burn a mixture of wood and RDF have exhibited higher variations in carbon monoxide than expected. The EPA conducted an analysis of carbon monoxide data from a fluidized bed combustion unit that burns a mixture of wood and RDF and has incorporated good combustion practice modifications (Docket No. A- 98-18). The EPA has determined that an additional carbon monoxide emission limit would be appropriate for cofired fluidized bed combustion units. Based on this analysis, EPA observed that a long-term average carbon monoxide emission level of less than 100 ppmv can be achieved and a carbon monoxide emission limit for this combustion unit type of 200 ppmv (24-hour average) would be appropriate. The carbon monoxide data used to establish this new carbon monoxide emission limit were compared with dioxin/furan emission tests conducted on this same MWC unit following the good combustion practice modifications. This comparison showed that fluidized bed combustion units burning wood and RDF and applying good combustion practices emit carbon monoxide up to 200 ppmv, and substantial dioxin/furan emission reductions are achieved by good combustion practices at these carbon monoxide levels. F. Have Any Changes Been Made to the Operator Certification Requirements? One change is proposed for the operator certification section of the good combustion practice requirements since the 1995 guidelines. In response to questions since the 1995 emission guidelines were promulgated, EPA has clarified what actions an MWC unit owner must take to continue operating an MWC unit during times when the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor must be temporarily offsite for an extended period of time and there are no other certified chief facility operators or certified shift supervisors onsite. The EPA has addressed this issue by adding specific requirements for MWC units when the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor must be offsite. Different requirements apply depending on the length of time the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor must be offsite. These changes have been added to Sec. 60.1685 of these proposed emission guidelines. G. Have Any Changes Been Made to the Operating Practice Requirements? One change is proposed for the operating practice requirements since the 1995 guidelines. The EPA has clarified how the required level of carbon feed rate is established and how the required monitoring parameter and quarterly carbon usage are used to determine compliance with the operating practice requirements. As discussed below, this results in two enforceable requirements for carbon feed rate. As in the 1995 emission guidelines, the MWC plant owner must select an operating parameter (e.g., screw feeder speed) that can be used to calculate carbon feed rate. During each dioxin/furan and mercury stack test, the total amount of carbon used during each stack test must be measured. The total amount of carbon used during the test is divided by the duration (hours) of the stack test to give an average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour. The MWC plant owner must also monitor the selected operating parameter during each dioxin/furan and mercury stack test and record the average operating parameter level. After the dioxin/furan and mercury stack tests are complete, the MWC owner must establish a relationship between the selected operating parameter and the measured carbon feed rate so that the selected parameter can be used to calculate the carbon feed rate. The selected operating parameter must then be continuously monitored during MWC unit operation and used to calculate the carbon feed rate. The calculated carbon feed rate cannot fall below the carbon feed rate measured during the dioxin/furan or mercury stack test (depending on which test establishes the higher carbon feed rate). The 1995 emission guidelines did not clearly specify an averaging time for calculating the carbon feed rate. Because the baseline carbon feed rate is established as the average feed rate during the annual dioxin/furan or mercury stack test, EPA is clarifying that the averaging time used for monitoring this feed rate (using parametric data) should be of similar duration. Therefore, EPA is proposing an 8- hour block averaging period for monitoring carbon feed rates. This would allow facilities to compensate for interruptions in carbon feed rates (due to calibration, malfunction, or repair) by offsetting the interruption with an increase in carbon feed rates within the 8-hour averaging period. The quarterly carbon usage requirements in the 1995 emission guidelines have also been revised and clarified. The EPA is proposing that MWC plant owners calculate required plantwide carbon usage on a quarterly basis and compare this required level of carbon usage to the actual amount of carbon purchased and delivered to the MWC plant. After an average carbon feed rate is established for an MWC unit based on the most recent dioxin/furan or mercury stack test, the required quarterly carbon usage level for the MWC unit is calculated by multiplying the kilogram (or pound) per hour rate by the number of operating hours for each quarter. Next, the required quarterly carbon usage for the plant is calculated by summing the carbon usage value for each small MWC unit located at the plant. The MWC plant owner must then compare the required quarterly carbon usage level, based on the carbon usage during the stack test and the hours of operation, with the amount of carbon purchased and delivered to the MWC plant. The MWC plant owner must demonstrate that they are using the required amount of carbon during each quarter. This comparison is done on a plant basis rather than a unit basis because MWC units typically use a common carbon storage system; therefore, purchase, delivery, and usage are best tracked on a plant basis. If a plant does not meet the quarterly carbon usage requirement, all units at the plant would be considered out of compliance. An MWC plant owner can choose to track quarterly carbon usage on an MWC unit basis if that is practical at the plant. The required quarterly carbon usage for each individual unit would then be compared to the carbon purchased and delivered to that unit. In this case, if an MWC unit does not meet the quarterly carbon usage requirement, only the one MWC unit, instead of the entire MWC plant, would be considered out of compliance. H. Have any Changes Been Made to the Monitoring and Stack Testing Requirements? No changes are proposed to the monitoring and stack testing requirements contained in the 1995 guidelines. However, to clarify differences between stack testing and continuous emission monitoring system requirements, these two topics have been divided into separate sections within these proposed guidelines. The nitrogen oxides trading and averaging provisions that were included [[Page 47241]] in the 1995 emission guidelines are not included in this proposal. No large MWC units have used the trading and averaging provisions provided in the subpart Cb emission guidelines for large MWC units. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate that any small MWC units will use the nitrogen oxides trading and averaging provisions. Furthermore, the majority of small MWC units affected by this proposed subpart would not have nitrogen oxides emission limits and therefore, would not need trading and averaging provisions. I. Have any Changes Been Made to the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements? No changes are proposed to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements since the 1995 emission guidelines. However, consistent with the proposed changes in subpart B contained in this proposal, a reduction in the number of increments of progress reporting requirements for Class C small MWC units would occur. This change affects the number of increments of progress required for State plans under subpart B of this part. Subpart B generally requires specific milestone dates and notification for five increments of progress when compliance will take longer than 12 months. For Class C units, EPA is proposing a requirement of only two increments of progress: submittal of a control plan and final compliance. For Class C units, the other three increments of progress are not appropriate or necessary to ensure progress toward compliance. Reducing the number of increments required for Class C units reduces the reporting and recordkeeping burden on smaller facilities. Section VI of this preamble, ``Amendments to Subpart B,'' addresses the subpart B revision. Furthermore, EPA is proposing one minor change to clarify recordkeeping and reporting of: (1) 8-hour average calculated carbon feed rate, and (2) quarterly amounts of carbon purchased and delivered. These changes make the recordkeeping and reporting sections consistent with the operating practice requirements described above in section III.G. IV. What Would Be the Impacts of These Proposed Emission Guidelines? This section describes the impacts (i.e., air, water, solid waste, energy, cost, and economic impacts) of these proposed emission guidelines for small MWC units. The impact analysis conducted to evaluate the 1995 emission guidelines is available at 59 FR 48228. The discussion in this section focuses only on the air, cost, and economic impacts of these proposed emission guidelines. In the preamble for the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA determined that the water, solid waste, and energy impacts associated with these proposed emission guidelines were not significant. Today's proposal affects only a subset of the MWC units that were addressed in the earlier impact analysis. Again, EPA has concluded that the water, solid waste, and energy impacts associated with today's proposal would not be significant. For further information on the impacts of these proposed emission guidelines, refer to the document entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis: Small Municipal Waste Combustor--Section 111/129 Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards'' (Docket No. A-98-18). A. Air Impacts The national air emission reductions that would result from full implementation of these emission guidelines compared to current estimated national emission levels have been calculated. Table 7 summarizes these air emission reductions and the percentage change in emissions relative to current baseline levels associated with the full implementation of these proposed emission guidelines for small MWC units. Table 7. National air Emission Impacts of These Emission Guidelines for Small MWC Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent change from 1998 Pollutant Air emission reduction baseline emission level a ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dioxins/furans b................... 2.7 kg/year........... 97 Cadmium............................ 309 kg/year........... 84 Lead............................... 12.7 Mg/year.......... 91 Mercury............................ 4.1 Mg/year........... 95 Particulate matter................. 351 Mg/year........... 73 Sulfur dioxide..................... 1,196 Mg/year......... 49 Hydrogen chloride.................. 2,390 Mg/year......... 85 Nitrogen oxides.................... 384 Mg/year........... 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a Percent national emission reduction relative to national baseline emissions that would occur in the absence of these emission guidelines. b Total mass of tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. B. Cost and Economic Impacts The EPA estimates that 90 small MWC units located at 41 plants would be affected by these proposed emission guidelines. The total MSW combustion capacity of these 90 units is 8,551 tons per day. Of these 90 units, 69 percent are owned by city or county governments, 29 percent are owned by private businesses, and 2 percent are owned by nonprofit organizations. To estimate the cost impacts of the proposed guidelines, EPA has taken into account all of the existing control equipment currently in operation at small MWC units. The cost estimates presented here, which are in 1997 dollars, are incremental costs over the control equipment already in use. The method used to estimate the cost and economic impacts of today's proposal is similar to the method used in the 1995 emission guidelines. For more details on the cost and economic analysis, refer to the impact analysis in the document entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis: Small Municipal Waste Combustor--Section 111/129 Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards'' (Docket No. A-98-18). The total annual cost (including annualized capital and operating costs) of these proposed emission guidelines would be approximately $50 million, which is equivalent to $18.75 per ton of MSW combusted. The total nationwide cost is approximately one-tenth of the nationwide cost that was estimated for both large and small MWC units for the 1995 emission guidelines. This is because most of the impacts of the 1995 emission guidelines were associated with large MWC units and because there has been a decrease in the small MWC population. V. Companion Proposal for New Small MWC Units A companion proposal to these proposed emission guidelines is being published in today's Federal Register to establish NSPS for new small MWC units. Following promulgation, the NSPS for new small MWC units will be contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA. VI. Amendments to Subpart B Also included in today's Federal Register is a proposal to amend subpart B of this part, ``Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities.'' Subpart B establishes procedures that are used in developing State plans and Federal plans to implement section 111(d) emission guidelines for existing facilities. Subpart B would be used to develop State plans implementing the subpart BBBB emission guidelines proposed today for small MWC units. The EPA is proposing two amendments to subpart B. [[Page 47242]] The first amendment addresses compliance schedules for designated facilities. The amendment affects the increments of progress requirements specified in Sec. 60.24(e)(1) of subpart B of 40 CFR part 60. The EPA is adding the following language to the increments of progress requirements: ``unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart.'' The purpose of this amendment is to allow EPA subpart- specific discretion in the number of increments of progress that a designated facility must meet. The intent of the increments of progress is to ensure designated facilities make continued progress toward meeting the compliance schedules established in these emission guidelines for the source category. Emission guidelines that have been implemented through subpart B include those for sulfuric acid plants, large MWC units, medical waste incinerators, and municipal solid waste landfills. Currently, subpart B requires designated facilities to meet five increments of progress during their air pollution control device retrofit. The following five increments, with dates, must be addressed for the following activities: (1) submitting control plans, (2) awarding contracts, (3) initiating onsite construction, (4) completing onsite construction, and (5) final compliance. For some categories of designated facilities, such as large MWC units, the five increments are appropriate. Large MWC units must develop site-specific control plans. Retrofit of controls is normally associated with large onsite field-erected construction projects. Although the current subpart B increments are appropriate for large MWC units, they are inappropriate for smaller MWC units. Most small Class C MWC units will achieve compliance by installing preconstructed modular control systems. When a control system for a small MWC unit is ordered from a vendor and then delivered, installation is relatively quick without extensive onsite construction. This is different from a complex retrofit where detailed site-specific planning, multiple contracts, and months of onsite construction are required to complete the retrofit. Therefore, EPA believes that establishing and reporting five increments of progress is overly burdensome for small Class C MWC units and is not necessary to ensure compliance. Other source categories covered by future emission guidelines may experience similar situations where some of the five increments of progress are also not appropriate. