United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 ]
EPA-456R-96-003
July 1996
Air
EPA
Municipal Waste Combustion:
Summary of the Requirements for
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans for
Implementing the Municipal Waste
Combustor Emission Guidelines
-------
Municipal Waste Combustion:
Summary of the Requirements for
Section 111(d)7129 State Plans for Implementing
the Municipal Waste Combustor Emission Guidelines
Approved by:
Robert G. Kellam
Director, Information Transfer
and Program Integration Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
7//6/5C,
(Date)
27711
Bruce C. Jordan
Director, Emission Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(Date)
S. Seitz
ictor, Qf.fA.de. of Air Quality
Planning anjz Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711
-------
Municipal Waste Combustion:
Summary of the Requirements for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
for Implementing the Municipal Waste Combustor
Emission Guidelines
(EPA-456R-96-003)
Available at:
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
Room M-1500 Waterside Mall, Ground Floor
Phone: 202-260-7548
Docket Number: A-90-45
Item number: VH-B-OOl
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office Libraries (Regions I-X)
(see Appendix E for Addresses)
(3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Electronic Bulletin Board
The file(s) can be accessed through the EPA Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). The files are located at:
CAAA-Clean Air Act (Rules/Policy/Guidance)
Recently Issued Policy/Guidance Memos
MWC5.ZIP
The TIN can be accessed through a modem or the Internet using the
following connectivity options:
(1) World Wide Web: "http//ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov"
(2) Direct Modem Dial: 919-541-5742
(3) TELNET: Httnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov"
(4) FTP address: "ttnftp.rtpnc.epa.gov"
[Note: The TTN help number is 919-541-5384]
pj/83-09 IV
-------
Municipal Waste Combustion:
Summary of the Requirements for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
for Implementing the Municipal Waste Combustor
Emission Guidelines
(EPA-456R-96-003)
\Q
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard. 12Ul FtoOf
Chicago, It 60604-3590 ^
July 1996
-------
Executive Summary
Air pollution emissions from the combustion of municipal solid waste are
regulated by various federal regulations promulgated to implement the Clean Air Act of
1990. This document addresses the municipal waste combustor (MWC) regulations that
have been developed under Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act addresses Standards of Performance for Stationary Sources.
Section 129 addresses Solid Waste Combustion.
Federal rules promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that affect
the combustion of municipal solid waste include: (1) Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for MWC Units That Are Constructed on or Before September 20,
1994 [Title 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb]; (2) rules governing the Adoption and
Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities [40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B]; and
(3) New Source Performance Standards for MWC Units for Which Construction is
Commenced After September 20, 1994 [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Eb].
The Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines apply to existing MWC units located at
MWC plants with an aggregate plant combustion capacity of greater than 35 Mg of waste
per day that were constructed before September 20, 1994.1 The states that have MWC
plants must implement the Emission Guidelines. The states must develop a State Plan
and submit it for approval to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Together,
Subpart B and Subpart Cb specify the State Plan content and the general rules for
adopting and submitting State Plans.
This document draws together the relevant information from the various Federal
regulations that affect municipal waste combustion to give the state regulatory agencies
the information they need to develop State Plans.
1The Emission Guidelines are in metric units. The 35 Mg per day cutoff is
equivalent to about 39 tons per day.
pj/8349 vii
-------
State Plan Content
On December 19, 1995 the EPA adopted (1) Emission Guidelines for existing
MWC units and (2) New Source Performance Standards for new MWC units. The Clean
Air Act requires that state regulatory agencies implement the Emission Guidelines
according to a State Plan developed under Sections lll(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act,
and that they submit the State Plan to EPA within one year of EPA's adoption of the
Emission Guidelines.
State Plans must contain specific information and legal mechanisms necessary to
implement the Emission Guidelines. The minimum requirements are listed below.
• A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan,
• Identification of enforceable state mechanisms selected by the state to
implement the Emission Guidelines,
• An inventory of MWC plants/units in the state affected by the Emission
Guidelines, including units that have ceased operation,
• An inventory of emissions from MWC units in the state,
• Emission limitations for MWC units that are at least as protective as those
in the Emission Guidelines,
• Compliance schedules for each MWC unit,
• Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,
• A record of public hearing(s) on the State Plan, and
• Provision for state progress reports to EPA.
The state must make available to the public the State Plan containing these
elements and provide opportunity for discussion of the State Plan in a public hearing
prior to submittal to EPA. The state must submit the final plan to EPA by
December 19, 1996. EPA then has 180 days (six months) to approve or disapprove the
State Plan. Plan approval or disapproval will be published in the Federal Register. If a
pj/83-09 viii
-------
plan is disapproved, EPA will state the reasons for disapproval in the Federal Register.
The state can respond to EPA's concerns and submit a revised plan. If a state does not
submit an approvable State Plan by December 19, 1997, EPA will adopt and implement
a Federal Plan.
This document outlines the requirements for developing and submitting a State
Plan and provides information on the required contents of the State Plan. The following
table summarizes the MWC inventory contained hi Appendix F and estimates the
required retrofit levels on a state-by-state basis. The appendices to this document
contain reference and explanatory materials for the state regulatory agencies preparing
the State Plans, including (1) frequently asked questions and answers; (2) copies of
MWC regulations; (3) guidance memos; (4) fact sheets; (5) clarifications of the
requirements of the Emission Guidelines; (6) EPA contacts for further information;
(7) inventories of MWC plants and MWC units; (8) emission factors for calculating
MWC air pollutant emissions; (9) dioxin emission data; and (10) explanations of the
relationship between the requirements of the Emission Guidelines for MWC units and
the requirements of other regulatory programs.
pj/83-09 IX
-------
Municipal Waste Combustors in Each State
EPA
Region
I
n
m
IV
State
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Virginia
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
South Carolina
Tennessee
Total Number of
MWC Plants3
10
11
5
4
4
1
26
7
1
11
3
1
4
11
0
15
1
6
2
3
1
2
4
Inactive
Plants"
3
1
1
1
0
1
9
0
0
4
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
Number of Plants
Requiring Significant
Retrofits0
1
5
0
2
2
0
9
1
0
4
2
0
3
2
0
8
0
4
0
2
1
0
2
-------
EPA
Region
V
VI
vn
vm
IX
State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Total Number of
MWC Plants3
12
8
5
2
8
6
5
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
2
0
Inactive
Plants"
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Number of Plants
Requiring Significant
Retrofits0
10
4
1
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
pj/KM»
XI
-------
EPA
Region
X
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
Total Number of
MWC Plants3
2
1
2
5
205
Inactive
Plantsb
0
0
0
0
40
Number of Plants
Requiring Significant
Retrofits0
1
1
1
2
81
a Plant list is from EPA 1995 Inventory (Appendix F) and number presented includes all
MWC plants that are operating, inactive, under retrofit, and under construction and
includes both large and small MWC plants.
b Numbers presented are MWC plants that are inactive. Inactive MWC units must be
addressed in State Plans to either (1) maintain MWC unit closure or (2) require MWC
unit emission control retrofit before MWC unit restarts operation.
0 The number of plants requiring retrofit is an estimate. Includes operating MWC plants
(large and small) without scrubbing systems (spray dryer systems for large and dry
sorbent injection or spray dryer systems for small).
pj/83-09
Xll
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Organization of this Document 1-1
1.2 Clean Air Act Requirements 1-2
13 Emission Guidelines 1-4
1.4 Requirements for State Plans 1-4
1.5 Relationship Between Section lll(d)/129 State Plan and SIP 1-9
2.0 Schedule and Responsibilities 2-1
2.1 State Plan Schedule 2-1
2.2 Responsibilities 2-4
2.2.1 EPA Responsibilities 2-4
2.2.2 State Responsibilities 2-5
2.2.3 Municipal Waste Combustor Plant Owners and Operators
Responsibilities 2-7
3.0 Required Elements of an Acceptable State Plan 3-1
3.1 Demonstration of Legal Authority 3-3
32 Criteria for an Adequate Enforceable Mechanism 3-5
3.3 Source Inventory 3-7
3.4 Emission Inventory 3-9
3.4.1 Emission Estimation Methods 3-9
3.4.2 Required Emission Summary Reports 3-14
3.4.3 Annual Emission Reporting 3-14
3.4.4 Reporting to AFS 3-15
3.4.5 Post-1990 Dioxin Test for Large MWC Plants 3-15
3.5 Compliance with Emission Limitations or Cease Operations 3-16
3.6 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting 3-17
3.7 Compliance Schedules 3-18
3.7.1 Retrofit Required 3-20
3.7.2 Retrofit Schedules for MWC Units at Large MWC Plants 3-21
3.7.3 Retrofit Schedule for MWC Units at Small MWC Plants 3-22
3.7.4 Increments of Progress 3-22
3.7.5 Plant Closure (Cease Operations) 3-26
3.8 Public Hearings 3-29
3.9 State Progress Reports to EPA 3-30
4.0 Answers to Some General Questions About Section lll(d)/129 State Plans . 4-1
pj/83-09 Xlll
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Appendices
A Answers to Questions about the Emission Guidelines and State Plan Process
B Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb)
C Applicability Criteria for Emission Guidelines and NSPS
D MWC Unit Implementation Timeline
E National, State, and Regional Contacts
F Inventory of MWC Plants and Units
G MWC Emission Inventory
H Pollutant Data
I Operator Certification and Training Requirements
J Title V Permit Requirements for MWCs
K NSR Permit Requirements for MWCs
L 1987 NSR Guidance for MWCs
M Clean Air Act Section lll(d)
N Clean Air Act Section 129
O 40 CFR 60 Subpart B
P 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cb and Eb
Q Key Elements of an Acceptable Section lll(d)/129 State Plan
pj/83-09 XIV
-------
Last of Figures
Page
2-1 MWC Implementation Timeline 2-2
Last of Tables
Page
1-1 Appendices to this Document 1-3
1-2 Outline of the Emission Guidelines for MWC Units (40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Cb) 1-5
1-3 Regulations for Adopting and Submitting State Plans (40 CFR 60
Subpart B) 1-7
2-1 Example Schedule for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans 2-3
3-1 Summary of Requirements for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans 3-2
3-2 MWC Plants and Estimated Retrofit Level 3-10
3-3 Schedule for MWC Unit Compliance with MWC Emission Guidelines 3-19
pj/83-09 XV
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFS Aerometric Emissions Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
APCD Air Pollution Control Device
CAA Clean Air Act (of 1990)
Cd Cadmium
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
Dioxin Tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
EG Emission Guidelines
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HC1 Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
Mg Megagram (2204 Ib)
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MWC Municipal Waste Combustor
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review
Pb Lead
PM Particulate Matter
PJ/KW9
XVI
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
tpd Tons per day
pj/83-09 XVU
-------
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to assist the state air regulatory agencies
in developing State Plans that implement regulations controlling air pollutant emissions
from municipal waste combustor (MWC) units. Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to develop
regulations to control air pollutant emissions from MWC units. Emissions from new
MWC units were to be addressed by standards of performance for new sources (New
Source Performance Standards [NSPS]), and emissions from existing MWC units were to
be addressed by standards of performance for existing sources (Emission Guidelines).
EPA promulgated the NSPS (Subpart Eb) and Emission Guidelines (Subpart Cb) for
MWC units on December 19, 1995. States are required to develop State Plans to
implement the Emission Guidelines for existing sources and submit the State Plans to
EPA by December 19, 1996. This document provides state agencies information on the
required content of these State Plans.
1.1 Organization of this Document
This document brings together the information on the relevant parts of the
various regulations that affect existing MWC units built before September 20, 1994.
These regulations were developed under Section lll(d) and Section 129 of the Qean Air
Act. The regulations are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The CFR rules include (1) Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for designated
facilities, Subpart B, and (2) the Emission Guidelines for existing MWC units
(Subpart Cb).
This document provides information on the relevant requirements of the
Clean Air Act and the Emission Guidelines, and the required contents of State Plans,
including an overview of Clean Air Act, regulatory, and State Plan requirements
(Section 1); information on the timeline and responsibilities for developing and
pj/83-09 1-1
-------
submitting State Plans (Section 2); the elements of a State Plan (Section 3); and answers
to some general questions about preparing State Plans (Section 4).
The appendices of this document (Table 1-1) include reference materials
that states may find useful when developing the State Plans. The appendices include
copies of Sections 129 and lll(d), relevant regulations, policy memos, an inventory of
MWC plants, emission factors (for estimating MWC emissions), dioxin emissions
information, and contact lists. Appendix A provides answers to additional frequently
asked questions.
1.2 Clean Air Act Requirements
Section lll(d) has been included in the Clean Air Act since the 1970's and
required EPA to establish procedures for submitting State Plans for implementing
Emission Guidelines. The first health-based Emission Guideline adopted was for sulfuric
acid plants in 1977. Other health- and welfare-based Emission Guidelines have been
adopted since that time. The State Plans implement and provide for enforcing the
Emission Guidelines. Section 129 was added to the Clean Air Act in 1990 and
specifically addresses solid waste combustion. It requires EPA to establish Emission
Guidelines for MWC units and requires states to develop State Plans for implementing
the Emission Guidelines. The Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines for MWC units differ
from other Emission Guidelines adopted in the past because the Subpart Cb Emission
Guidelines address both Section lll(d) and Section 129 requirements, and Section 129
overrides some aspects of Section lll(d).
Detailed procedures for submitting and approving State Plans were
promulgated by EPA in 1975 as 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B and amended in 1979, 1989,
and 1995. The 1995 amendments to Subpart B were adopted on December 19, 1995 in
the same action that promulgated the Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines. The revisions to
Subpart B address differences between Sections 129 and lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. In
particular, Section 129 requires that State Plans for MWC units be submitted to EPA
pj/83-09 1-2
-------
Table 1-1. Appendices to this Document
Appendix Title
A Answers to Questions about the Emission Guidelines and State Plan
Process
B Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb)
C Applicability Criteria for 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cb, Ea, and Eb
D MWC Implementation Timeline
E National, State, and Regional Contacts
F Inventory of MWC Plants and MWC Units
G MWC Emission Inventory
H Pollutant Data
I Operator Certification and Training Requirements
J Title V Permit Requirements for MWCs
K NSR Permit Requirements for MWCs
L 1987 NSR Guidance for MWCs
M Clean Air Act Section lll(d)
N Clean Air Act Section 129
O 40 CFR 60 Subpart B
P 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cb and Eb
Q Key Elements of an Acceptable Section lll(d)/129 State Plan
pj/8349 1-3
-------
within one year after promulgation of Emission Guidelines; whereas the Subpart B
procedures developed to implement Section lll(d) plans have a different schedule.
Also, Section 129 requires Section lll(d)/129 State Plans to be "at least as protective as
the guidelines"; whereas Section lll(d) allows states flexibility to consider the remaining
useful life of the source and other factors in developing State Plans and standards. The
December 19, 1995 revisions to Subpart B result in the Emission Guidelines for MWC
units superseding otherwise applicable requirements of Subpart B, where Section 129
conflicts with Section lll(d). (See Appendices M, N, and O for the full text of
Section lll(d), Section 129, and Subpart B.)
13 Emission Guidelines
The Emission Guidelines for MWC units (Table 1-2) were promulgated on
December 19, 1995 (60 FR 65414), and codified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb. The
Emission Guidelines apply to existing MWC units that commenced construction on or
before September 20, 1994 that are located at a MWC plant with an aggregate plant
combustion capacity of 35 Mg per day (approximately 39 tpd) or greater. The pollutants
regulated by Subpart Cb include metals (cadmium [Cd], lead [Pb], and mercury [Hg]);
paniculate matter (PM); (acid gases sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen oxides [NOJ, and
hydrogen chloride [HC1]); organic compounds (dioxins and furans); carbon monoxide
(CO); and visible emissions. The Emission Guidelines are summarized in a fact sheet
included in this document (see Appendix B). The full text of the Emission Guidelines
(Subpart Cb) is also provided (see Appendix P). The Emission Guidelines apply to
individual MWC units at MWC plants larger than 35 Mg per day capacity.