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow subpart-specific flexibility in establishing increments of progress for a particular subpart. The proposed second amendment to subpart B addresses the public hearing requirements specified in Sec. 60.27(f) of subpart B of 40 CFR part 60. The EPA is proposing additional text to clarify that EPA will hold a public hearing for Federal plan development just as a State holds a public hearing for State plan development. The purpose of this revision is to clarify how the public hearing requirements apply if EPA is developing a Federal plan for designated facilities in States that did not develop approvable State plans. If State regulatory authorities are developing a plan that affects designated facilities in their States, Sec. 60.23(c)(1) of subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 requires at least one public hearing per State (a State has the discretion to hold more than one hearing). The proposed revisions would clarify that EPA must conduct at least one public hearing for the Federal plan (EPA will also have the discretion to hold more than one public hearing). VII. Administrative Requirements A. Public Hearing In accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act, EPA will hold a public hearing if individuals request to speak. If a public hearing is held, EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may submit written comments (see the DATES and ADDRESSES sections). The EPA will consider written comments and supporting information with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information presented at a public hearing. B. Docket The docket is an organized and complete file of the administrative record compiled by EPA in the development of this proposal. Material is added to the docket throughout the rule development process. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) to allow members of the public 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. The docket numbers for these emission guidelines are Docket No. A-98-18 and associated Docket Nos. A-90-45 and A-89-08, which have been incorporated by reference into Docket No. A-98-18. C. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards for use in process and emissions monitoring. The search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 20 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the candidate consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. Eight of the remaining candidate consensus standards are new standards under development that EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a later date. One consensus standard, ASTM D6216-98, appears to be practical for EPA use in lieu of EPA Performance Specification 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). On September 23, 1998, EPA proposed incorporating by reference ASTM D6216-98 under a separate rulemaking (63 FR 50824) that would allow broader use and application of this consensus standard. The EPA plans to complete this action in the near future. For these reasons, EPA does not propose in these emission guidelines to adopt D6216-98 in lieu of PS-1 requirements as it would be impractical for EPA to act independently from separate rulemaking activities already undergoing notice and comment. The EPA solicits comment on proposed emission monitoring [[Page 47243]] requirements proposed in these emission guidelines and specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commenters should also explain why this regulation should incorporate these voluntary consensus standards, in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used). The EPA also conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards for process monitoring and process operation. Candidate voluntary consensus standards for process monitoring and process operation were identified for: (1) MWC unit load level (steam output), (2) designing, constructing, installing, calibrating, and using nozzles and orifices, and (3) MWC plant operator certification requirements. One consensus standard by the ASME was identified for use in these proposed emission guidelines for measurement of MWC unit load level (steam output). The EPA believes this standard is practical to use in these proposed emission guidelines as the method to measure MWC unit load. The EPA takes comment on the incorporation by reference of ``ASME Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units, Power Test Code 4.1--1964 (R1991)'' in the proposed guidelines. A second consensus standard by ASME was identified for use in these proposed emission guidelines for designing, constructing, installing, calibrating, and using nozzles and orifices. The EPA believes this standard is practical to use in these proposed emission guidelines for the design, construction, installation, calibration, and use of nozzles and orifices. The EPA takes comment on the incorporation by reference of ``American Society of Mechanical Engineers Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus: Application, Part II of Fluid Meters'', 6th edition (1971). A third consensus standard by ASME (QRO-1-1994) was identified for use in these proposed emission guidelines for MWC plant operator certification requirements instead of developing new operator certification procedures. The EPA believes this standard is practical to use in these proposed emission guidelines that require a chief facility operator and shift supervisor to successfully complete the operator certification procedures developed by ASME. Tables 6, 7, and 8 of these proposed emission guidelines list the EPA testing methods and performance standards included in the proposed regulations. Most of these standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 60.8 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, the proposal also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use an alternative methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in Tables 6, 7, and 8. D. Paperwork Reduction Act The EPA submitted the information collection requirements (ICR) in these proposed emission guidelines to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA prepared an ICR document (ICR No. 1900.01.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the OP, Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at ``[email protected]'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/icr''. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA (ICR Tracking No. 1900.01).'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 30, 1999, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 29, 1999. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. The information would be used by the Agency to ensure that the small MWC unit requirements are implemented properly and are complied with on a continuous basis. Records and reports are necessary to enable EPA to identify small MWC units that may not be in compliance with these emission guidelines. Based on reported information, EPA would decide which small MWC units should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected. The records that owners and operators of small MWC units maintain would indicate to EPA whether personnel are operating and maintaining control equipment properly. These proposed emission guidelines are projected to affect approximately 90 small MWC units located at 41 plants. The estimated average annual burden for industry for the first 3 years after promulgation of these emission guidelines would be 1,297 person-hours annually. There will be no capital costs for monitoring or recordkeeping during the first 3 years. The estimated average annual burden, over the first 3 years, for the implementing agency would be 773 hours with a cost of $30,869 (including travel expenses) per year. Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 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. In 1996, the SBREFA amended the RFA to strengthen the RFA's analytical and procedural requirements and to establish a new mechanism for expedited congressional review. The major purpose of these Acts 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 [[Page 47244]] 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. Under these Acts, EPA must generally prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures unless the EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small government jurisdictions. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA certifies that today's proposed emission guidelines will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis that shows eight existing small MWC units (operated by one small business and seven small governments) that would be subject to these emission guidelines are considered ``small entities'' according to the Small Business Administration's definitions for the affected industries. Also in the initial analysis, EPA calculated compliance costs as a percentage of sales for business and a percentage of income (total household income) for the relevant population of owning governments for the MWC units that are considered small entities. The estimated annual compliance cost as a percentage of income is 0.03 percent for the seven small potentially affected government entities and 39 percent for the one small business. For the seven potentially affected government entities, the maximum compliance cost was 0.25 percent. None of the governmental impacts are considered significant. The impact on the one small business is considered significant but one small business is not a substantial number of entities. Based on the results of the initial analysis, EPA concluded that these emission guidelines do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, it is not necessary to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the 1995 UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least- costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 allow EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that these proposed emission guidelines do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The economic impact analysis (Docket No. A-98-18) shows that the total annual costs of these proposed emission guidelines is about $50 million per year (in 1997 dollars), starting on the fifth year after the rule is promulgated. Thus, today's proposed emission guidelines are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Although these emission guidelines are not subject to UMRA, EPA did prepare a cost- benefit analysis under section 202 of the UMRA for the 1995 emission guidelines. For a discussion of how EPA complied with the UMRA for the 1995 emission guidelines, including its extensive consultations with State and local governments, see the preamble to the 1995 emission guidelines (60 FR 65405-65412, December 19, 1995). Because today's proposed emission guidelines are functionally equivalent to the 1995 emission guidelines, no additional consultations were necessary. G. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review 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 this Executive Order. The Executive 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. The EPA considers these emission guidelines proposed today to be ``not significant'' because these guidelines will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and do not impose any additional control requirements above the 1995 emission guidelines. The EPA considered the 1995 emission guidelines to be ``significant'' because the 1995 guidelines were expected to have an annual effect on the economy in excess of $100 million. The EPA submitted the 1995 emission guidelines to OMB for review (60 FR 65405, December 19, 1995). However, these emission guidelines proposed today are projected to have an impact of approximately $50 million annually (Docket No. A-98-18). Therefore, these proposed emission guidelines are considered to be ``not significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and will not be submitted to OMB for review. H. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local, or tribal government unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to [[Page 47245]] OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' The EPA has concluded that these emission guidelines may create a mandate on a number of city and county governments, and the Federal government would not provide the funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by these city and county governments in complying with the mandate. However, today's proposed emission guidelines do not impose any additional costs or result in any additional control requirements above those considered during promulgation of the 1995 emission guidelines. In developing the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA consulted extensively with State and local governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of those emission guidelines. Because these proposed emission guidelines are the same as those developed in 1995, these previous consultations still apply. For a discussion of EPA's consultations with State and local governments, the nature of the governments' concerns, and EPA's position supporting the need to issue these emission guidelines, see the preamble to the 1995 emission guidelines (60 FR 65405-65413, December 19, 1995). I. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to ``determine whether their programs, policies, and activities have disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations'' (sections 3-301 and 3-302). In developing these emission guidelines for small MWC units, EPA analyzed environmental justice issues that could be relevant to this proposal. An impact analysis was conducted to determine the distribution of minority and low-income groups in the surrounding area where MWC units are located in the United States. The EPA reviewed the demographic characteristics presented in this impact analysis (Docket No. A-90-45) and other analyses. The EPA concluded that there is no significant difference in ethnic makeup or income level in counties where MWC units are located when compared to the average ethnic and income levels of the respective States in which the units are located. In addition, this proposal would reduce air emissions from small MWC units, thereby improving air quality, health, and the environment in areas where MWC units are located. Therefore, EPA has concluded that this proposal would not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effect on minority populations or low-income populations. J. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. These emission guidelines are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because they are based on technology performance and not on health and safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Therefore, the results of any such analysis would have no impact on the stringency decision. K. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's emission guidelines do not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. The EPA is not aware of any small MWC units located in Indian territory. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to these emission guidelines. L. Executive Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing On June 1, 1998, President Clinton issued an Executive Memorandum entitled ``Plain Language in Government Writing,'' which instructs Federal agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rulemakings by January 1, 1999. Therefore, these proposed emission guidelines are organized and written in a plain language format and style. The plain language format and style do not alter the content or intent of this proposal compared to the 1995 emission guidelines. The EPA considers this plain language format and style to be more user friendly and understandable to all audiences when compared with previous proposals that were not written in plain language. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Municipal waste combustion. Dated: August 6, 1999. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of [[Page 47246]] 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, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7429, 7601, and 7602. 2. Section 60.24 of subpart B of part 60 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows: Subpart B--Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities Sec. 60.24 Emission standards and compliance schedules. * * * * * (e)(1) Any compliance schedule extending more than 12 months from the date required for submittal of the plan must include legally enforceable increments of progress to achieve compliance for each designated facility or category of facilities. Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart, increments of progress must include, where practicable, each increment of progress specified in Sec. 60.21(h) and must include such additional increments of progress as may be necessary to permit close and effective supervision of progress toward final compliance. * * * * * 3. Section 60.27 of subpart B of part 60 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: Sec. 60.27 Actions by the Administrator. * * * * * (f) Prior to promulgation of a plan under paragraph (d) of this section, the Administrator will provide the opportunity for at least one public hearing in either: (1) Each State that failed to hold a public hearing as required by Sec. 60.23(c); or (2) Washington, DC or an alternate location specified in the Federal Register. * * * * * 4. Part 60 is amended by adding a new subpart BBBB to read as follows: Subpart BBBB--Emission Guidelines: Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Sec. Introduction 60.1500 What is the purpose of this subpart? 60.1505 Am I affected by this subpart? 60.1510 Is a State plan required for all States? 60.1515 What must I include in my State plan? 60.1520 Is there an approval process for my State plan? 60.1525 What if my State plan is not approvable? 60.1530 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration letter? 60.1535 What compliance schedule must I include in my State plan? 60.1540 Are there any State plan requirements for this subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B? 60.1545 Does this subpart directly affect municipal waste combustion unit owners and operators in my State? Applicability of State Plans 60.1550 What municipal waste combustion units must I address in my State plan? 60.1555 Are any small municipal waste combustion units exempt from my State plan? 60.1560 Can an affected municipal waste combustion unit reduce its capacity to less than 35 tons per day rather than comply with my State plan? 60.1565 What subcategories of small municipal waste combustion units must I include in my State plan? Use of Model Rule 60.1570 What is the purpose of the ``Model Rule'' in this subpart? 60.1575 How does the model rule relate to the required elements of my State plan? 60.1580 What are the principal components of the model rule? Model Rule--Increments of Progress 60.1585 What are my requirements for meeting increments of progress and achieving final compliance? 60.1590 When must I complete each increment of progress? 60.1595 What must I include in the notifications of achievement of my increments of progress? 60.1600 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of increments of progress? 60.1605 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 60.1610 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal of a control plan? 60.1615 How do I comply with the increment of progress for awarding contracts? 60.1620 How do I comply with the increment of progress for initiating onsite construction? 60.1625 How do I comply with the increment of progress for completing onsite construction? 60.1630 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving final compliance? 60.1635 What must I do if I close my municipal waste combustion unit and then restart my municipal waste combustion unit? 60.1640 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my municipal waste combustion unit and not restart it? Model Rule--Good Combustion Practices: Operator Training 60.1645 What types of training must I do? 60.1650 Who must complete the operator training course? By when? 60.1655 Who must complete the plant-specific training course? 60.1660 What plant-specific training must I provide? 60.1665 What information must I include in the plant-specific operating manual? 60.1670 Where must I keep the plant-specific operating manual? Model Rule--Good Combustion Practices: Operator Certification 60.1675 What types of operator certification must the chief facility operator and shift supervisor obtain and by when must they obtain it? 60.1680 After the required date for operator certification, who may operate the municipal waste combustion unit? 60.1685 What if all the certified operators must be temporarily offsite? Model Rule--Good Combustion Practices: Operating Requirements 60.1690 What are the operating practice requirements for my municipal waste combustion unit? 60.1695 What happens to the operating requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? Model Rule--Emission Limits 60.1700 What pollutants are regulated by this subpart? 60.1705 What emission limits must I meet? By when? 60.1710 What happens to the emission limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? Model Rule--Continuous Emission Monitoring 60.1715 What types of continuous emission monitoring must I perform? 60.1720 What continuous emission monitoring systems must I install for gaseous pollutants? 60.1725 How are the data from the continuous emission monitoring systems used? 60.1730 How do I make sure my continuous emission monitoring systems are operating correctly? 60.1735 Am I exempt from any appendix B or appendix F requirements to evaluate continuous emission monitoring systems? 60.1740 What is my schedule for evaluating continuous emission monitoring systems? 60.1745 What must I do if I choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas? 60.1750 What is the minimum amount of monitoring data I must collect with my continuous emission monitoring systems and is this requirement enforceable? 60.1755 How do I convert my 1-hour arithmetic averages into appropriate averaging times and units? [[Page 47247]] 60.1760 What is required for my continuous opacity monitoring system and how are the data used? 60.1765 What additional requirements must I meet for the operation of my continuous emission monitoring systems and continuous opacity monitoring system? 60.1770 What must I do if my continuous emission monitoring system is temporarily unavailable to meet the data collection requirements? Model Rule--Stack Testing 60.1775 What types of stack tests must I conduct? 60.1780 How are the stack test data used? 60.1785 What schedule must I follow for the stack testing? 60.1790 What test methods must I use to stack test? 60.1795 May I conduct stack testing less often? 60.1800 May I deviate from the 12-month testing schedule if unforeseen circumstances arise? Model Rule--Other Monitoring Requirements 60.1805 Must I meet other requirements for continuous monitoring? 60.1810 How do I monitor the load of my municipal waste combustion unit? 60.1815 How do I monitor the temperature of flue gases at the inlet of my particulate matter control device? 60.1820 How do I monitor the injection rate of activated carbon? 60.1825 What is the minimum amount of monitoring data I must collect with my continuous parameter monitoring systems and is this requirement enforceable? Model Rule--Recordkeeping 60.1830 What records must I keep? 60.1835 Where must I keep my records and for how long? 60.1840 What records must I keep for operator training and certification? 60.1845 What records must I keep for stack tests? 60.1850 What records must I keep for continuously monitored pollutants or parameters? 60.1855 What records must I keep for municipal waste combustion units that use activated carbon? Model Rule--Reporting 60.1860 What reports must I submit and in what form? 60.1865 What are the appropriate units of measurement for reporting my data? 60.1870 When must I submit the initial report? 60.1875 What must I include in my initial report? 60.1880 When must I submit the annual report? 60.1885 What must I include in my annual report? 60.1890 What must I do if I am out of compliance with these standards? 60.1895 If a semiannual report is required, when must I submit it? 60.1900 What must I include in the semiannual out-of-compliance reports? 60.1905 Can reporting dates be changed? Model Rule--Air Curtain Incinerators That Burn 100 Percent Yard Waste 60.1910 What is an air curtain incinerator? 60.1915 What is yard waste? 60.1920 What are the emission limits for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent yard waste? 60.1925 How must I monitor opacity for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent yard waste? 