1.4 Requirements for State Plans
States are required to develop Section lll(d)/129 State Plans to
implement the MWC Emission Guidelines and to submit plans to EPA for approval.
The first step for meeting the State Plan requirement is to identify MWC plants (and
MWC units) that are subject to the Emission Guidelines that are located in the state. If
pj/83-09 1-4
-------
Table 1-2. Outline of the Emission Guidelines for MWC Units
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb)
Section Contents
60.30b Scope
60.3 Ib Definitions
60.32b Designated facilities
60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor metals, acid gases,
organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides
60.34b Guidelines for operating practices
60.35b Guidelines for operator training and certification
60.36b Guidelines for fugitive ash emissions
60.37b Guidelines for air curtain incinerators
6038b Compliance and performance testing
60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines and compliance schedules
there are no MWC plants in the state with an aggregate combustion capacity greater
than 35 Mg per day then the state need only submit a letter of certification to that effect,
which is called a negative declaration, and no plan is submitted. However, MWC units
at MWC plants that have ceased operation and have an aggregate plant combustion
capacity of greater than 35 Mg per day must be included in the MWC inventory if the
plant has not been partially or totally dismantled. Furthermore, in order for a MWC
unit that has ceased operation to reopen, the state would need to revise the State Plan to
require air pollution control device retrofit before the MWC unit restarts operation. The
revised plan for the non-operating unit must contain increments of progress, a final
compliance date, and that the MWC unit would complete retrofit before reopening.
pj/8349 1-5
-------
States that do have MWC plants larger than 35 Mg per day capacity are
required to submit a Section lll(d)/129 State Plan. As a minimum, the State Plan must
include the following elements:
• A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan as submitted;
• Identification of enforceable state mechanisms selected by the state
for implementing the Emission Guidelines;
• An inventory of MWC plants/units in the state affected by the
Emission Guidelines, including MWC units that have ceased
operation and are not partially or totally dismantled;
• An inventory of emissions from MWC units in the state;
• Emission limitations for MWC units that are at least as protective as
those in the Emission Guidelines;
• Compliance schedules, extending no later than December 19, 20001;
• Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements;
• A record of public hearing(s) on the State Plan; and
• Provision for annual state progress reports to EPA on
implementation of the State Plan.
The State Plans are due to EPA by December 19, 1996. Table 1-3
summarizes the regulations for adopting and submitting State Plans, as codified in
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60, and specifies the required elements of the plans.
Table 1-3 also indicates where the MWC Emission Guidelines (Subpart Cb) or
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act override specific provisions of Subpart B.
Compliance schedules would extend no later than December 19, 2000, except when
a cease operation agreement is contained in the State Plan. The unit would cease
operation and complete retrofits before reopening.
pj/83-09 1-6
-------
Table 1-3. Regulations for Adopting and Submitting State Plans
(40 CFR 60 Subpart B)
Section Number
and Title
General Contents
Does the Section Apply to MWC
Units?
60.20
Applicability
Subpart B applies when
final guidelines are
promulgated (i.e.,
Subpart Cb).
Yes, final MWC guidelines
(Subpart Cb) were published
12/19/95 so Subpart B now
applies to MWC units.
60.21
Definitions
Defines key terms.
Definition of "designated
pollutant" in Subpart B does not
apply to MWC units.
Subpart Cb lists nine MWC
pollutants that are covered.
Definition of "designated facility"
in Subpart B is defined in
Subpart Cb as each MWC unit at
an MWC plant with an aggregate
plant combustion capacity of
greater than 35 Mg per day.
60.22
Publication of
guideline
documents,
Emission
Guidelines, and
final compliance
times
Describes contents of
Emission Guidelines to be
developed by EPA.
Yes. Guidelines for MWC units
(Subpart Cb) have been
developed and published as
required (60 FR 65414,
12/19/95).
60.23
Adoption and
submittal of State
Plans, public
hearings
Schedules and procedures
for states to follow in
developing and submitting
State Plans. Requirements
for public hearings on
State Plans.
Yes, except for 60.23(a).
Section 129 specifies that State
Plans for MWC units are
required to be submitted one
year after publication of
Subpart Cb (i.e., 12/19/96).
1-7
-------
Table 1-3. Continued
Section Number
and Title
General Contents
Does the Section Apply to MWC
Units?
60.24
Emission
standards2 and
compliance
schedules
State Plans must include
emission standards and
compliance schedules.
State Plans may be more
or less stringent than the
guidelines.
Yes, except 60.24(f) does not
apply. Subpart CD and
Section 129 specify that State
Plans must be "at least as
protective" as the guidelines.
60.25
Emission
inventories, source
surveillance, reports
Plans must include a plant
inventory and an emissions
inventory and provisions
for monitoring compliance.
States must submit
progress reports to EPA.
Yes.
60.26
Legal authority
Plans must demonstrate
that the state has legal
authority to carry out the
plan as submitted.
Yes.
60.27
Actions by the
Administrator
Procedures for EPA
review and approval or
disapproval of plans.
Federal plans will be
developed if states have
not submitted approvable
plans.
The schedules in 60.27 do not
apply. For MWC units,
Section 129(b)(2) of the dean
Air Act allows six months for
EPA to approve or disapprove
State Plans. If approvable plans
are not submitted by
December 1997 (two years after
promulgation) EPA must
implement a Federal Plan per
Section 129(b).
2Note that "emission standards" can include any state enforceable mechanisms
including, but not limited to, state rules (see Section 3.2 in this document).
1-8
-------
Table 1-3. Continued
Section Number
and Title
General Contents
Does the Section Apply to MWC
Units?
60.28
Plan revisions by
the state
Procedures for revision of
plans.
Yes.
60.29
Plan revisions by
the Administrator
Procedures for revision of
plans.
Yes.
EPA published policy guidance on Subpart B in 1977, and that guidance
applies to the MWC Emission Guidelines except where overridden by the changes
introduced by Section 129 of the Clean Air Act of 1990 and Subpart Cb. This document
provides a summary of federal regulations that govern the development of
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans for MWC units.
15 Relationship Between the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan and SIP
The State Plans for implementing the MWC Emission Guidelines are
different from State Implementation Plans (SIP) required by Sections 110 or 172 of the
Clean Air Act. The State Plan and the SIP are both programs for state implementation
of federal requirements. For both, the administrative procedures, particularly the public
hearing process, are the same. Both programs are designed to achieve emission
reductions at sources by identifying the pollutant to be controlled, establishing the
emission limits for the source, and establishing procedures to ensure that emission limits
are met.
However, the states and EPA fulfill different responsibilities under the two
programs. The goal of Section lll(d) State Plans is to control the emissions of
1-9
-------
designated pollutants3 by establishing standards of performance for existing sources.
Section lll(d) Emission Guidelines (including emission limitations or performance
levels) are technologically based and are established by EPA on a national level, and the
states are responsible for developing and implementing a program to achieve compliance
with these technologically-based standards. The goal of the SIPs, on the other hand, is
to attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or ambient
concentrations for certain criteria pollutants (lead, SO2, PM10, NOj, CO, and ozone) in a
given area. Hence, in the SIP program, the state establishes emission limitations or
standards based on the sources' contributions to local air quality, meteorology, and other
local factors. The emission control requirements for a regulated source category under a
SIP may vary from plant to plant based on local factors.
The states are responsible for implementing both Section lll(d)/129 State
Plans and SEP programs, and both programs complement each other. Where the SIP
requirements are adequate to meet the lll(d)/129 standard, the state may elect to
submit a Section lll(d)/129 State Plan that relies on the requirements in the SEP,
Section 110, to meet the Section lll(d)/129 emission standard. In addition, where the
Section lll(d)/129 requirements protect the NAAQS, the state may elect to rely on
these requirements in the control strategy in the SEP.
Section lll(d)/129 Plans apply to PM, SO* HC1, CO, NO* Pb, Cd, Hg, and
dioxin/furan [Sections 129(a)(4) and 129(b)(2)].
pj/8349 1-10
-------
ZO Schedule and Responsibilities
Sections lll(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act require each state to adopt
and submit plans that implement the MWC Emission Guidelines within one year after
EPA publication of the final Emission Guidelines. Emission Guidelines for MWC units
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb) were published on December 19, 1995 (60 FR 65414) and
State Plans must be submitted to EPA on or before December 19, 1996 (Figure 2-1).
2.1 State Plan Schedule
States need to develop the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan as soon as
possible and complete required public hearings in order to submit the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan by December 19, 1996. The steps that are necessary for
the states to follow to submit the State Plan are listed in Table 2-1, along with an
example schedule.
After the State Plan is submitted, EPA is required to approve or
disapprove the State Plan within six months (approximately June 19, 1997). EPA's
decision to approve or disapprove each State Plan will be published in the Federal
Register (FR). Final decisions will be codified in 40 CFR Part 62, "Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants." If a plan is not
approved, the basis for disapproval will be discussed in the FR notice. If the plan is
disapproved, the state should submit a revised plan addressing the concerns. If the state
has not submitted an approvable plan by December 19, 1997, the EPA will develop,
implement, and enforce a Federal Plan that is applicable to MWC units in the state.
The Section lll(d)/129 State Plans must include compliance schedules for
all the MWC units located in MWC plants with an aggregate plant capacity greater than
35 Mg per day that are located in the state. Compliance schedules can allow up to
three years from State Plan approval for the MWC units to comply. Section 129(b)(2)
requires all MWC units to be in compliance no later than three years after State Plan
pj/83-09 2-1
-------
Emission
Guidelines
Promulgation
Stale
Plans State Federal
Due Plans Plan
Approved/ Published
Disapproved (only if the
State Plan
is not
approved)
MWC Compliance
Window
(Compliance schedules may vary
from unit to unit or
pollutant by pollutant)
Complete
Retrofit
or Cease
Operation
of Unit
MWC Implementation Timeline
Figure 2-1. MWC Implementation Timeline
approval by EPA or December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier. Compliance can be
achieved by either completing air pollution control device (APCD) retrofit (retrofit) or
by ceasing plant operation.
More restrictive requirements apply to MWC units at large plants than
MWC units at small plants. The Emissions Guidelines give MWC units at large MWC
plants up to three years after Section lll(d)/129 State Plan approval by EPA, or until
December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier, to complete retrofits or cease operation;
however, if the compliance schedule for a MWC unit is longer than one year, the State
Plan must include enforceable increments of progress or a cease operation agreement
that establishes the date the unit will cease operation. Large MWC plants are defined as
MWC plants with plant capacities of 225 Mg/day or greater (about 250 tpd). Additional
requirements apply to MWC units at large plants constructed since June 1987. MWC
units at these plants must comply with the mercury and dioxin/furan emission limits
within one year of State Plan approval. All MWC units at large MWC plants
constructed since June 1987 akeady have the scrubber technology installed that serves as
the basis of the air pollution control system required to meet the Emission Guidelines.
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. Example Schedule for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
Action Date
Emission Guidelines promulgated by EPA December 19, 1995
Decide what state authority to use February 1996
Start state rulemaking or other procedure needed to March 1996
ensure state authority
Start drafting State Plan July 1996
EPA issues guidance on Section lll(d)/129 State Plans July 1996
Notice of public hearings September 1996 (30 days
before hearing)
Complete state rulemaking or other procedure needed October 1996
Complete public hearing on State Plan October 1996
State Plans due to EPA (Regional Office) December 19, 1996
Respond to any clarifications requested by EPA During the 180 day period
following December 19, 1996
EPA approval/disapproval of the State Plan June 19, 1997
If disapproved, submit revised approvable State Plan December 19, 1997
MWC units at large MWC plants constructed since 1987 were required by NSR permits
to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which was determined in
June 1987 to be acid gas scrubbing and PM control (see Appendix L). Therefore, MWC
units at large MWC plants constructed since June 1987 would not need to make major
retrofits to meet the requirements of the Emission Guidelines. The post-1987 MWC
plants will require some additional controls to meet the dioxin and mercury limits, but
the controls can be installed in less than one year since the acid gas scrubbing system is
already in place. States may establish compliance schedules that are shorter than the
times allowed by the Emission Guidelines, but they may not establish compliance
schedules that are longer than the Emission Guidelines.
The MWC Emission Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb, also allow
MWC units at small MWC plants up to three years after Section lll(d)/129 State Plan
pj/83-09 2-3
-------
approval by EPA, or December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier, to complete retrofits or
cease operation. Small MWC plants are defined as MWC plants with plant capacities
greater than 35 Mg per day but less than 225 Mg/day (approximately 39 to 250 tpd). As
with a large plant, if the compliance schedule for a MWC unit that extends beyond one
year after State Plan approval, the State Plan must include enforceable increments of
progress. A difference between the requirements for MWC units located at small plants
versus large plants is that cease operation agreements are not required to be submitted
for MWC units located at small MWC plants. However, the state must identify authority
to take enforcement action if the MWC does not either cease operation or achieve
compliance by the specified date in the plan.
Resonsibilities
EPA, the states, and owners and operators of MWC units are responsible
for implementing the Emission Guidelines. The primary responsibilities are outlined
below.
2.2.1 EPA Responsibilities
Assisting State and Local Programs and MWC Owners and Operators.
EPA assists state and local agencies to develop approvable Section lll(d)/129 State
Plans. EPA provides information, answers questions, and interprets federal requirements
for the state and for MWC owners and operators. EPA conducts outreach and
compliance assistance programs. EPA identifies contact persons to answer states'
questions, clarify approval criteria, and address specific implementation issues as
necessary. States' questions should be directed to the the appropriate EPA contact to
ensure efficient and consistent responses. (See Appendix E for a list of national, state,
and regional contacts.)
Review of State Plans. Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to approve
or disapprove State Plans within six months of submittal. States must develop their
pj/83-09 2-4
-------
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans according to the criteria in this document and 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart B (as revised December 19, 1995 to conform with Section 129). EPA
will inform the state if the EPA has questions about the State Plan before making a
decision on the approval or disapproval of the State Plan.
Federal Plan, EPA anticipates that all states will develop approvable
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans; however, in the event an approvable State Plan is not
submitted, EPA will develop and implement a Federal Plan.
Related Section 129 Programs. EPA reviews and comments on state
development of Title V operating permits. Title V permits are not a required
component of State Plan submittal, nor are they required for EPA approval of the State
Plan.
23.2 State Responsibilities
Developing a State Plan. The state develops and submits a State Plan that
meets the criteria presented in Sections lll(d) and 129, the Emissions Guidelines, and
this document. This document outlines how states can meet this responsibility.
Establishing Compliance Schedules. The State Plan must develop emission
limits and compliance schedules for all MWC units in the state located at MWC plants
with greater than 35 Mg per day plant capacity. States should meet with MWC owners
and operators to develop retrofit schedules to ensure a workable Section lll(d)/129
State Plan. All MWC units addressed by the State Plan must complete retrofit or cease
operation within three years of EPA approval of the State Plan, but no later than
December 19, 2000. (See MWC closure agreements discussed below for extended
schedule.)
Establishing Closure Agreements. State Plans must identify MWC units
that have already ceased operation or intend to cease operation. Plants must either
pj/83-09 2-5
-------
comply (i.e., complete retrofits) or cease operation by the dates established in the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans. These compliance dates can be no later than three years
after plan approval or December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier. For MWC units located
at large MWC plants that will cease operations more than one year after State Plan
approval by EPA, the State Plan must include enforceable closure agreements
(i.e., agreements to cease operation) in the State Plan. Closure agreements are not
required for MWC units located at small MWC plants, but State Plans must demonstrate
authority to maintain small plant closure.
MWC units that cease operation can be divided into two groups. The first
group is MWC units that have ceased or will cease operation and are not planned to be
restarted. Such MWC units are shut down, and cannot restart operation without a State
Plan revision and retrofit of air pollution control equipment prior to restart. The second
group is MWC units that cease operation as an element of their retrofit activities. For
these MWC units, schedules for ceasing operation and completing retrofit activities
would be included in the State Plan. The State Plan must include the five enforceable
increments of progress for retrofit activities (discussed in Section 3.7.4) along with a sixth
increment, a date for ceasing operation. Under the Plan, the MWC unit would cease
operation by the specified date and could not restart until the other increments of
progress including retrofit of controls is complete. Performance testing would occur
within 180 days after restart of the retrofitted unit.
Submitting Progress Reports. States must report annually to the EPA on
the progress of implementing the plan, including meeting increments of progress and
achieving final compliance. The states must also include in an annual report (as
specified in Section 3.9) compliance status, enforcement actions, and updates on
inventory.
Related Section 129 Programs. Section 129 requires the state's emission
limitations, which implement the Emission Guidelines and are included in the State Plan,
pj/83-09 2-6
-------
to be incorporated into Title V operating permit requirements. This is a state
responsibility and is not a required component of related Section lll(d)/129 State Plans.
223 Municipal Waste Combustor Owners and Operators Responsibilities
Developing Compliance Plans and Schedules. MWC owners and operators
must work with the state to develop a compliance plan and retrofit schedule for the State
Plan that are both workable and meet requirements established by the state to
implement the Emission Guidelines. All MWC plants must complete retrofits to comply
with the emission limits or cease operation not later than three years after
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan approval or by December 19, 2000, whichever is sooner.
Compliance with mercury and dioxin provisions is required within one year of
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan approval for large MWC plants constructed since June
1987. All MWC plants must complete retrofits or cease operation by December 19,
2000. Critical information is needed about each MWC unit such as controls in place and
extent of retrofit needed in order to support State Plan development. Additionally,
MWC owners and operators must supply dioxin testing information to the state to aid in
developing a compliance schedule longer than one year (see Section 3.4.5). An emission
inventory is required for all affected MWC units for the public participation process (see
Section 3.4).
Upgrading or Retrofitting Facilities. Owners and operators must retrofit or
upgrade their faculties to meet the emission limits on the compliance schedules
established by the state.
Meeting Additional Emission Guideline Requirements. Owners and
operators are responsible for meeting other Emission Guideline requirements, including
implementing an operator training program and reporting progress towards compliance
to the states. They will also report ongoing testing and monitoring results and keep
required records to demonstrate compliance.
pj/83-09 2-7
-------
Related Section 129 Programs. Owners and operators must apply for a
Title V operating permit according to state requirements. These permits would include
all applicable federal and state requirements pertaining to air emissions, including the
applicable requirements of the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan.
pj/83-09 2-8
-------
3.0 Required Elements of an Acceptable State Plan
This section of this document and Appendix Q contain summaries of
existing information on the required elements of a State Plan. States may find this
summary helpful in preparing Section lll(d)/129 State Plans, and EPA will use it in
reviewing the plans. A Section lll(d)/129 State Plan for MWC units has nine essential
elements:
1. A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan as submitted,
2. Identification of enforceable state mechanisms selected by the state
for implementing the Emission Guidelines,
3. An inventory of MWC plants/units in the state affected by the
Emission Guidelines, including MWC units that have ceased
operation and are not partially or totally dismantled,
4. An inventory of emissions from MWC units in the state,
5. Emission limitations for MWC units that are at least as protective as
those in the Emission Guidelines,
6. Compliance schedules (retrofits),
7. Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,
8. A record of public hearing(s) on the State Plan, and
9. Provision for annual state progress reports to EPA on
implementation of the State Plan.
Table 3-1 summarizes these elements of the State Plan for MWC units, provides citations
from Subparts B and Cb, and identifies the sections of this chapter that discuss each
element.
Some components of a Section lll(d)/129 State Plan duplicate existing
state requirements and therefore will not add additional requirements. For example,
most states require public notice for rulemaking consistent with 40 CFR Part 60,
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Summaiy of Requirements for Section lll(d)/129 State Plansa
Required Item
Show that state has legal authority to
carry out plan
Identify enforceable mechanisms selected
by the state to implement the guidelines
An inventory of MWC plants and units
and emissions and information related to
emissions
Allowable emission rates
Test methods and procedures used for
determining compliance with the
emissions standards
Provisions for monitoring a MWC unit's
compliance status, including:
1. Legally enforceable procedures for
requiring the maintenance of records and
periodic reporting to the state for the
determination of compliance,
2. Periodic inspections and testing, and
3. Specific testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements specified by Subpart Cb.
Compliance schedules and legally
enforceable increments of progress for
MWC units to achieve compliance
Certification that a public hearing was
held before the State Plan was adopted
and list of the attendees at the hearing
and their affiliation, with a summary of
then* presentations and handouts
State progress reports
Reference in 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart B or Cb
60.26(a) of Subpart B
60.24(a) of Subpart B
6025(a) and 60.25(c) of
Subpart B
60.24(b)(l) of Subpart B
and 60.33b, 6034b,
60.35b, 60.36b, and
60.37b of Subpart Cb
60.24(b)(2) of Subpart B
and 60.38b of
Subpart Cb
60.25(b) of Subpart B
and 60.38b and 60.39b of
Subpart Cb
60.24(a) and 60.24(e)(l)
of Subpart B
60.23(f)(l) and (2) of
Subpart B
60.25(f) of Subpart B
Section of this
Document
3.1
3.2
3.3 and 3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
a See text of Section 3 and Appendix Q of this document for additional discussion of the
required elements of a State Plan.
pj/8349
3-2
-------
Subpart B. Similarly, Section 112 and Title V of the CAA require various
demonstrations of legal authority. To the extent that earlier demonstrations by the state
of legal authority meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, the state will
simply need to include copies of such demonstrations in the State Plan submittal.
3.1 Demonstration of Legal Authority
The Section lll(d)/129 State Plan must demonstrate that the state has the
legal authority under current state law to adopt and implement the emission standards
and compliance schedules in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan. The legal authority
must support the legal mechanism selected by the state to implement the emission limits
for MWC units. The legal authority must be available to the state at the time the state
submits its Section lll(d)/129 State Plan to EPA [40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B,
Section 60.26(c)]. States must submit with the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan copies of
the laws or regulations that demonstrate the state's legal authority, unless: (1) such laws
or regulations were approved when previously submitted under either 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B or other sections of the CAA, and (2) the state can demonstrate that such
previously submitted laws or regulations are applicable to the pollutants1 for which the
plan is submitted [§ 60.26(b)].
A state may use existing demonstrations of legal authority to meet the
requirements of Subpart B. Which existing authorities the state uses to implement the
Section lll(d)/129 requirements depends on the legislative structure of the state. This
implementation guidance provides the minimum requirements of Section lll(d) and 129
pertaining to MWC units, and leaves the state flexibility to implement the requirements
as long as provisions are enforceable under state law.
'For MWCs, the pollutants are PM, SO2, HC1, CO, NO,, Pb, Cd, Hg, and
dioxin/furan.
pj/8W)9 3-3
-------
A state must include in its demonstration of existing legal authority a
showing that it has the authority to:
1. Adopt emission standards and enforceable conditions (see
Section 3.2) as well as compliance schedules applicable to the
designated facilities and pollutants for which the Section lll(d)/129
State Plan is submitted;
2. Enforce the relevant laws, regulations, standards and compliance
schedules referenced in Section lll(d) and Section 129 and seek
injunctive relief and prevent restart of MWC units that have ceased
operation;
3. Obtain information necessary to determine compliance;
4. Require recordkeeping, make inspections, and conduct tests;
5. Require the use of monitors and require emission reports of MWC
owners or operators and;
6. Make emission data available to the public.
Demonstrations of legal authority can take several forms. States that use a
legal mechanism other than rulemaldng to implement the Emission Guidelines should
submit legal documentation, preferably an opinion by the state's Attorney General that
the state possesses the adequate authority to implement and enforce the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan using that legal mechanism.
A state governmental agency other than the state air pollution control
agency may be assigned responsibility for carrying out a portion of a Section lll(d)/129
State Plan, provided that the state demonstrates that the state governmental agency has
adequate authority [Section 60.26(e)]. The state may authorize a local agency to
implement a portion of the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan provided that the local agency
demonstrates that it has adequate legal authority to implement that portion of the plan
and the state is not relieved of responsibility [Section 60.26(e)].
pj/83-09 3-4
-------
32 Criteria for an Adequate Enforceable Mechanism
According to a survey of EPA Regional Offices conducted in April 1995,
most states that have MWC units covered by the guidelines are developing
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans that will use state rules as the legal instrument to enforce
the Emission Guidelines. However, some states may use alternative mechanisms to
implement the Emission Guidelines. An essential element of a Section lll(d)/129 State
Plan requires the plan to include emission standards, which 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B
Section 60.20(f) defines as "a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable
rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control
of air pollution emissions." For Section lll(d)/129 State Plans, EPA interprets the term
"regulation" in Section 60.22(f) to include, in addition to a uniform state requirement or
state rule, other mechanisms that are legally enforceable under state law. For example,
depending on the applicable state law, enforceable mechanisms that might be used as the
vehicle for implementing MWC Emission Guidelines may include a regulatory or
administrative order, a compliance order, or a state operating permit. A state may select
other enforceable mechanisms provided that the state demonstrates that the state has the
underlying authority and demonstrates that the selected mechanism is state enforceable.
In addition, a state may have the authority under their state law to incorporate the
Emission Guidelines directly into their Title V permit applications as their enforceable
mechanism. Whether a state can use Title V as the enforceable mechanism is a question
of state law. The Title V operating permit program is not sufficient on its own to confer
federal recognition of emission limits and other requirements contained in the Emission
Guidelines as meeting the requirements listed in Table 3-1; that is, there must be
underlying state authority.
Note that the pollutants that must be regulated under the MWC Emission
Guidelines are a combination of criteria and hazardous air pollutants. Generally, states
have adequate authority under their air pollution statutes to regulate both criteria
pollutants and hazardous air pollutants through a variety of mechanisms. As mentioned
earlier, the state legal authority must be in place and effective by December 19, 1996.
pj/83-09 3-5
-------
If the state relies on a mechanism that is not a state rule to implement the
Emission Guidelines, such as a regulatory order, the state must document in the State
Plan how the selected mechanism meets the emission standards for the pollutants
regulated by Section 129,2 and attach a copy of the enforceable mechanism. If a state
rule is used, only citations of the overall rule and copies of the sections pertaining to
MWC units are required. The state does not have to submit a copy of the entire rule.
The state may submit a Section lll(d)/129 State Plan that relies on the requirements in
the SEP to meet the Section lll(d)/129 emission standard for a particular pollutant,
where they are found to be adequate. If the state relies on existing or revised SEP
emission limits to implement the Section lll(d)/129 MWC emission standards, the state
must submit the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan citing the SEP and the date when it
became effective and document how the SEP assures that the requirements of lll(d)/129
are met. In all cases the mechanism(s) must be in place at the time of plan submittal.
A reduced demonstration of authority is allowed where all units in a state
have already ceased operation or will cease operation within one year of plan approval.
Such demonstration of legal authority does not need to point to an enforceable
mechanism which orders a plant to cease operations. Instead, the state needs only to
demonstrate what mechanisms (e.g., state operating permit program) are available to the
state to prevent plants from resuming operations until an appropriate State Plan revision
is approved.
The EPA emphasizes that the determination whether a particular
mechanism may be used to enforce the Emission Guidelines in a particular state is a
question of state law; the state law must give the state the requisite authority to enforce
the emission limit using the legal mechanism identified by the state. Thus, a mechanism
(e.g., a regulatory order) that is approvable for one state under its state law might not be
approvable if selected by another state under the law in that state.
2For MWCs, the pollutants are PM, SO^ HC1, CO, NO^ Pb, Cd, Hg, and
dioxin/ruran.
pj/8349 3-6
-------
After a state incorporates a requirement in the State Plan, and the plan is
reviewed and approved by EPA, the state requirement becomes federally enforceable.
33 Source Inventory
A complete source inventory of affected MWC plants and units in the state
regulated by the Emission Guidelines must be submitted as part of the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan [40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, Section 60.25(a)]. The
inventory includes both operating and non-operating MWC units; however, non-operating
MWC units that have been partially or totally dismantled do not have to be included in
the inventory.
To aid states in identifying MWC units that are subject to the Emission
Guidelines, this document includes EPA's current MWC database (Appendix F), which
lists operating and closed MWC plants. There are 165 MWC plants listed in the EPA's
current database that have plant capacities of 35 Mg per day (approximately 39 tpd) or
larger that were known to be in operation or under construction on or before
September 20, 1994. The MWC units at the 165 MWC plants (205 total MWC plants
minus 40 inactive plants) are subject to the MWC Emission Guidelines. The 165 MWC
plants include approximately 322 individual MWC units. In addition, 40 inactive (non-
operating) plants with plant capacities of 35 Mg per day or more are listed. The MWC
plants that have ceased operation include approximately 100 units. As discussed earlier,
both operating and non-operating plants must be included in state inventories and
addressed in State Plans (see Section 3.7.5 regarding non-operating plants).
The current EPA database of existing MWC units was compiled to support
EPA's development of the Emission Guidelines (proposed September 20, 1994 and
promulgated December 19, 1995). The information contained in the database is based
on surveys of the MWC industry, test reports, telephone contacts, and facility permits as
of 1995 and has not been updated.
pj/8349 3-7
-------
The Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), which represents
owners and operators of MWC plants, prepares a survey of MWC plants every year.
Their most recent survey is for June 1996 and is included in Appendix F. The IWSA
inventory is provided as another tool states may use in preparing State Plans. The EPA
has not investigated any of the differences between the 1996 IWSA inventory and the
1995 EPA inventory.
Based on the 165 MWC plants (322 MWC units) operating or under
construction and subject to the Emission Guidelines, the total capacity of the MWC
plants subject to the Emission Guidelines is approximately 103,300 tpd combustion
capacity. Of these 165 plants, 158 plants are operating, and seven plants are under
construction. The 165 plants contain approximately 322 MWC units, of which
approximately 94 units are located at small plants and 228 units are located at large
MWC plants. The number of MWC units located at each plant ranges from one to six,
with an average of two combustion units per plant. The age of the MWC units located
at MWC plants ranges from three to 40 years old, with an average age of about 10 years.
The MWC design affects the emission factors used to estimate emissions.
Three main MWC types are used to combust municipal solid waste: mass bum, refuse-
derived fuel (RDF), and modular. A fourth type, fluidized-bed combustors (FBCs), is
less common and can be considered a subset of the RDF technology. The inventory in
Appendix F identifies the technology used at each MWC plant.
According to the database, 91 percent of the MWC plants, which represent
99 percent of the MWC capacity, employ some kind of air pollution control device. The
nine percent that do not are small plants with capacities less than or equal to 225 Mg
per day (about 250 tpd). Furthermore, 139 of the 165 existing MWC plants employ heat
recovery technology. This represents 95 percent of the existing MWC capacity in the
United States. About half of the existing MWC plants, 84 plants, already have scrubbers.
pj/83-09 3-8
-------
The database also indicates the geographic distribution of the MWC facility
population (Table 3-2). Of the 165 MWC plants subject to the Emission Guidelines, the
highest concentration is found in the Northeast. New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and Connecticut have between seven and 17 active existing facilities in each
state. Florida has the greatest total capacity, with about 19,000 tpd and 15 plants.
New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Connecticut have the next largest
capacities, ranging from 6,900 to 15,500 tpd state combustion capacity. It is thought that
Minnesota has the largest number of MWC units that will require extensive retrofit (see
Appendix F).
3.4 Emission Inventory
An emission inventory, based on the MWC source inventory, for the
pollutants regulated by the Emission Guidelines is required by 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B, Section 60.25(a) to be included in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan. The
inventory data should include estimates of 1995 emissions where practicable. The
inventory must be made available to the general public and presented with the
applicable emission standards.
3A1 Emission Estimation Methods
Estimates of emissions for the emission inventory can be derived from a
variety of methods. Emission factors are included in Appendk G and can be used for
developing the required emission inventory. Where emissions data from actual testing
are already available from 1995 or earlier and are thought to be representative, they
should be used in place of the emission factors. However, where data are not available,
additional testing is not required for the inventory in the State Plan except as follows.
Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines, Section 60.39b(c)(2), require states to submit tests for
dioxin/furan as part of the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan for units at large MWC plants
with compliance schedules longer than one year after approval of the State Plan.
pj/8349 3-9
-------
Table 3-2. MWC Plants and Estimated Retrofit Level
EPA
Region
I
n
m
IV
State
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Virginia
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
South Carolina
Tennessee
Total Number of
MWC Plants8
10
11
5
4
4
1
26
7
1
11
3
1
4
11
0
15
1
6
2
3
1
2
4
Inactive
Plants"
3
1
1
1
0
1
9
0
0
4
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
Number of Plants
Requiring Significant
Retrofits0
1
5
0
2
2
0
9
1
0
4
2
0
3
2
0
8
0
4
0
2
1
0
2
pj/8349
3-10
-------
Table 3-2. Continued
EPA
Region
V
VI
vn
vm
IX
State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Total Number of
MWC Plants3
12
8
5
2
8
6
5
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
2
0
Inactive
Plantsb
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Number of Plants
Requiring Significant
Retrofits6
10
4
1
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3-11
-------
Table 3-2. Continued
EPA
Region
X
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
Total Number of
MWC Plants3
2
1
2
5
205
Inactive
Plants"
0
0
0
0
40
Number of Plants
Requiring Significant
Retrofits0
1
1
1
2
81
a Plant list is from EPA 1995 Inventory (Appendix F) and number presented includes all
MWC plants that are operating, inactive, under retrofit, and under construction and
includes both large and small MWC plants.
b Numbers presented are MWC plants that are inactive. Inactive MWC units must be
addressed in State Plans to either (1) maintain MWC unit closure or (2) require MWC
unit emission control retrofit before MWC unit restarts operation.
c The number of plants requiring retrofit is an estimate. Includes operating MWC plants
(large and small) without scrubbing systems (spray dryer systems for large and dry
sorbent injection or spray dryer systems for small).
Dioxin/furan emissions measured for these tests should be used for the basis of the
dioxin emission inventory for the particular MWC plant.
Where emission factors are used, the document, Preferred and Alternative
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Boilers, Volume II: Chapter 2,3 provides an
overview of available estimation methods. This document, which was prepared by the
Emission Inventory Improvement Program, lists preferred estimation methods specific to
boilers. These methods apply to MWC units, since boilers are used for burning waste.
Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Boilers Volume II:
Chapter 2, Final Report, Radian Corporation, August 1995.
3-12
-------
AP-42, the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,4 also provides preferred
emission estimation methods.
To the degree that a variety of types of data are available, the usually
preferred hierarchy for estimating emissions is listed below:
1. Where already available, continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMs) data that provides a continuous record of emissions over an
extended and uninterrupted period of time.
2. Where already available, stack sampling results.
3. Emission factors:
a. AP-42/FIRE5 emission factors rated "A" through "DH-based
on source tests performed at one or more facilities within an
industry ("A" is the highest rating).
b. State emission factors—possibly more optimized to local or
regional conditions.
c. Industry emission factors.
d. AP-42/FIRE emission factors rated "E" and "U" ("E" is the
lowest rating on the A through E scale, and "U" is unratable).
Procedures for calculating emissions from emission factors and measured
data are provided in Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from
Boilers. AP-42 also gives example calculations for estimating emissions from emission
factors. Example calculations for estimating annual emissions from either mass or
concentration of pollutant are included in this document in Appendix G. These
equations are related to those appearing in the "Boilers" document; the primary
4AP-42 is the common name for the EPA document entitled Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition,
January 1995, available from GPO or from the CHIEF bulletin board.
^e Factor Information Retrieval System (FIRE) is factor retrieval software that is
available from the CHIEF bulletin board or by calling Info-CHIEF hotline at
(919) 541-5285.
pj/8349 3-13
-------
difference is in the emission rate units. The "Boilers" document also provides examples
of emission rate calculations and useful background information.
AP-42 emission factors that apply to MWC units are also provided in
Appendix G. These emission factors are current as of March 26, 1996 and are
appropriate for developing the emission inventory to be submitted in the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans due December 19, 1996; however, since AP-42 emission
factors are updated periodically, the factors in Appendix G should not be used for
subsequent emissions inventories unless verified to be current.
3.4.2 Required Emission Summary Reports
A summary of emissions should be submitted with the Section lll(d)/129
State Plan. It should include, at a minimum, the emission rate of each of the designated
pollutants for each MWC unit in each affected MWC facility. These values should be
provided with the corresponding emission standards to show the relationship between
measured or estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowed
by the standard.
3.43 Annual Emission Reporting
In addition to the initial emission inventory that is required for the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B Section 60.25(e) also requires
states to submit progress reports as part of the annual report to EPA submitted under
40 CFR Part 51, Section 51.321. These annual reports, specified in Sections 51.321
through 51.323, must update the emission inventory for sources that achieve compliance,
sources that are new or modified, sources ceasing operation, or sources whose emissions
have changed more than 5 percent from the most recently submitted emission data. If
emissions from a MWC unit have not changed more than 5 percent, then the state must
update the year of record of the previously reported data.
pj/83-09 3-14
-------
3.4.4 Reporting to AFS
Emission data must be reported to the Aerometric Emissions Information
Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS) as specified in Appendix D to 40 CFR
Part 60. AFS is a repository of emission information for stationary sources that has now
superseded the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) described in 40 CFR Part 60
Appendix D.
3.4.5 Post-1990 Dioxin Test for Large MWC Plants
State Plans for a MWC unit at a large MWC plant with a compliance
schedule or closure date that extends more than one year beyond approval of the State
Plan (approximately June 1998) must include dioxin test data from a test conducted
during or after 1990. Because Section lll(d)/129 State Plans are due by December 19,
1996 and will be approved within six months (if acceptable), the date of State Plan
approval is expected to be approximately June 19, 1997. The dioxin test data should be
submitted for each MWC unit at a large MWC plant that will have a compliance date
later than June 19, 1998. The dioxin test data are due to the state agency for
consideration in time for the public hearings on the State Plan.
The Emission Guidelines require that each separate MWC unit at large
plants be tested for dioxin emissions. Under the Emission Guidelines, the State Plan
could use one dioxin test as representative of all similar units in cases where the state
can demonstrate that multiple units have the same design, operate with the same fuel,
have the same operating parameters, and are expected to have similar emission levels;
however, the State Plan would have to demonstrate that the reduced testing was "at least
as protective" under provisions of Section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act to allow EPA
to approve the alternative sampling procedure. Alternatively, where available, the State
could consider pre-1990 dioxin test data to identify the single MWC unit at the plant
with the highest dioxin concentration and only retest that unit. In this case the state
would not need operating parameters to identify the unit to test Again, the State Plan
pj/83-09 3-15
-------
would have to demonstrate that the reduced testing was "at least as protective" under
provisions of Section 129(b)(2) to allow EPA to approve the alternative sampling
procedure.
To assist state agencies and the public to evaluate the dioxin test data
relative to typical dioxin levels for other MWC units, EPA's data on dioxin emissions
from MWC units is provided with this document (Appendix H).
3.5 Compliance with Emission Limitations or Cease Operations
MWC units must either retrofit controls to comply with the emission
limitations in the State Plan or cease operations. The State Plan must include emission
limitations that are at least as protective as the Emission Guidelines and also must
address non-operating MWC units and MWC units that will cease operation rather than
retrofit air pollution control equipment.
Emission Limitations
Under Section 129(b)(2), the Section lll(d)/129 State Plans must include
emission limits that are "at least as protective as" those in the MWC Emission Guidelines
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb). The emission limits for the nine MWC pollutants are
found in Subpart Cb (Appendix P) and the Fact Sheet (Appendix B).
The Section lll(d)/129 State Plan must include limitations for all of the
pollutants in Subpart Cb. Section 60.33b of Subpart Cb specifies emission limits for PM,
Cd, Pb, Hg, SG>2, HC1, dioxms/furans, and NOX. Section 6034b contains limits for CO.
All of these limits are in units of concentration. For example, the PM and metals limits
are in units of milligrams per dry standard cubic meter exhaust from the pollution
control device. The dioxin/furan limit is also a concentration limit (nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter). The SO2 and HC1 limits are expressed as either a concentration
(parts per million by volume) or a percent reduction at the outlet of the pollution control
pj/83-09 3-16
-------
device prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The NOX and CO limits are concentration
limits in parts per million by volume.
To be approvable, the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan must include emission
limits in dimensions identical to the guidelines, or alternative formats demonstrated to be
at least as protective as the concentration limits and percent reductions specified for
each pollutant in Subpart Cb. Other state programs and permits may include limitations
in the form of emission rates, e.g., pounds per hour or ambient air concentrations; these
types of limitations are not required to be included in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan.
If a State Plan uses any format for emission limitations other than those in Subpart Cb,
the state must demonstrate that these emission limitations are at least as protective as
those in Subpart Cb.
In addition to emission limits for the nine pollutants regulated by the
Emission Guidelines, Section lll(d)/129 State Plans must also include MWC operating
practices [Section 60.34b(b)], operator training and certification requirements
[Section 60.35b], fugitive ash visible emission standards [Section 60.36b], and air curtain
incinerator opacity requirements [Section 60.37b],
3.6 Testing. Monitoring. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Following retrofit, the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan must include
requirements for the ongoing testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
from the Emission Guidelines.
The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions are
specified in the MWC Emission Guidelines (Subpart Cb). These include, in particular:
• The performance testing methods listed in Section 60.58b of
Subpart Eb [40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb, Section 60.38b], and
• The reporting and recordkeeping provisions listed in Section 60.59b
of Subpart Eb [40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb, Section 60.39b].
PJ/8M9 3-17
-------
Subpart Eb requires periodic performance tests or continuous emission monitors (CEMs)
for the nine pollutants. The MWC plant must maintain records of the performance test
or CEM data and specified operating parameters for two years. The MWC plant must
submit annual reports if it is in compliance and semiannual reports if it exceeds emission
standards. Details of these requirements are contained in Subpart Cb and Subpart Eb
(Appendix P).
A State Plan that incorporates the testing, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements specified in Subpart Cb will be consistent with the State
Plan requirements in Subpart B. Under Section 60.25b of Subpart B, State Plan
requirements for monitoring compliance must include the following:
• Legally enforceable requirements that require owners and operators
to keep records of the nature and amount of emissions and any
other information that may be necessary to enable the state to judge
compliance. This information must be reported periodically to the
state. (Subpart Cb requires such records and reports.)
• Legally enforceable requirements that provide for periodic
inspection and testing. (Subpart Cb requires periodic testing and
monitoring.)
• Provisions for making reports of emission data, correlated with the
emission standards that apply, available to the general public.
3.7 Compliance Schedules
To comply with the emission limits contained in the Section lll(d)/129
State Plan, existing MWC units may need to retrofit emission controls. The State Plan
must contain schedules for retrofitting these MWC units. The elements included in a
compliance schedule are listed in Table 3-3.
The retrofit schedule for MWC units at an MWC plant are developed by
the state air pollution control agency considering input from the public and input from
the MWC owners and operators. The Emission Guidelines place certain restrictions on
retrofit schedules. With two exceptions, retrofit schedules (or cease operation
pj/83-09 3-18
-------
Table 3-3. Schedule for MWC Unit Compliance with MWC
Emission Guidelines
Dioxin test data"
State Plan submittal
State Plan approval
If not in compliance by this date, need
enforceable increments of progress for
MWC units at large MWC plants
MWC units at large MWC plants
constructed after June 26, 1987 must be
in compliance for mercury and dioxin
Submit a final control plan
Award contracts for control system
Initiate construction or installation of
control system
Complete construction or installation of
control system
Final compliance date for MWC unit
Initial performance test for MWC unit
Reports of periodic performance test
data and CEMs data
October 1996 (suggested date)
December 19, 1996
June 19, 1997
June 19, 1998
June 19, 1998
A set date in State Plan
A set date in State Plan
A set date in State Plan
A set date in State Plan
No later than 3 years from approval of
State Planb or December 19, 2000,
whichever is earlier, or cease operations by
that date
As scheduled in State Plan but no later
than 3 1/2 years after approval of the State
Plan or 180 days after December 19, 2000
for an operating MWC unit. If a MWC
unit has ceased operation as part of a
delayed retrofit schedule according to a
State Plan, 180 days after startup of the
retrofitted MWC unit if a component of a
delayed retrofit under a cease operation
agreement
Annually after compliance date, if in
compliance. Semiannually after compliance
date, if the emission limits are exceeded
a Dioxin test data are required for MWC units at large MWC plants with closure dates
or compliance schedules that extend more than one year after approval of the State
Plan. If State Plans are submitted on December 19, 1996 and are approved on
PJ/8M9
3-19
-------
Table 3-3. Continued
June 19, 1997, a MWC unit with closure or compliance dates later than June 19, 1998
will need to submit dioxin data. Data submitted must be for 1990 or later.
b Nothing in Section 129 precludes a state from requiring earlier compliance dates.
agreements) can extend up to three years after Section lll(d)/129 State Plan approval,
but no retrofit schedule can extend beyond December 19, 2000, except if a MWC unit
ceases operation in accordance with a State Plan (see Section 3.7.5). Second, MWC
units at large MWC plants that commenced construction after June 26, 1987 must
comply with the dioxin/furan and mercury emission limits within one year of plan
approval or permit modification.
The Section lll(d)/129 State Plan must also specify legally enforceable
increments of progress toward compliance for MWC units that have compliance or
retrofit schedules that extend past one year beyond approval of the Section lll(d)/129
State Plan. In some cases, MWC units may cease operation as of December 19, 2000 or
three years after state approval, whichever is earlier, complete a retrofit, and then
reopen when retrofits are completed.
3.7.1 Retrofit Required
A State Plan may specify different retrofit schedules for existing MWC
plants in the state or even at different MWC units within a MWC plant. Also, retrofit
schedules may vary within the same MWC unit for different pollutants because different
control systems may be required. The Subpart Cb guidelines are "performance
standards," with no control technology specified, and MWC owners and operators will
determine the actual equipment selected for retrofit at a plant. The emission limits in
the Emission Guidelines, however, are based on the performance of specific control
technologies. This text discusses control technology retrofits as if a specific technology
would be required because certain technologies are expected to be selected for retrofit
3-20
-------
and because discussing a specific technology assists in defining what must be
accomplished in the three-year retrofit time period.
Control systems for the regulated MWC pollutants can be considered as
four sub-groups: (1) combustion system upgrades - referred to as good combustion
practices (GCP); (2) acid gas/PM scrubbing systems (with activated carbon injection);
(3) post-combustion NOX control systems; and (4) fugitive ash control systems. The acid
gas/PM scrubbing system is the most expensive control system. The acid gas/PM
scrubbing system with carbon injection controls multiple pollutants, including
dioxin/furan, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, SO2, and HC1. Other control systems primarily control
one pollutant. For example, GCP controls CO and organic emissions. Fugitive ash
control systems reduce visible emissions from ash conveyance.
About half of the MWC units at large MWC plants will require extensive
retrofit. Extensive retrofit is retrofit of an acid gas scrubbing system (see Table 3-2 and
Appendix F). Currently 84 plants out of the total population of 165 active plants are
already equipped with acid gas/PM scrubbing systems. The remaining 81 plants will
require significant retrofit at all or some of their MWC units.
3.72 Retrofit Schedules for MWC Units at Large MWC Plants
Large MWC plants, or those with an aggregate plant combustion capacity
larger than 225 Mg per day (about 250 tpd), must be in compliance three years after
State Plan approval or by December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier, except if a cease
operation agreement is used. (Plant closure and ceasing operation are discussed in
Section 3.7.5.) That means the MWC units must be in compliance by June 19, 2000, if a
State Plan is submitted on December 19, 1996 and approved by EPA on June 19, 1997.