60.1930 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent yard waste? Equations 60.1935 What equations must I use? Definitions 60.1940 What definitions must I know? Tables Table 1 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Compliance Schedules and Increments of Progress Table 2 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Class A Emission Limits For Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Units Table 3 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Class B Emission Limits For Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Units Table 4 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Class C Emission Limits For Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Units Table 5 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Carbon Monoxide Emission Limits For Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Units Table 6 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Requirements for Validating Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Table 7 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Requirements for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Table 8 of Subpart BBBB--Model Rule--Requirements for Stack Tests Introduction Sec. 60.1500 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from existing small municipal waste combustion units. The pollutants addressed by these emission guidelines are listed in tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this subpart. These emission guidelines are developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. Sec. 60.1505 Am I affected by this subpart? (a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a State or United States protectorate with one or more existing small municipal waste combustion units that commenced construction before August 30, 1999, you must submit a State plan to EPA that implements these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. (b) You must submit the State plan to EPA within 1 year after the promulgation of this subpart. Sec. 60.1510 Is a State plan required for all States? No. You are not required to submit a State plan if there are no existing small municipal waste combustion units in your State and you submit a negative declaration letter in place of the State plan. Sec. 60.1515 What must I include in my State plan? (a) Include nine items: (1) Inventory of affected municipal waste combustion units, including those that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. (2) Inventory of emissions from affected municipal waste combustion units in your State. (3) Compliance schedules for each affected municipal waste combustion unit. (4) Good combustion practices and emission limits for affected municipal waste combustion units that are at least as protective as these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. (5) Stack testing, continuous emission monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (6) Transcript of the public hearing on the State plan. (7) Provision for State progress reports to EPA. (8) Identification of enforceable State mechanisms that you selected for implementing these emission guidelines of this subpart. (9) Demonstration of your State's legal authority to carry out the section 111(d) and section 129 State plan. (b) Your State plan can deviate from the format and content of these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. However, if your State plan does deviate, you must demonstrate that your State plan is as protective as these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Your State plan must address regulatory applicability, increments of progress for retrofit, operator training and certification, operating practice, emission limits, continuous emission monitoring, stack testing, recordkeeping, reporting, and air curtain incinerator requirements. (c) Follow the requirements of subpart B of this part in your State plan. Sec. 60.1520 Is there an approval process for my State plan? The EPA will review your State plan according to Sec. 60.27 of subpart B of this part. [[Page 47248]] Sec. 60.1525 What if my State plan is not approvable? If you do not submit an approvable State plan (or a negative declaration letter), EPA will develop a Federal plan, according to Sec. 60.27 of subpart B of this part, to implement these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of municipal waste combustion units not covered by an approved and currently effective State plan must comply with the Federal plan. The Federal plan is an interim action and, by its own terms, will cease to apply when your State plan is approved and becomes effective. Sec. 60.1530 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration letter? No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register. If, at a later date, an existing small municipal waste combustion unit is identified in your State, the Federal plan implementing these emission guidelines contained in this subpart will automatically apply to that municipal waste combustion unit until your State plan is approved. Sec. 60.1535 What compliance schedule must I include in my State plan? (a) Your State plan must include compliance schedules that require small municipal waste combustion units to achieve final compliance as expeditiously as practicable but not later than the earlier of two dates: (1) Five years after [the date of publication of the final rule]. (2) Three years after the effective date of State plan approval. (b) For compliance schedules longer than 1 year after the effective date of State plan approval, State plans must include two items: (1) Dates for enforceable increments of progress as specified in Sec. 60.1590. (2) For Class A and Class B units (see definition in Sec. 60.1940), dioxin/furan stack test results for at least one test conducted during or after 1990. The stack tests must have been conducted according to the procedures specified under Sec. 60.1790. (c) Class A and Class B units that commenced construction after June 26, 1987 must comply with the dioxin/furan and mercury limits specified in tables 2 and 3 of this subpart by the later of two dates: (1) One year after the effective date of State plan approval. (2) One year following the issuance of a revised construction or operation permit, if a permit modification is required. Sec. 60.1540 Are there any State plan requirements for this subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B? Subpart B establishes general requirements for developing and processing section 111(d) plans. This subpart applies, instead of the requirements in subpart B of this part, for two items: (a) Option for case-by-case less stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules. State plans developed to implement this subpart must be as protective as these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. State plans must require all municipal waste combustion units to comply within 5 years after [publication date of final rule]. This requirement applies, instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec. 