Additionally, MWC units with compliance schedules extending more than one year after
State Plan approval6 must also include for those MWC units the following:
is date is approximately June 19, 1998.
pj/8^09 3-21
-------
(1) measurable and enforceable increments of progress toward compliance (see
Section 3.7.4) and (2) dioxin data from a test conducted during or after 1990 (see
Section 3.4.5 and Appendix H). MWC units constructed after June 26, 1987 are
currently equipped with scrubbing systems and are allowed up to one year to retrofit
activated carbon injection for enhanced scrubber performance in order to control
mercury and dioxin. For other pollutants, such as NOX and CO, the retrofit schedule can
extend up to three years after State Plan approval or December 19, 2000, whichever is
earlier.
3.73 Retrofit Schedule for MWC Units at Small MWC Plants
Under Subpart Cb, small MWC plants are those with an aggregate plant
combustion capacity between 35 and 225 Mg per day (about 39 to 250 tpd). The
compliance schedule for small MWC plants is somewhat less restrictive than for large
plants. MWC units at small plants are allowed to have compliance schedules extending
up to three years after State Plan approval or December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier.
As with large MWC plants, enforceable increments of progress are required for units
with compliance schedules extending more than one year after State Plan approval.
However, the dioxin test from 1990 or later is not required and cease operation
agreements do not have to be submitted. Again, State Plans may allow units to cease
operation by the specified date, and restart after completing the retrofit.
3.7.4 Increments of Progress
Compliance schedules for MWC units with compliance dates that extend
more than one year beyond the date of State Plan approval must include legally
enforceable increments of progress towards compliance as required by Section 60.24(e)
PJ/83-09 3-22
-------
of Subpart B.7 Each increment of progress in Section 60.21(h) of Subpart B must have
an enforceable compliance date in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan. The
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan may include such additional increments of progress as may
be necessary for close and effective supervision of progress toward final compliance.
The minimum five increments of progress required by Section 60.21(h) of
Subpart B for each MWC unit within a state are as follows:
1. Submitting a final control plan. This may be a brief document or
letter describing the controls that the source will use to comply with
the emission limitations and other requirements. In most cases, the
source, public, and state will have discussed this information as part
of the state process for development of the compliance schedule for
the draft State Plan before the State Plan is submitted to EPA;
2. Awarding contracts for control systems or process modifications or
orders for purchase of components;
3. Initiating on-site construction or installation of the air pollution
control device(s) or process changes;
4. Completing on-site construction or installation of control equipment
or process changes;
5. Final compliance.
All five increments of progress for MWC units can be fixed calendar dates
or set as floating dates. For increments one to four, the floating dates can be tied to
either the date of the approval of the State Plan or the date of permit issuance, if a
permit is required. For example, the date for submitting a final control plan could be set
as three months following approval of the State Plan. If an increment of progress is tied
to the date of a permit issuance, the State Plan must identify the specific permit.
7Subpart Cb suggests increments of progress only for MWC unit at large MWC
plants with compliance schedules that extend more than one year after State Plan
approval or permit issuance, if a permit is required. However, Subpart B requires five
enforceable increments of progress for all MWC units subject to the Emission Guidelines
that have a compliance schedule extending more than one year beyond State Plan
approval. The requirements of Subpart B must be met.
pj/83^9 3-23
-------
The fifth increment of progress, the date for final compliance, can be set as
a calendar date or a floating date. As a floating date, it can be tied only to the date of
the approval of the State Plan, not to the date of permit issuance, and must include the
limitation that the date in no case can be later than three years from State Plan approval
or December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier (unless the MWC unit ceases operation). A
sixth increment of progress, ceasing of operation, is required for MWC units that plan to
cease operation by the specified date and restart with the retrofit completed after
December 19, 2000 (see Section 3.7.5).
Additional suggested increments of progress are listed in
Sections 60.39b(c)(l)(i)(A) through (J) of Subpart Cb (see Appendix P). Some of these
suggested increments of progress are already required by Subpart B. The remaining
suggested increments of progress may be included in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan
as enforceable increments of progress with compliance dates, as non-enforceable
increments of progress with reporting requirements only, or they may be left out of the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan entirely.
The additional suggested increments of progress from Subpart Cb are:
1. Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering firm
regarding the air pollution control device;
2. Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control
device(s);
3. Date for submitting permit modifications, if necessary;
4. Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution
control device(s);
5. Date for initial startup of the air pollution control device(s); and
6. Date for initial performance test(s) of the air pollution control
device(s).
EPA strongly recommends that a date for the initial official performance
test of the retrofitted control device be included in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan.
pj/8349 3-24
-------
Following installation of the air pollution control device and restarting the MWC unit, a
performance test must be completed within 180 days. In addition, the Section 111
general provisions (40 CFR 60 Subpart A) require a 30-day notice before a performance
test. The report of the performance test results must be submitted within 60 days after
the test is conducted. These test results are for demonstrating whether or not the MWC
unit is in compliance with the emission standards after the retrofits are completed. This
performance test timing is consistent with other EPA air regulations for existing sources,
such as the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR 63 Subpart A). Note that the "initial"
official performance test denoted above does not mean the first ever test but rather the
first official test for determining compliance; that is, EPA would expect MWC owners
and operators to conduct preliminary tests for their own use (similar to other industry
owners and operators who typically conduct preliminary tests to tune equipment) at least
two to three months before the scheduled initial official performance test. Preliminary
tests enable MWC plant owners to make any necessary "shakedown" adjustments and
retest before the initial official performance test. EPA does not have to be notified of
the unofficial tests nor do they have to be on site for the unofficial tests.
The Section lll(d)/129 State Plan may include one set of increments with
compliance dates applicable to all MWC units within the state or it may vary the
compliance dates from MWC unit to unit to address specific issues relevant to individual
plants or units at a plant. In all cases, the enforceable increments of progress must be
arranged chronologically, and the compliance dates must be set to ensure full compliance
with the applicable requirements as expeditiousfy as practicable [Section 60.24(c) of
Subpart B]. For example, a State Plan that requires a large plant to "submit a final
control plan and to award contracts no later than the third year of the compliance
schedule" will likely be disapproved because the increments are too close to the end of
the compliance window, do not appear to ensure expeditious progress, and thus
jeopardize timely compliance, unless the MWC unit plans to cease operation. Although
there may be unit-specific reasons for other schedules, EPA would expect contracts to be
awarded within the first year for large plants taking longer than one year to comply.
pj/83-09 3-25
-------
Depending on the extent of the retrofit, EPA would expect on-site construction to be
completed in the second or third year of the compliance schedule.
3.7.5 Plant Closure (Cease Operations)
All MWC units, whether at large or small MWC plants, that plan to cease
operation are required under 60.39(c) to cease operation within three years following
approval of the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan, but no later than December 19, 2000. In
particular, the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan needs to address MWC units which:
• Cease operation rather than comply with the Emission
Guidelines, or
• Cease operation as an enforceable component of their retrofit
schedule.
Subpart Cb [Section 60.39(c)] provides that if MWC units at large MWC
plants are going to cease operation, they must cease operations within one year of
approval of the State Plan by EPA, or the State Plan must contain a legally enforceable
"closure agreement" (i.e., a cease operation agreement) that includes the date operation
will cease. MWC units at small MWC plants do not need a cease operation agreement
for MWC units that cease operations prior to three years after State Plan approval or
December 2000.
MWC Units That Have Already Ceased Operations or Are Planning to
Cease Operation Within One Year After State Plan Approval
MWC units that have already ceased operations must be identified in the
inventory in Section lll(d)/129 State Plans. MWC units that will cease operations
within one year of State Plan approval8 must also be identified in the State Plan and the
State Plan must specify that the MWC unit will cease operations by a specific calendar
8By June 19, 1998 if the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan is submitted on December 19,
1996 and is approved by June 19, 1997.
pj/83-09 3-26
-------
date. If the MWC unit does not cease operation by that date, enforcement action would
be taken. The inventory is a component of the State Plan, and a MWC unit designated
to have ceased operations in the inventory may not operate without a revision of the
State Plan and retrofit to achieve compliance with the emission limits. All State Plans
that included requirements for MWC units that have ceased operation but that will
restart must incorporate increments of progress for the MWC unit and require it to
complete air pollution control device retrofit before restarting.
MWC Units Planning to Cease Operations Later Than One Year After
State Plan Approval
States with MWC units at large MWC plants planning to cease operations
more than one year after State Plan approval need to submit a legally enforceable cease
operation agreement that includes a date that operations will cease. MWC units at large
MWC plants that are ceasing operations more than one year after State Plan approval
must also submit data from dioxin/furan emission tests per Section 60.39b(c)(2) of
Subpart Cb.
The cease operations agreement ensures that the MWC units will cease
operation by an agreed-upon enforceable date. The date in the cease operations
agreement becomes federally enforceable upon EPA approval of the Section lll(d)/129
State Plan.
MWC units at small plants under State Plans are not required to submit
dioxin/furan test data or to have cease operation agreements. However, the State Plan
must require that all operating MWC units at small plants must comply with the
Emission Guidelines or cease operations by three years after State Plan approval, or by
December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier.
pj/8349 3-27
-------
MWC Units That Have Ceased Operation and Plan to Restart
MWC units covered by a State Plan that specifies that the units have or
will cease operation can be restarted as provided below. These MWC units fall into two
groups. The first group includes MWC units that have ceased operation or are
scheduled in the State Plan to cease operation that had not originally planned to restart.
These MWC units may not restart operations without a State Plan revision, and the
retrofit would have to be completed prior to restart. The second group includes MWC
units that plan to cease operations, complete retrofits, and restart as part of their retrofit
schedule under the State Plan. In either case the MWC unit is not likely to be
considered a new source under the NSPS applicability criteria when it restarts, and must
be addressed in the State Plan to prevent reopening as an existing source that is not
subject to the Emission Guidelines' control requirements.
Any MWC unit that ceases operation in the State Plan as its final
enforceable increment may not reopen until the State Plan is revised. Provisions for
states to revise their State Plans are contained in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B,
Section 60.28. The revised State Plan must contain enforceable increments of progress
for MWC units to comply before they restart (see Section 3.7.4).
A State Plan may include provisions for a MWC unit that plans to cease
operation and restart as part of its retrofit schedule. The state would list enforceable
increments of progress for that MWC unit in the initial Section lll(d)/129 State Plan,
and ceasing operation would be an additional increment of progress. For example, the
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan could specify that an MWC plant will complete retrofits
on two of its three MWC units before December 19, 2000 and the two units will remain
in operation. The third unit could cease operation on December 19, 2000 and follow the
required increments of progress toward retrofit, and complete retrofitting prior to
restarting. (Performance testing on the third unit would be conducted within 180 days of
restart of the retrofitted MWC unit.)
pj/83-09 3-28
-------
In all cases, the State Plan for units to be retrofitted would include the five
enforceable incremental steps of progress (with specific dates) for retrofitting control at
the plant and MWC units that cease operations as part of their retrofit plan would
include a sixth increment of progress. Ceasing operation could serve as increment one
or two of the six increments.
States in Which All MWC Units have Ceased Operation or Plan to Cease
Operation Within One Year of State Plan Approval
States in which ah" of the existing MWC units are non-operating or
planning to cease operation must still submit a Section lll(d)/129 State Plan, unless the
non-operating MWC unit has been partially or totally dismantled. These State Plans are
reduced in scope but still need to include (1) a demonstration that the state has the legal
authority to maintain closure of a MWC unit if needed, (2) the inventory of MWC units
in the state, (3) provision for a public hearing on the State Plan, and (4) provision for
state progress reports. The State Plan identifies the requirement that would be used to
prevent the MWC unit from reopening. If the state wishes to allow any non-operating
MWC units to restart, a State Plan revision would be required and the plan would have
to address all the requirements of an operating MWC unit.
3.8 Public Hearings
Public participation, under the provisions of the CAA, is an important right
and responsibility of citizens in the state process of developing, adopting, and
implementing Section lll(d)/129 State Plans. As with State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) for criteria pollutants, EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, make it
clear that citizen input on Section lll(d)/129 State Plans is encouraged in order to help
define appropriate emission standards and retrofit schedules. Under Subpart B, some
minimum public participation requirements are as follows:
1. Reasonable notice of opportunity for one or more public hearing(s)
at least 30 days before the hearing.
pj/83-09 3-29
-------
2. One or more public hearing(s) on the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan
(or revision) conducted at location(s) within the state, if requested.
3. Date, time, and place of hearing(s) prominently advertised in each
region affected.
4. Availability of draft Section lll(d)/129 State Plan for public
inspection in at least one location in each region to which it will
apply.
5. Notice of hearing provided to:
a. EPA Regional Administrator
b. Local affected agencies
c. Other states affected
6. Certification that the public hearing, if held, was conducted in
accordance with Subpart B and state procedures.
7. Hearing records must be retained for a minimum of two years.
These records must include the list of commentors, their affiliation,
summary of each presentation and/or comments submitted, and the
state's responses to those comments.
3.9 State Progress Reports to EPA
States must commit in the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan to submit annual
reports on progress in the implementation of the Emission Guidelines to the EPA.
These reports can be incorporated into the reports required by 40 CFR Section 51.321.
Inclusion in this SIP report is intended to avoid duplicative reports. Each progress
report should include compliance status, enforcement actions, increments of progress,
identification of sources that have ceased operation or started operation, emission
inventory information for sources that have started operation, updated emission
inventory and compliance information, and copies of technical reports on all
performance testing and monitoring, including concurrent process data.
States may want to include additional information on periodic inspection
and testing activities, emission and parameter exceedances, QA/QC, outreach activities,
Title V or other permit condition compliance status, and compliance assistance activities.
pj/83-09 3-30
-------
Some states and EPA regional offices have developed more specific or
tailored reporting and recordkeeping procedures via Memoranda of Agreements,
Program Specific Guidance for Section 105 Grants, and the Timely and Appropriateness
Guidance. For example, some EPA offices prefer that the states retain the performance
test reports until EPA requests review as part of a compliance determination or other
action. The state and EPA will continue to have discretion on the format of the annual
reports.
PJ/8J49 3-31
-------
4.0 Answers to Some General Questions About Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
(See Appendix A for additional questions and answers)
Question No. 1: If a state uses a SIP regulation as a basis for the enforceable
mechanism in a State Plan, does the state need to demonstrate legal authority?
Answer A state can select from a range of legal mechanisms
as described in this summary document provided that the
state can show it has adequate legal authority. A
demonstration of legal authority is required in all cases
except for state rules. If a SIP rule is used, citations, rather
than copies of actual state legal authority is adequate. It is
unlikely the SIP will address all of the HAPs (see
Section 60.26[b]).
Question No. 2: Do emission limits in the State Plan need to be the same as the
emission limits in the Subpart Cb guidelines?
Answer. The emission limits in the State Plan must be "at
least as protective" as the Emission Guidelines, and EPA
recommends that the limits be presented in the same
regulatory format as the Emission Guidelines, e.g.
concentration limits or percent reductions. If a regulatory
format other than that used in the Emission Guidelines is
used in a State Plan, then the state must show how the
format correlates to the format in the Emission Guidelines
and demonstrate that it is at least as protective as the
Emission Guidelines.
Question No. 3: Does the State Plan need to address each MWC unit located in the
state in the inventory?
Answer Yes, each MWC unit located at an MWC plant
larger than 35 Mg/day must be addressed by the State Plan.
The State Plan must address all MWC units that are
operating whether they plan to retrofit or plan to cease
operation, with the exception of partially or totally
dismantled units.
4-1
-------
Additionally, a State Plan must include a complete MWC
unit inventory including both operating and non-operating
units.
Question No. 4: Can a State Plan identify only air pollution control equipment to be
retrofitted or must it include emission limits?
Answer A State Plan must include emission standards at
least as protective as the Emission Guidelines, and they must
apply them to each MWC unit. Equipment specification is
not required, and alone is unacceptable.
Question No. 5: For MWC plants with plant capacities over 225 Mg/day, is a baseline
dioxin test required before retrofit?
Answer. Yes, if compliance with the dioxin standard will
take longer than one year. The test data are available to aid
the public and the state in developing a retrofit schedule.
Following retrofit, a compliance test must be completed. The
initial compliance test must be conducted no later than three
and a half years from plan approval or within 180 days after
December 19, 2000 (whichever is sooner). If a MWC unit
ceases operation and then completes a retrofit and restarts,
the initial compliance test must be conducted within 180 days
of restarting. Annual compliance tests must be performed
every year during operation of the plant. If they do have a
cease operation agreement, then operations must cease no
later than three and a half years from plan approval or within
180 days after December 19, 2000.
Note: Annual dioxin testing does not apply to MWC units
that qualify for reduced monitoring under Sections 60.38b(b)
and (c) of Subpart Cb.
Question No. 6: Do reporting requirements in State Plans apply to MWC operators or
just state agencies?
Answer: The requirements apply to both. The state has
responsibilities to develop the State Plan and to report
implementation progress to EPA The MWC owner must
show expeditious progress on achieving compliance by the
pj/83-09 4-2
-------
dates set and then show continuing compliance with the
standard by annual compliance tests and CEM data for the
various pollutants, as specified in subpart Cb.
Question No. 7: Are fixed calendar dates required in increments of progress?
Answer Yes and no. There are five mandatory increments
of compliance. These are: 1) submittal of a final control
plan; 2) awarding of contracts; 3) initiation of on-site
construction; 4) completion of on-site construction, and
5) final compliance. Either calendar dates or floating dates
can be used for these increments of progress.
The state may submit a schedule that uses either all calendar
dates or a mix of calendar and floating dates, or a state could
submit a schedule with dates that all float. For the first four
increments of progress, dates may float from date of State
Plan approval or date of issuance of a permit, if a permit is
required. If a permit is cited in the State Plan as the
significant date from which the increments will be referenced,
the specific permit must be identified.
For the fifth increment of progress, final compliance, if a
floating date is used that date must be no later than three
years after State Plan approval or December 19, 2000,
whichever is earlier, except if a cease operation agreement is
part of a retrofit plan. If they do have a cease operation
agreement, then operations must cease no later than three
and a half years from plan approval or within 180 days after
December 19, 2000.
Question No. 8: Are public hearings required prior to submittal of a State Plan?
Answer Adequate opportunity for public hearings is
required. The requirements described in Section 3.8 of this
document apply and require the opportunity for public
hearings on State Plans prior to submittal. If after adequate
notice, no one requests a hearing, the hearing is not required.
pj/83^9 4-3
-------
Question No. 9: Can the states incorporate the MWC progress reports into their
40 CFR Part 51, Section 51.321 annual report for SIPs?
Answer Yes, EPA encourages states/EPA coordination to
work with the EPA to minimize any potential duplication of
reporting requirements and to tailor the reports to ensure the
most productive compliance and enforcement activities.
pj/83-09 4-4
-------
Appendix A
Answers to Questions about the Emission Guidelines
and State Plan Process
-------
APPENDDC A-ANSWERS TO SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON
THE EMISSION GUIDELINES
This appendix includes frequently asked questions received by EPA about the
MWC emission guidelines adopted on December 19, 1995 and answers them. Many of
these questions were submitted to EPA during workshops offered on March 5 and
April 10, 1996, broadcast by satellite. The questions are divided into questions about
Section lll(d)/129 State Plan requirements and questions about the Subpart Cb
Emission Guidelines requirements. Within these two divisions, the following topics are
discussed:
A. Content of the State Plans
1. Compliance Schedule and Increments of Progress
2. Legal Authority and Enforceable Mechanisms
3. Approval Process
4. Contents of Plan
B. Regulatory Requirements
5. Applicability
6. Definitions
7. Dioxin Limits
8. NOX Emission Limits
9. SO2/HC1 Emission Limits
10. Control Technologies
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Carbon Injection
SNCR
11. Good Combustion Practices
12. Operator Training and Certification
13. Fugitive Ash Standards
14. Compliance and Performance Testing
15. NSR/PSD Issues
16. Other
pj/8349 A-l
-------
A. CONTENT OF THE STATE PLANS
1. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AND INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS
Question: Under the Emission Guidelines, the "clock" for the MWC retrofit
schedule starts at EPA approval of the State Plan. Is this the controlling date in all
cases?
Answer: No. All MWC units covered by a State Plan must complete retrofit or
cease operation no later than three years after State Plan approval or by December 19,
2000, whichever is earlier (see Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.5). Additionally, the actual State
Plan may reformat the various compliance dates. In the State Plan the state may elect to
tie the enforceable increments of progress to (1) fixed calendar dates, (2) "float" dates
from EPA approval of the State Plan, or (3) with the exception of increment 5, "float"
dates from issuance of permits necessary for retrofit activities.
Question: Can a plant submit a closure agreement as an alternative compliance
plan, and decide later to retrofit controls?
Answer: Yes. The State Plan must specify a compliance date for a MWC unit to
complete retrofit or to cease operations. If a State Plan specified that a MWC unit
would cease operations by a given date, and the MWC owner later decides to retrofit
controls, the state must modify the State Plan to include a new compliance date for the
MWC (including meeting all requisite public notice and comment requirements and five
increments of progress). The plan revision would need to be approved by the EPA. If
an MWC owner already knows the cease operations agreement is an interim step toward
retrofit and restart of the MWC units, the requirement to cease operation can be added
to the five required enforceable increments of progress toward compliance in the initial
State Plan. The unit would have to cease operation on or before December 19, 2000
and would complete its retrofit before restarting operations (see Section 3.7.5).
Question: Have we interpreted the Emission Guidelines correctly that MWC
units must be in compliance within three years after EPA approves the State Plan?
Answer: Yes. Under Section 129, MWC units must be in compliance within
three years of EPA's approval of the State Plan, or December 19, 2000, whichever is
earlier. Additionally, the State Plan could include a requirement to cease operations on
or before December 19, 2000 as part of an extended retrofit schedule that exceeded
December 19, 2000.
Question: Every state must submit a Section lll(d)/129 Plan by December 19,
1996, which includes a compliance schedule for each MWC unit in the state. It is
reasonable to assume that some states will not have their enforceable mechanisms in
place and their plans prepared until the last quarter of 1996. An affected facility cannot
begin to prepare for compliance with the emission guidelines before the state in which
pj/83-09 A-2
-------
the facility is located has established an enforceable mechanism. For example, we plan
to have the standards adopted in late October. A MWC plant will not be able to decide
whether to keep an existing ESP, retrofit that ESP, or replace it with a baghouse until
the standards are finally adopted by the state. Additionally, the plant will not be able to
design a scrubbing system or carbon injection system and send these design parameters
out to bid until November 1996. How can anyone know what the compliance schedule
for that facility will be until after the bidding process is complete and the contracts have
been signed? How binding are the compliance schedules included in the State Plan
submittal? Can the compliance schedules in the State Plan just be a best guess?
Answer: As a minimum, the State Plan must include the five enforceable
increments of progress for each MWC unit as required by Subpart B. The required
increments are:
submitting a final control plan,
awarding contracts for controls,
initiating on-site construction or installation of controls,
completing on-site construction or installation of controls, and
final compliance.
(These steps are further explained in Section 3.7.4 of this document) Additional
increments of progress may also be included in the plan. The State Plan must include
binding and enforceable compliance dates for the five increments. The compliance dates
can be calendar dates or floating dates set a certain time from State Plan approval. The
first four increments can also have floating compliance dates set a certain time from
issuance of a specific permit. But the fifth increment, final compliance, can be set only
from State Plan approval and cannot extend beyond three years from State Plan approval
or December 19, 2000, whichever is earlier, unless it includes a requirement to cease
operations on or before December 19, 2000 as part of an extended retrofit schedule that
exceeded December 19, 2000.
The schedules in the State Plan are enforceable but the State Plans can be revised
provided they meet the requirements above and the public is given adequate notice of an
opportunity for public comment That is, if the state and MWC agree that more time is
necessary for an increment of progress, the state could submit a State Plan revision to
EPA for approval after following the procedures for plan revision specified in 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart B, but the final retrofit date or cease operation date would still need to
be within three years of State Plan approval and no later than December 19, 2000.
The state and MWC will need to review the emission limits in the Subpart Cb
emission guidelines (promulgated December 19, 1995) and draft state standards being
developed to implement the guidelines and make judgments about the likely retrofit
requirements in order to include a schedule in the State Plan. Except for those few
states that already have more stringent standards or broader coverage, most states
propose to match the Emission Guidelines requirements.
pj/83-09 A-3
-------
Question: Paragraph 6039b(c)(l)(i) of Subpart Cb specifies "suggested"
measurable and enforceable activities to be included as steps of progress in compliance
schedules. Item (D) specifies inclusion of a date for submittal of the "final control plan".
Section 60.21(h)(l) of Subpart B requires this submittal, but does not define it. Where is
this term defined? Since it seems more reasonable to include a schedule (increments of
progress) as a part of a compliance plan ("control plan"), is it acceptable to specify
submittal of a compliance plan which includes increments of progress for meeting the
items contained in the plan, i.e., the measurable and enforceable activities?
Answer: Under Subpart B, the State Plan must include dates for a minimum of
five enforceable increments of progress. These dates cannot be included only in a
control plan developed after State Plan approval. The increments of progress that must
be included with enforceable dates (including the control plan) are identified and further
discussed in Section 3.7 of this document.
Question: Suppose a MWC plant with three units will have to shut units down in
stages in order to retrofit emission controls. Would shutdown of the third unit constitute
compliance with the subpart or does the third unit have to be retrofitted and tested
within three-year period of approval of the State Plan?
Answer: The State Plan must include increments of progress or a cease operation
agreement for each MWC unit with a compliance schedule that extends beyond one year
from State Plan approval. The State Plan could include increments of progress for
retrofitting two units and a cease operations agreement within the 3-year period for the
third unit. However, if the third unit plans to restart in the future, the State Plan would
need to include the five required increments of progress with specific dates. The third
unit could not restart until the retrofit had been completed. The initial compliance test
must be completed within 180 days of restart. Any dates for the increments that occur
after operation ceased would be enforceable even though the unit has ceased operation
and is being retrofitted.
Question: For MWC units at large plants, Subpart Cb requires that the State
Plan submit dioxin/furan test data for each unit requiring more than one year to retrofit.
There is some confusion whether the units must comply with all of the requirements of
Subpart Cb within one year or just the dioxin/furan limit. For example, a plant that has
three units with scrubbers is able to install carbon injection within one year and
demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan limit but requires more than one year to
complete the installation of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for NOX control.
Since the plant is not complying with all of the requirements of Subpart Cb at the end of
the first year, will the plant owner be required to include dioxin/furan test data for all
three units in the State Plan?
Answer: Subpart Cb requires dioxin/furan test data for each MWC unit that will
not comply with all of the emission limits and other requirements of Subpart Cb within
one year of plan approval. Thus the state will have to include dioxin test data for these
PJ/KW» A-4
-------
units. However, the State Plan may exclude dioxin test data for such a unit if the dioxin
standard and metals standards (cadmium, mercury, and lead) are being met within one
year, and the State Plan demonstrates that the reduced dioxin testing is "at least as
protective" under Section 129(b)(2), thus enabling EPA to approve the State Plan.
Question: Can the compliance plan requirements for State Plans be met by
including generic MWC compliance plan requirements and schedules (i.e., not MWC
plant specific) in a promulgated state regulation? In this case, the state would not need
to submit individual compliance plans for each MWC unit in the state as part of the
State Plan submittal.
Answer: Yes. A state regulation could establish compliance dates and dates for
the five required increments of progress for the entire MWC category. As long as the
state regulation has enforceable dates that apply to each MWC unit in the state and
includes each of the required increments of progress, the dates for each MWC do not
need to be listed separately.
Question: Is an actual public hearing required, or is a public comment period
with the opportunity for the public to request a hearing sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of a public hearing?
Answer: A public comment period with the opportunity to have a public meeting
if requested by the public, is satisfactory. The public notice would have to offer the
public hearing and identify to whom to send the meeting request and when the request
must be made (see Section 3.8).
Question: Can a state tie the compliance date for the MWC units to the date of
state adoption of the rule?
Answer: Yes, as long as there is the backstop of compliance (retrofit completed
or cease operation) occurring no later than three years after State Plan approval or
December 19, 2000 (five years after Emission Guidelines publication), whichever is
earlier.
2. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ENFORCEABLE MECHANISMS
Question: State Plan submittal must include a letter documenting legal authority
for the instrument used to implement the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan - Can the
demonstration be "waived" if a general state regulation (i.e., SIP) is used as the
implementing instrument?
Answer: A detailed demonstration of authority is not required for the State Plan
if the basis is SIP regulations. The State Plan may cite the regulation. For all other
legal instruments demonstration of authority is required. The EPA strongly recommends
that states include a certification letter from the Attorney General of the state for such a
pj/8349 A-5
-------
demonstration if a mechanism other than a state regulation is used. (Several states have
originally thought they had other authority but later their Attorney General explained
that they did not.)
Question: If a state already has enforceable regulations in place, can the state
submit them as the enforceable mechanism in a State Plan?
Answer: Yes, if the existing state regulation is at least as protective as the
emission guidelines and meets all other criteria as discussed in Section 3.2 of this
document.
3. APPROVAL PROCESS
Question: What are the timelines for submission and approval of State Plans
following promulgation of federal guidelines for MWC units?
Answer: The states must submit plans within one year of EPA promulgation of
the Emission Guidelines. Because MWC Emission Guidelines were promulgated on
December 19, 1995 (60 FR 65414), state plans are due by December 19, 1996. As
discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of this document, the EPA must approve or disapprove
the plan within six months of submittal. If a plan is disapproved, specific reasons will be
given. The state is encouraged to address the concerns and resubmit the plan. If a state
fails to submit an approvable plan by December 19, 1997, a federal plan will be
implemented and enforced.
Question: Under Section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, will EPA's approval or
disapproval of a State Plan be a letter, Federal Register notice, or both?
Answer: The approval or disapproval will be published in the Federal Register.
The notice will include reasons for disapproval if the plan is not approved.
4. CONTENTS OF PLAN
Question: If a state agency develops an air pollution control device retrofit
schedule longer than one year after plan approval by EPA for MWC units located at a
large MWC plant, the State Plan submittal must include a dioxin test (post 1990) for
each of the MWC units at the plant If a plant has multiple and identical units, can a
performance test conducted on a single unit meet this requirement for all units at the
plant?
Answer: Section 60.39b(c)(2) of Subpart Cb requires performance test results for
dioxin/furan emissions for each MWC unit that has a compliance schedule longer than
one year following State Plan approval. Thus, all units at the plant that will not be in
compliance within one year following State Plan approval must be tested. However, the
state agency may elect to include dioxin data from only one unit at a MWC plant under
pj/83-09 A-6
-------
the "at least as protective" provisions of Section 129(b)(2). The State Plan would have to
demonstrate to EPA that the reduced dioxin testing was "at least as protective" under
Section 129(b)(2) to enable EPA to approve the alternative sampling procedure. This
demonstration could be done in a number of ways. The State Plan could identify
multiple units that have the same design, operate with the same fuel, have the same
operating parameters, and are expected to have similar emission levels. Alternatively,
the state could review the available plant data and identify the single MWC unit at the
plant expected to have the highest dioxin emissions and only test that unit. The plan
could also use pre-1990 dioxin test data, if they existed for all the units at the plant, to
identify the unit with the highest dioxin emissions and retest only that unit. In all cases,
the State Plan would have to demonstrate that the reduced testing was "at least as
protective."
Question: On a case-by-case basis, under Section lll(d) plan requirement
[40 CFR Subpart B Section 60.24(f)], states have the flexibility to submit plans that
contain the application of less stringent emission standards or longer compliance times
than required under the applicable emission guidelines. Does the "at least as protective
as the guidelines" requirement of Section 129 of the Clean Air Act now eliminate the
plan flexibility provided under 40 CFR Section 60.24(f)?
Answer: Yes. State Plans for MWC units are Section lll(d)/129 plans and have
additional requirements than State Plans developed under only Section lll(d). The "at
least as protective" language in Section 129 of the Clean Air Act applies to MWC units,
and Section 60.24(f) of Subpart B is superseded. Section 60.24(f) of Subpart B was
revised on December 19, 1995 (see 60 FR 65414) to allow Subpart Cb to specify that
states could not allow less stringent limits or longer compliance times than specified in
Subpart Cb.