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part. (b) Increments of progress requirements. For Class C units (see definition in Sec. 60.1940), a State plan must include at least two increments of progress for the affected municipal waste combustion units. These two minimum increments are the final control plan submittal date and final compliance date in Sec. 60.21(h)(1) and (5) of subpart B of this part. This requirement applies, instead of the requirement of Sec. 60.24(e)(1) of subpart B of this part that would require a State plan to include all five increments of progress for all municipal waste combustion units. For Class A and Class B units under this subpart, the final control plan must contain the five increments of progress in Sec. 60.24(e)(1) of subpart B of this part. Sec. 60.1545 Does this subpart directly affect municipal waste combustion unit owners and operators in my State? (a) No. This subpart does not directly affect municipal waste combustion unit owners and operators in your State. However, municipal waste combustion unit owners and operators must comply with the State plan you developed to implement these emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Some States may incorporate these emission guidelines contained in this subpart into their State plans by direct incorporation by reference. Others may include the model rule text directly in their State plan. (b) All municipal waste combustion units must be in compliance with the requirements established in this subpart by 5 years after [the date of publication of the final rule], whether the municipal waste combustion unit is regulated under a State or Federal plan. Applicability of State Plans Sec. 60.1550 What municipal waste combustion units must I address in my State plan? (a) Your State plan must address all existing small municipal waste combustion units in your State that meet two criteria: (1) The municipal waste combustion unit has the capacity to combust at least 35 tons per day of municipal solid waste but no more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel. (2) The municipal waste combustion unit commenced construction before August 30, 1999. (b) If an owner or operator of a municipal waste combustion unit makes changes that meet the definition of modification or reconstruction after the date 6 months after [the date of publication of the final rule] for subpart AAAA of this part, the municipal waste combustion unit becomes subject to subpart AAAA of this part and the State plan no longer applies to that unit. (c) If an owner or operator of a municipal waste combustion unit makes physical or operational changes to an existing municipal waste combustion unit primarily to comply with your State plan, subpart AAAA of this part (New Source Performance Standards for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units) does not apply to that unit. Such changes do not constitute modifications or reconstructions under subpart AAAA of this part. Sec. 60.1555 Are any small municipal waste combustion units exempt from my State plan? (a) Small municipal waste combustion units that combust less than 11 tons per day. These units are exempt from your State plan if four requirements are met: (1) The municipal waste combustion unit is subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting municipal solid waste combustion to less than 11 tons per day. (2) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (3) You receive from the owner or operator of the unit a copy of the federally enforceable permit. (4) The owner or operator of the unit keeps daily records of the amount of municipal solid waste combusted. (b) Small power production units. These units are exempt from your State plan if four requirements are met: (1) The unit qualifies as a small power production facility under section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)). [[Page 47249]] (2) The unit combusts homogeneous waste (excluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity. (3) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (4) You receive documentation from the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (c) Cogeneration units. These units are exempt from your State plan if four requirements are met: (1) The unit qualifies as a cogeneration facility under section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)). (2) The unit combusts homogeneous waste (excluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. (3) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (4) You receive documentation from the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (d) Municipal waste combustion units that combust only tires. These units are exempt from your State plan if three requirements are met: (1) The municipal waste combustion unit combusts a single-item waste stream of tires and no other municipal waste (the unit can cofire coal, fuel oil, natural gas, or other nonmunicipal solid waste). (2) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (3) You receive documentation from the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (e) Hazardous waste combustion units. These units are exempt from your State plan if the unit has received a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (f) Materials recovery units. These units are exempt from your State plan if the unit combusts waste mainly to recover metals. Primary and secondary smelters may qualify for this exemption. (g) Cofired units. These units are exempt from your State plan if four requirements are met: (1) The unit has a federally enforceable permit limiting municipal solid waste combustion to 30 percent of the total fuel input by weight. (2) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. (3) You receive from the owner or operator of the unit a copy of the federally enforceable permit. (4) The owner or operator records the weights, each quarter, of municipal solid waste and of all other fuels combusted. (h) Plastics/rubber recycling units. These units are exempt from your State plan if four requirements are met: (1) The pyrolysis/combustion unit is an integrated part of a plastics/rubber recycling unit as defined under ``Definitions'' (Sec. 60.1940). (2) The owner or operator of the unit records the weight, each quarter, of plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed. (3) The owner or operator of the unit records the weight, each quarter, of feed stocks produced and marketed from chemical plants and petroleum refineries. (4) The owner or operator of the unit keeps the name and address of the purchaser of the feed stocks. (i) Units that combust fuels made from products of plastics/rubber recycling plants. These units are exempt from your State plan if two requirements are met: (1) The unit combusts 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 feed stocks produced by plastics/rubber recycling units. (2) The unit does not combust any other municipal solid waste. (j) Cement kilns. Cement kilns that combust municipal solid waste are exempt from your State plan. (k) Air curtain incinerators. If an air curtain incinerator (see Sec. 60.1940 for definition) combusts 100 percent yard waste, then these units must meet only the requirements under ``Model Rule--Air Curtain Incinerators That Burn 100 Percent Yard Waste'' (Secs. 60.1910 through 60.1930). Sec. 60.1560 Can an affected municipal waste combustion unit reduce its capacity to less than 35 tons per day rather than comply with my State plan? (a) Yes, an owner or operator of an affected municipal waste combustion unit may choose to reduce, by your final compliance date, the maximum combustion capacity of the unit to less than 35 tons per day of municipal solid waste rather than comply with your State plan. They must submit a final control plan and the notifications of achievement of increments of progress as specified in Sec. 60.1610. (b) The final control plan must, at a minimum, include two items: (1) A description of the physical changes that will be made to accomplish the reduction. (2) Calculations of the current maximum combustion capacity and the planned maximum combustion capacity after the reduction. Use the equations specified under Sec. 60.1935(d) and (e) to calculate the combustion capacity of a municipal waste combustion unit. (c) A permit restriction or a change in the method of operation does not qualify as a reduction in capacity. Use the equations specified under Sec. 60.1935(d) and (e) to calculate the combustion capacity of a municipal waste combustion unit. Sec. 60.1565 What subcategories of small municipal waste combustion units must I include in my State plan? This subpart specifies different requirements for different subcategories of municipal waste combustion units. You must use these same three subcategories in your State plan. These three subcategories are based on aggregate capacity of the municipal waste combustion plant and the type of municipal waste combustor unit as follows: (a) Class A units. These are nonrefractory-type small municipal waste combustion units that are located at municipal waste combustion plants with aggregate plant combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. (See the definition of municipal waste combustion plant capacity in Sec. 60.1940 for specification of which units at a plant are included in the aggregate capacity calculation.) (b) Class B units. These are refractory-type small municipal waste combustion units that are located at municipal waste combustion