Question: Can a state develop a MWC unit-specific plan rather than a generic
MWC plan?
Answer: The state must submit a State Plan. The plan must include the elements
discussed in Section 3 and Appendk Q of this document. The plan may include MWC
unit-specific emission limits and compliance schedules or uniform state-wide limits and
schedules.
Question: If there are conflicting requirements under Sections lll(d) and 129,
what requirements take precedence?
Answer: If there are conflicting requirements, Section 129 takes precedence over
Section lll(d) and the Subpart B rules developed to implement Section lll(d).
Chapter 1 presents a table showing the portions of Subpart B that apply to MWC units
and the portions that are revised by Section 129.
pj/8340 A-7
-------
B. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
5. APPLICABILITY
Question: Does the applicability date mean the date of initial construction, initial
startup, or when the MWC finally reaches full production?
Answer: The applicability date is the date construction is commenced. For
example, the Subpart Cb applies to units for which construction is commenced on or
before September 20, 1994. "Commenced" is defined in the NSPS General Provisions in
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart A, Section 60.2.
Question: If a MWC unit constructed before 1990 consists of two small units
[20 Mg per day each], such that the total capacity is 40 Mg per day, are the units subject
to the MWC rules?
Answer: Yes. The Emission Guidelines apply to MWC units located at plants
with aggregate capacities to combust greater than 35 Mg per day, (about 39 tpd) of
MSW.
Question: Does Subpart Cb (Emission Guidelines) or Eb (NSPS) apply to the
following units? A MWC plant with three units (each >250 tpd) shut down in 1980.
Two units were restarted in 1986 with ESP control. The MWC owner wants to restart
the third unit (with SD/FF controls) and submitted a permit application on March 29,
1995.
Answer: All three units appear to be subject to the Emission Guidelines.
Restarting a unit does not in itself make the unit subject to the NSPS. However, if a
unit commences "modification" or "reconstruction" after June 19, 1996, it would be
subject to the Subpart Eb NSPS. If it commences "modification" or "reconstruction"
between December 20, 1989 and June 19, 1996, it is subject to the Subpart Ea NSPS.
Definitions of "modification" and "reconstruction" are contained in Subparts Ea and Eb.
(Installing pollution control equipment and implementing good combustion practices are
not considered modifications.) In the commenter's example, the first two units would be
subject to the Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines. If the third unit is not modified or
reconstructed in some extensive way prior to restart (air pollution control device retrofit
does not count), it also is subject to the Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines. The NSPS
would not apply.
Question: If you have a boiler firing coal and MSW that has the potential to
combust >35 Mg per day of MSW (e.g., shredded tires, paper pellets made from office
waste), does Subpart Cb apply? Does Subpart Eb apply?
Answer: If a boiler fires MSW, and is capable of combusting > 35 Mg per day of
MSW, then the boiler may be subject to Subpart Cb, unless it qualifies for one of the
pj/83-09 A-8
-------
following two exemptions: (1) the boiler has a federally enforceable permit limiting
MSW combustion to < 10 Mg per day of MSW, or (2) the boiler is a cofired unit with a
federally enforceable permit limiting it to combusting a fuel feed stream that is < 30%
MSW by weight per calendar quarter. The owner or operator must report that the
boiler is exempt and keep records of the amount of MSW fired. (See Subpart Eb
Section 60.150(b) and (j) and the definitions in Section 63.151 for details.)
Question; Are tire-fueled facilities covered by the MWC regulations?
Answer: A 100 percent tire-fueled facility is exempt from these Emission
Guidelines if it qualifies for the exemptions specified hi Section 60.32b(d), (e), or (f) of
Subpart Cb. See Appendix P for a copy of the Emission Guidelines.
Question: If a 360 tpd MWC plant with four 90 tpd modular incinerator units
being vented through a common stack would like to be classified as a small incinerator
designation under CAAA 1990, what is your opinion?
Answer: The determination of whether a plant is large or small is based on the
aggregate capacity of all units at the plant, whether or not the units vent to a common
stack. Unless two of the units are closed, the plant described above would be a large
plant. If two units are closed, the plant would have an aggregate capacity of 180 tpd
(approximately 163 Mg per day) and would be considered a small plant.
6. DEFINITIONS
Question: The definition of municipal solid waste has changed for Subpart Eb
and Cb in comparison to Subpart Ea and Ca. Specifically, sewage sludge has been
excluded from the definition. Please (1) confirm that the materials excluded in the
definition of municipal solid waste are not intended to limit the types of municipal solid
wastes which can be processed and (2) identify the purpose of excluding certain materials
from the MSW definition.
Answer: The change in the definition of MSW was not intended to limit the types
of wastes that can be combusted at MWC plants. The changes were made to exclude
combustors burning 100% sewage sludge, medical waste, or other excluded items from
being covered by the MWC rule and reduce regulatory overlap. Combustion of sewage
sludge and medical wastes will be regulated by other rules.
Question: Regarding the definitions of municipal solid waste in Subparts Eb and
Cb, what is "industrial and commercial waste"?
Answer: The definition of MSW in Subpart Eb specifies that commercial/retail
waste includes material discarded by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses,
nonmanufacturing activities at industrial facilities, and other similar establishments.
pj/83-09 A-9
-------
Industrial process or manufacturing wastes are excluded from the definition of MSW, but
are scheduled to be regulated under separate regulations in the future.
Question: Cb defines "municipal waste combustor plant" and "municipal waste
combustor unit". However, reference is made numerous times to "designated faculty"
and "affected facility". The latter terms appear to identify the same entity. For clarity
and consistency, is it acceptable to use the term "municipal waste combustor unit" in
place of "designated facility" and "affected facility"?
Answer: Yes. Under Subpart Cb a designated facility and an affected facility are
equal to MWC units which are located at MWC plants with an aggregate plant capacity
of more than 35 Mg per day.
Question: "MWC unit" is defined in Subpart Eb to include the incinerator with or
without heat recovery but does not include the air pollution control equipment.
Subpart Cb requires that CO measurements be made at the outlet of the combustor. Is
the outlet immediately following the economizer or just prior to the air pollution control
device, or should we even be concerned?
Answer: Subpart Cb specifies that carbon monoxide be measured at the
combustor outlet In general, any location between the economizer and the air pollution
control device should be acceptable.
7. DIOXIN LIMITS
Question: Could you discuss the formation of dioxins in the control equipment?
What temperatures or ranges are known to enhance the secondary formation of dioxins?
Answer: One of the main dioxin formation pathways occurs at temperatures
commonly found in some air pollution control systems. Available data indicate that rates
of dioxin formation increase significantly at temperatures above 450°F and reactions
appear to be greatest at approximately 600°F.
8. NOX EMISSION LIMITS
Question: What would be the NOX limits for a MWC units at large RDF unit
built in 1986?
Answer: MWC units at large RDF unit built in 1986 would be subject to the
Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines. The applicable NOX emission limit is 250 ppmv.
pj/83-09 A-10
-------
9. SO2/HC1 EMISSION LIMITS
Question: According to what baseline should compliance with Subpart Cb be
verified? For example, 31 ppmv or 75% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions. What is
the 75% reduction measured from?
Answer: The format of the standard allows a unit to demonstrate compliance
either by meeting the 31 ppmv emission limit or by showing that the air pollution control
device reduces the flue gas SO2 concentration by 75% before it exits the stack. The
percent reduction is determined by the difference between the concentration at the inlet
to the air pollution control device and the concentration at the outlet of the air pollution
control device. The inlet and outlet concentrations must be measured with CEMS, and
the percent reduction is calculated as a 24-hour geometric mean.
10. CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Sprav Drver/Fabric Filter
Question: Why was a baghouse chosen instead of an ESP for the basis of the
NSPS?
Answer: The combination of a spray dryer and fabric filter (SD/FF)
(i.e., baghouse) is part of the basis of the standards for new MWC units, and a SD/FF or
SD/ESP is part of the basis of the standards for existing large MWC plants. A FF is
more effective than an ESP for removal of PM, metals, and condensed organics, and a
FF is generally less costly than an ESP. However, the MWC standards are expressed in
terms of emission limits and do not mandate that a specific control technology be used.
Thus, any technology that achieves the emission limits can be used.
Question: Describe the feed control process for the lime/limestone into the spray
dryer to ensure control of acid gases.
Answer: The lime/limestone feed rate may be controlled manually or
automatically. Typically, feed rate control is automatic, based on flue gas temperature
and SO2 readings at the outlet from the continuous emission monitor (CEM).
Question: Describe how a baghouse can withstand the heat from the combustor?
Answer: A spray dryer (SD) is used upstream of the FF (baghouse) for acid gas
removal. The SD cools the exhaust gas rapidly, such that the temperature at the FF
inlet is less than 300°F.
PJ/83-09 A-ll
-------
Question: How do you control the corrosion due to acid gases in the baghouse?
Answer: The acid gases (SO2 and HC1) have been neutralized by the lime
injected in the SD upstream of the FF.
Carbon Injection
Question: How is activated carbon injected? How is the amount of activated
carbon determined?
Answer: Activated carbon is usually injected pneumatically upstream of the fabric
filter. The amount will be determined by system design. The carbon feed rate must be
sufficient to achieve compliance with the emission Hmits. Carbon feed rates will vary
depending on the design and operation of the combustion and air pollution control
systems. Based on typical operating conditions, carbon feed rates of 03 to 1.0 Ib per ton
of MSW combusted are expected for most MWC units.
Question: If a facility can meet the Hg and dioxin standards with a scrubber
alone, must they retrofit with carbon?
Answer: The standards are emission limits and do not specify any particular
control technology, and carbon injection may not be used in all cases. For example,
RDF plants with SD/FF air pollution control devices alone are expected to meet the
standards without carbon injection.
SNCR
Question: For the SNCR process for NOX control, is "ammonia slip" of concern?
What are high amounts of ammonia slip?
Answer: The NOX levels promulgated for MWC units at large plants represent a
35- to 55-percent NOX reduction from uncontrolled levels. Data show that this level of
control is not associated with noticeable levels of ammonia slip. Higher performance
levels by SNCR, if the SNCR is not carefully designed and operated, can lead to
ammonia slip.
11. GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
Question: Is there a standardized format or procedure for "good combustion
practices" or are they based on manufacturer's specifications and design for each MSW?
If there is a standard procedure, from whom is it available?
Answer: Good combustion practices sets limits for: (1) CO emissions, (2) load
level, and (3) PM control device inlet temperature. The CO levels are specified in the
rules and are achievable with a well designed and operated combustor. The allowable
pj/83-09 A-12
-------
load levels and PM control device inlet temperature are based on the actual load level
and temperature during each MWC unit's dioxin/furan performance test In addition,
MWC plants must develop site-specific training manuals that address topics listed in
Section 60.54b(e). Chief facility operators and shift supervisors must undergo additional
operator training and certification (see additional questions below).
12. OPERATOR TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
Question: What do states have to do to have a state operator training program
instead of ASME certification? If a state already has an operator training program, is it
automatically approved?
Answer: State Plans must require training of MWC operators by the ASME or by
a state program. A state may develop and implement a state program in lieu of the
ASME certification program. A state determines what constitutes a program equivalent
to ASME. State training programs are only good within the state of issuance. ASME
training is acceptable nationally.
Question: Explain what we should do when a state's operator certification
program does not equal or exceed the ASME's program. Is the ASME's program the
model?
Answer: State program can be developed by a state in place of ASME programs
but are only good for the state of issuance.
Question: Our state has developed a Provisional Certification program for
operators, which includes the requirements in Subpart Ea. Subpart Eb now requires full
certification. Does EPA have any guidelines in developing a full certification program?
ASME has told us in writing: (1) they will not accept our Provisional Certification
program as a step towards full certification through ASME; (2) they will not share their
full certification program with us.
Answer: The EPA does not have specific guidelines for developing a state
certification program.
Question: Where can I get a copy of the EPA Operator Training Course?
Where are EPA operator training courses offered? What subject areas and how much
depth does the EPA want in operator training?
Answer: The EPA operator training program was published in 1993. States may
adopt the EPA program or use it as a guide in developing their own training courses.
Copies are available through National Technical Information Services (NTIS). Ask for
the EPA "Municipal Waste Combustor Operator Training Program" (course manual
EPA-453/B-93-020 and instructor's guide EPA-453/B-93-021).
pj/83-09 A-13
-------
Question: The Emission Guidelines require the plant supervisor and shift
supervisors at a MWC plant to complete ASME QRO certification (or state equivalent).
Is recertification by the ASME QRO required when air pollution control retrofits are
completed at the MWC plant?
Answer: Under the Emission Guidelines, the MWC plant supervisor and shift
supervisors must complete initial ASME QRO (or state equivalent) certification by
6 months after startup, or 18 months after State Plan approval at small plants, or
12 months after State Plan approval at large plants, whichever is later. The ASME QRO
requires a certification "update" every five years. Any changes or retrofits at a MWC
that occur after the initial certification are addressed hi the five year update.
Question: Paragraph 6039b addresses training and certification requirement
schedules of "the date 6 months after startup" and 12 or 18 months "after State Plan
approval, whichever is later." How is "startup" defined here? Can "the date 6 months
after startup" be deleted?
Answer: The "6 months after startup" language is included for those plants that
began construction before September 1994, and are subject to the Subpart Cb, but that
have not yet begun operation.
Question: Are there specific requirements for a state-run operator training
program?
Answer: The guidelines reference the certification and training requirements in
the NSPS. There are two distinct requirements: operator certification and operator
training.
1. Certification applies to chief facility operators and shift supervisors. This may
be obtained through ASME or a state-run program. States may develop their own
criteria but state certification is only good within the state where issued.
2. Training applies to chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control room
operators. This may be obtained by using the EPA training course or a state-run
program. A state may use the EPA course as a guide for developing its own
program. Again, a state program is only good within the state where issued.
Note that there is also an on-site training requirement for certain personnel which
requires review of a site-specific manual that each MWC plant must develop based on
the topics specified in Sections 60.54b(e)(l) through (e)(ll). Refer to Appendix I for
more detail on the certification and training requirements.
A-14
-------
13. FUGITIVE ASH STANDARDS
Question: Do the visible emission standards for fugitive ash apply to ash trucks
and ash landfills?
Answer: The visible emission standards apply only to ash conveying systems,
including conveyor transfer points, but they do not apply to moving trucks.
Question: Please clarify that fugitive ash standards apply outside buildings.
Fugitive ash emissions within buildings are not included unless the fugitive ash migrates
out of the building.
Answer: The visible emission standards do not apply to emissions inside buildings
or within enclosures of ash conveying systems. However, if visible emissions are
discharged to the atmosphere from buildings or enclosures of ash conveying systems, the
visible emission standards apply.
14. COMPLIANCE AND PERFORMANCE TESTING
Question: Please define/discuss "load level." Is it total refuse fired, (net
basis/dry basis), steam production, etc.? (This applies to dioxin testing.)
Answer: Under GCP, MWC unit load level means the steam load (in Ib/hr or
kg/hr). This can be measured with a steam flow meter or feedwater flow meter.
Specific measurement procedures are described in Section 60.58b(i)(6) of Subpart Eb.
Question: Are the emission limits for metals the average of the test results of all
the units on a MWC plant? Also, are the limits for SO2 and HC1 averages?
Answer: The emission limits apply to each individual MWC unit at a MWC
plant. The SO2 limit is a 24-hour daily geometric average emission rate determined by
CEM. Compliance with the HC1 emission limit is determined by periodic performance
testing, and is the average of three test runs.
Question: Please give a summary of Reference Method 22 for visible emissions
testing. Describe equipment and location of test apparatus setup.
Answer: Method 22 requires continuous visual observation of the location of
potential emissions during a series of three one-hour periods. If visible emissions are
observed, the observer starts a stopwatch and times the duration of all periods when
visible emissions are observed. Following the rest, the minutes of visible emissions are
divided by the total minutes observed to determine percentage of time of visible
emissions.
pj/8349 A-15
-------
Question: Does Method 22 require additional certification other than Method 9
certification?