plants with aggregate plant combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. (See the definition of municipal waste combustion plant capacity in Sec. 60.1940 for specification of which units at a plant are included in the aggregate capacity calculation.) (c) Class C units. These are all small municipal combustion units that are located at municipal waste combustion plants with aggregate plant combustion capacity no more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. (See the definition of municipal waste combustion plant capacity in Sec. 60.1940 for specification of which units at a plant are included in the aggregate capacity calculation.) Use of Model Rule Sec. 60.1570 What is the purpose of the ``Model Rule'' in this subpart? (a) The model rule provides these emission guidelines requirements in a standard regulation format. You must develop a State plan that is as protective as the model rule. You may use the [[Page 47250]] model rule language as part of your State plan. Alternative language may be used in your State plan if you demonstrate that the alternative language is as protective as the model rule contained in this subpart. (b) In the model rule of Secs. 60.1585 through 60.1905, ``you'' means the owner or operator of a small municipal waste combustion unit. Sec. 60.1575 How does the model rule relate to the required elements of my State plan? The model rule may be used to satisfy the State plan requirements specified in Sec. 60.1515(a)(4) and (5). Alternatives may be used, but only if you can demonstrate that they are as protective as the model rule. Sec. 60.1580 What are the principal components of the model rule? The model rule contains five major components: (a) Increments of progress toward compliance. (b) Good combustion practices. (1) Operator training. (2) Operator certification. (3) Operating requirements. (c) Emission limits. (d) Monitoring and stack testing. (e) Recordkeeping and reporting. Model Rule--Increments of Progress Sec. 60.1585 What are my requirements for meeting increments of progress and achieving final compliance? (a) Class A and Class B units. If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective date of State plan approval and a permit modification is not required, or more than 1 year following the date of issuance of a revised construction or operation permit if a permit modification is required, you must meet five increments of progress: (1) Submit a final control plan. (2) Submit a notification of retrofit contract award. (3) Initiate onsite construction. (4) Complete onsite construction. (5) Achieve final compliance. (b) Class C units. If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective date of State plan approval and a permit modification is not required, or more than 1 year following the date of issuance of a revised construction or operation permit if a permit modification is required, you must meet two increments of progress: (1) Submit a final control plan. (2) Achieve final compliance. Sec. 60.1590 When must I complete each increment of progress? Table 1 of this subpart specifies compliance dates for each of the increments of progress for Class A, B, and C units. (See Sec. 60.1940 for definitions of classes.) Sec. 60.1595 What must I include in the notifications of achievement of my increments of progress? Your notification of achievement of increments of progress must include three items: (a) Notification that the increment of progress has been achieved. (b) Any items required to be submitted with the increment of progress (Secs. 60.1610 through 60.1630). (c) The notification must be signed by the owner or operator of the municipal waste combustion unit. Sec. 60.1600 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of increments of progress? Notifications of the achievement of increments of progress must be postmarked no later than 10 days after the compliance date for the increment. Sec. 60.1605 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days after the specified date in table 1 of this subpart for achieving that increment of progress. This notification must inform the Administrator that you did not meet the increment. You must include in the notification an explanation of why the increment of progress was not met and your plan for meeting the increment as expeditiously as possible. You must continue to submit reports each subsequent month until the increment of progress is met. Sec. 60.1610 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal of a control plan? For your control plan increment of progress, you must complete two items: (a) Submit the final control plan, including a description of the devices for air pollution control and process changes that you will use to comply with the emission limits and other requirements of this subpart. (b) You must maintain an onsite copy of the final control plan. Sec. 60.1615 How do I comply with the increment of progress for awarding contracts? You must submit a signed copy of the contracts awarded to initiate onsite construction, initiate onsite installation of emission control equipment, and incorporate process changes. Submit the copy of the contracts with the notification that this increment of progress has been achieved. Sec. 60.1620 How do I comply with the increment of progress for initiating onsite construction? You must initiate onsite construction and installation of emission control equipment and initiate the process changes outlined in the final control plan. Sec. 60.1625 How do I comply with the increment of progress for completing onsite construction? You must complete onsite construction and installation of emission control equipment and complete process changes outlined in the final control plan. Sec. 60.1630 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving final compliance? For the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete two items: (a) Complete all process changes and complete retrofit construction as specified in the final control plan. (b) Connect the air pollution control equipment with the municipal waste combustion unit identified in the final control plan and complete process changes to the municipal waste combustion unit so that if the affected municipal waste combustion unit is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution control equipment are operating as designed. Sec. 60.1635 What must I do if I close my municipal waste combustion unit and then restart my municipal waste combustion unit? (a) If you close your municipal waste combustion unit but will reopen it prior to the final compliance date in your State plan, you must meet the increments of progress specified in Sec. 60.1585. (b) If you close your municipal waste combustion unit but will restart it after your final compliance date, you must complete emission control retrofit and meet the emission limits and good combustion practices on the date your municipal waste combustion unit restarts operation. Sec. 60.1640 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my municipal waste combustion unit and not restart it? (a) If you plan to close your municipal waste combustion unit rather than comply with the State plan, you must submit a closure notification, including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the date your final control plan is due. (b) If the closure date is later than 1 year after the effective date of State plan approval, you must enter into a legally binding closure agreement with the [[Page 47251]] Administrator by the date your final control plan is due. The agreement must specify the date by which operation will cease. Model Rule--Good Combustion Practices: Operator Training Sec. 60.1645 What types of training must I do? There are two types of required training: (a) Training of operators of municipal waste combustion units using the EPA or a State-approved training course. (b) Training of plant personnel using a plant-specific training course. Sec. 60.1650 Who must complete the operator training course? By when? (a) Three types of employees must complete the EPA or State- approved operator training course: (1) Chief facility operators. (2) Shift supervisors. (3) Control room operators. (b [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-21546. Public record. Not legal advice.