Answer: Since Method 22 requires only the determination of whether a visible
emission occurs and does not require the determination of opacity levels, Method 9
certification is not required. However, the observer must be educated in the general
procedures for determining the presence of visible emissions, and understand the effects
on visibility caused by background contrast, ambient lighting, observer position, and the
presence of condensing water vapor.
Question: The Emission Guidelines require Method 29 be used to demonstrate
compliance with the mercury, cadmium, and lead standards. Has EPA promulgated
Method 29? If not, when will it be promulgated?
Answer: Method 29 was promulgated in the Federal Register on April 25, 1996
(61 FR 18260).
Question: Please verify that steam load is the means by which U.S. EPA intends
for states to determine MWC throughput and that EPA does not intend to require the
measurement of solid waste by crane load cells or other methods. We believe crane
load cells are inherently labor intensive to maintain and of limited applicability relative
to longer term means of determining process rate (by truck scales, pit inventory, etc).
Answer: MWC unit capacity for purposes of calculating whether MWC plants are
subject to the large or small plant standards is the maximum design charging rate of the
MWC plant expressed in Mg per day of MSW. For MWC units that are designed based
on heat input capacity, the maximum charging rate can be calculated based on the design
maximum heat input capacity of the unit on a heating value of 10,500 kiloJoules (kJ) per
kg waste fired.
Question: Did EPA intend for Subpart Cb facilities to comply with all of the
testing and monitoring in Subpart Eb? (Reference 6038b(a) which says the State Plan
shall include testing methods in 60.58b)
Answer: Yes.
Question: Will the guideline allow previous stack test results to be reused to
determine compliance after retrofit? Can the stack test be used as part of the three
consecutive tests for small MWC plants?
Answer: After retrofit, previous stack tests may not be used to determine
compliance. If there is no retrofit, stack tests performed prior to the compliance date
may be used as part of the three consecutive tests for initial compliance if the state
determines that such tests were conducted hi accordance with the required test methods
pj/8349 A-16
-------
and procedures, and that the operating conditions (steam load and temperature, in
particular) were similar to current operating conditions.
Question: What happens if a post-1990 dioxin/furan test indicated levels in excess
of the standard? Is this an enforceable violation?
Answer: Prior to the applicable compliance date in the State Plan, a post-1990
dioxin test in excess of the standard does not constitute an enforceable violation of the
emission guidelines. As described in Appendix H, EPA conducted a survey of dioxin
emissions from MWC units in 1994 and 1995 which resulted in interim actions being
taken at plants to reduce dioxin emissions until the emission guidelines were
promulgated and retrofits completed. EPA does not expect additional plants to require
interim actions.
15. NSR/PSD ISSUES
Question: Will the retrofit action be considered a pollution control project and
eligible for exemption from major NSR per the John Seitz memo dated July 1994?
Answer: EPA has concluded that the air pollution control retrofits anticipated as
a result of this rule are eligible for the pollution control project exemption from major
NSR. Refer to Appendix Kl for specific details.
Question; For existing non PSD permitted MWC plants which are only modifying
to comply with Cb requirements, but which are now major under current PSD
regulations (i.e., existing potential emissions greater than 100 tpy), will PSD review be
required (i.e., prior actual vs. future potential de minimis test)? Also, for existing PSD
permitted MWC plants which are only modifying to comply with Cb requirements, will
PSD review be required (i.e., prior actual vs. future potential de minimis test)? Can
these MWC units apply for the "Pollution Control Project" exemption?
Answer: EPA has concluded that the air pollution control retrofits anticipated as
a result of this rule are eligible for the pollution control project exemption from major
NSR. Refer to Appendix Kl for specific details.
16. OTHER
Question: Is municipal waste typically sorted before combustion to remove
metals, glass, or other noncombustibles? Are metals recovered after incineration?
Answer: MSW is not usually sorted at the MWC before combustion. However,
state and local regulations may prohibit disposal or combustion of certain materials in
MSW. There are also many state and local recycling programs. Many state programs
are based on source separation (separation at the household prior to disposal), but
others have central facilities where the combined waste stream is separated.
pj/83-09 A-17
-------
Question: Please provide references (dates, FR publications, etc.) for the
following: 40 CFR 51.18; 40 CFR 51.24; and Reference Method 29.
Answer: EPA Reference Method 29 was promulgated and published in the
Federal Register on April 25, 1996 (61 FR 18260). 40 CFR Sections 51.18 and 51.24
were redesignated as 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I, Sections 51.165 and 51.166, respectively.
[(See 51 FR 40669 (November 7, 1986), as amended at 58 FR 31636 (June 3, 1993).]
pj/83-09 A-18
-------
Appendix B
Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb)
-------
APPENDIX B—EMISSION GUIDELINE FACT SHEET (40 CFR 60 SUBPART Cb)
FACT SHEET
Existing Municipal Waste Combustors —
Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines (1995)
APPLICABILITY
The subpart Cb emission guidelines apply to existing MWC's1
with aggregate plant capacities to combust greater than 35 Mg/day
of MSW, that commence construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or before September 20, 1994. Municipal waste
combustors that commenced construction between December 20, 1989
and September 20, 1994 are also subject to the requirements of
the subpart Ea standards of performance for new sources.
The intent of the guidelines is to initiate State action to
develop State regulations controlling MWC emissions from existing
MWC's. Modification of an existing MWC to comply with State
regulations that result from these guidelines would not bring an
existing MWC unit under the standards for new MWC's. Plants with
Federally-enforceable permits limiting the amount of MSW that may
be combusted to less than 10 Mg/day are not subject to the
guidelines. The State regulations developed in response to these
guidelines would apply to about 370 existing MWC units located at
about 180 existing MWC plants.
BACKGROUND
On February 11, 1991, subpart Ca guidelines were promulgated
for MWC's with unit combustion capacities above 225 Mg/day
(56 FR 5514). The subpart Ca guidelines were developed under
section lll(d) of the Act. These subpart Cb guidelines are
developed under both section lll(d) and section 129 of the Act as
amended in 1990. Section 129 of the Act required that the 1991
guidelines be revised to: (1) reflect MACT; (2) specify
guideline emission levels for additional pollutants not covered
under subpart Ca; and (3) apply to MWC's with capacities to
combust less than 225 Mg/day of MSW. Thus, the subpart Cb
guidelines are more stringent and cover more MWC's than the
subpart Ca guidelines. The subpart Ca guideline have been
withdrawn and are replaced with the subpart Cb guidelines.
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR SIZE CATEGORIES
Existing MWC's located at plants with aggregate plant
capacities to combust 35 Mg/day or less of MSW are not subject to
State regulations required by the guidelines. Existing MWC's
1Abbreviations are defined at the end of this fact sheet.
pj/83-09 B-l
-------
located at plants with aggregate capacities to combust more than
35 Mg/day are subject to State plans containing both GCP and air
emission limits required by the guidelines.
The guidelines divide the population of existing MWC's into
two size categories: (1) existing MWC's located at MWC plants
with aggregate plant capacities to combust more than 35 Mg/day
but less than or equal to 225 Mg/day of MSW (referred to as small
MWC plants); and (2) existing MWC's located at MWC plants with
aggregate plant capacities to combust more than 225 Mg/day of MSW
(referred to as large MWC plants).
POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED
Consistent with section 129 of the Act, the subpart Cb
guidelines establish emission limits for MWC acid gases (SO2 and
HC1), MWC metals (PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and Hg) , MWC organics
(dioxins/furans), MWC operating practices (CO, flue gas
temperature, and load level), and NOX. Guideline emission levels
are also included for fugitive ash emissions.
EMISSION LIMITS
The guidelines reduce emissions from MWC's by requiring
States to develop regulations that would limit MWC emissions from
existing MWC's at MWC plants with aggregate plant capacities
greater than 35 Mg/day. The subpart Cb emission limits are equal
to or more stringent than the subpart Ca limits adopted in 1991
for dioxins/furans, opacity, PM, 803 and HCl. Emission limits
have also been added for Cd, Pb, Hg, and NOX. For NOX/
provisions have been added allowing States to include emissions
averaging between MWC units at large plants and emissions trading
between plants. In addition, the guidelines require visible
emissions from ash handling to be limited to no more than
5 percent of the time. The guidelines have minor changes in the
MWC operating practice guidelines as compared to the subpart Ca
guidelines. Numerical emission levels and operating guidelines
are summarized in the attached table — Summary of Guidelines for
Existing MWC's.
In addition, the guidelines require provisional ASME or
State operator certification of the MWC chief facility operator
and shift supervisors by 18 months after State plan approval for
small plants and by 1 year after State plan approval for large
plants or by 6 months after startup (small and large plants),
whichever is later. The guidelines also require full ASME or
State operator certification of the MWC chief facility operator
and shift supervisors by 18 months after State plan approval for
small plants and 1 year after State plan approval for large
plants or by 6 months after startup (small or large plants),
whichever is later. Alternatively, State plans may require that
chief facility operators and shift supervisors be scheduled to
take the full certification exam within the same timeframe. The
pj/83-09 B-2
-------
State plans may also allow control room operators who have
obtained provisional certification from the ASME or a State
program to "stand in" during times the chief facility operator or
shift supervisor is offsite. A certified individual is required
to be onsite at all times during operation of the MWC. The
guidelines require that State plans require all MWC chief
facility operators, MWC shift supervisors, and control room
operators to complete the EPA or a State MWC training program.
Also, the guidelines require that State plans require a site-
specific training manual be developed for each MWC. Each
employee involved with the operation of the MWC is required to
review the training manual developed for the MWC. The site-
specific manual and training are required to be updated annually.
COMPLIANCE, TESTING, AND REPORTING
The guidelines require that State regulations include
testing and monitoring requirements for MWC organic emissions
(dioxins/furans), MWC metal emissions (PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and
Hg), MWC acid gas emissions (SO2 and HC1), MWC operating
parameters (CO, load level, and flue gas temperature), and NOX
(the NOX monitoring requirements apply only to large plants).
Sulfur dioxide, NOX, and CO emissions are required to be
determined using a CEMS. Opacity is required to be monitored
using a COMS and measured annually by a visible emissions test.
The guidelines also require that State regulations require annual
visible emissions testing to determine compliance with fugitive
ash emissions requirements. Emissions of other pollutants are to
be determined by an annual stack test. However, if an MWC at a
small MWC plant passes all three annual performance tests in a 3-
year period, then the MWC can elect not to conduct the annual
test for that particular pollutant for the next two years. If
any subsequent test indicates noncompliance, then annual testing
is again required until three annual tests in a row indicate
compliance. In addition to this 3-year testing option for small
plants, less frequent dioxin/furan testing is possible for small
and large plants if all MWC units at a plant consistently achieve
emission levels lower than 15 ng/dscm for large plants and 30
ng/dscm for small plants. Other than this provision, all MWC
units at large plants are to be tested annually. Reporting
requirements are annual; however, if any emission limits are
exceeded, then semiannual reports are required.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
The guidelines require that State plans for large MWC plants
include one of the following three retrofit schedules for
compliance with the guideline requirements: (1) Full compliance
or closure within 1 year following EPA approval of the State
plan; (2) full compliance in 1 to 3 years following issuance of a
revised construction or operation permit if a permit modification
is required or in 1 to 3 years following EPA approval of the
State plan if a permit modification is not required, provided the
pj/83-09 B-3
-------
State plan includes measurable and enforceable incremental steps
of progress toward compliance, but no later than December 19,
2000; or (3) closure in 1 to 3 years following approval of the
State plan, but no later than December 19, 2000, provided the
State plan includes a closure agreement. If a State plan allows
the second or third scheduling options (i.e., more than 1 year),
the State plan submittal to the EPA must contain 1990 or later
dioxins/furans test data for all MWC units at large plants under
the extended schedule. (See § 60.21(h) of subpart B of 40 CFR 60
for additional information relating to measurable and enforceable
incremental steps of progress toward compliance).
State plans for small MWC plants must require full
compliance or closure with regulatory requirements in 3 years or
less following issuance of a revised construction or operation
permit if a permit modification is required, or within 3 years
following EPA approval of the State plan if a permit modification
is not required, but no later than December 19, 2000.
Due to recent concern about dioxin/furan and Hg emissions,
the guidelines require that State plans include an accelerated
compliance schedule for large plants for these two pollutants.
Under the accelerated schedule, existing MWC units for which
construction commenced after June 26, 1987 (i.e., those
facilities equipped with spray dryer/fabric filters or spray
dryer/electrostatic precipitators as required by the New Source
Review program) and that are located at large MWC plants would be
required to be in compliance with the dioxin/furan and Hg
guidelines within 1 year following issuance of a revised
construction or operation permit, if a permit modification is
required, or within 1 year following approval of the State plan,
whichever is later.
pj/83-09 B-4
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
Applicability
The final guidelines apply to existing MWC's located at
plants with capacities to combust greater than 35 Mg/day
of residential, commercial, and/or institutional
discards.13 Industrial manufacturing discards are not
covered by the guidelines. Any medical, industrial
manufacturing, municipal, or other type of waste combustor
plant with capacity to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of
MSW and with a federally enforceable permit to combust
less than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not covered.
Plant Size (MSW combustion
capacity)
< 35 Mg/day
> 35 Mg/day but
< 225 Mg/day (referred to
as small MWC plants)
> 225 Mg/day (referred to
as large MWC plants)
Requirement
Not covered by guidelines
Subject to provisions
listed below
Subject to provisions
listed below
Good Combustion Practices
o Applies to large and small MWC plants.
o A site-specific operator training manual is required
to be developed and made available to MWC personnel.
o The EPA or a State MWC operator training course would
be required to be completed by the MWC chief facility
operator, shift supervisors, and control room
operators.
o The ASME (or State-equivalent) provisional and full
operator certification must be obtained by the MWC
chief facility operator (mandatory), shift supervisors
(mandatory), and control room operators (optional).
o The MWC load level is required to be measured and not
to exceed 110 percent of the maximum load level
measured during the most recent dioxin/furan
performance test.
pj/83-09
B-5
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
The maximum PM control device inlet flue gas
temperature is required to be measured and not to
exceed the temperature 17°C above the maximum
temperature measured during the most recent
dioxin/furan performance test.
The CO level is required to be measured using a GEMS,
and the concentration in the flue gas is required not
to exceed the following:
Averaging
time
MWC Type
Modular starved-
air and
excess-air
Mass burn
waterwall and
refractory
Mass burn rotary
refractory
Fluidized-bed
combustion
Pulverized coal/
RDF mixed
fuel-fired
Spreader stoker
coal/RDF mixed
fuel-fired
RDF stoker
Mass burn rotary
waterwall
CO level
50 ppmv
100 ppmv
100 ppmv
100 ppmv
150 ppmv
200 ppmv
200 ppmv
250 ppmv
4-hour
4-hour
24-hour
4-hour
4-hour
24-hour
24-hour
24-hour
MWC Organic Emissions (measured as total mass
dioxins/furans)
o Dioxins/furans (performance test by EPA Reference
Method 23)
pj/83-09
B-6
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
Large MWC plants
MWC units utilizing 60 ng/dscm total mass
an ESP-based air (mandatory) or 15 ng/dscm
pollution control total mass (optional to
system qualify for less frequent
testing)c/d
MWC units utilizing 30 ng/dscm total mass
a nonESP-based (mandatory) or 15 ng/dscm
air pollution total mass (optional to
control system qualify for less frequent
testing)c/d
Small MWC plants 125 ng/dscm total mass
(mandatory) or 30 ng/dscm
total mass (optional to
qualify for less frequent
testing)c/d
o Basis for dioxin/furan limits
Large MWC plants GCP and SD/ESP or GCP and
SD/FF, as specified above
Small MWC plants GCP and DSI/ESP
MWC Metal Emissions
o PM (performance test by EPA Reference Method 5)
Large MWC plants 27 mg/dscm
(0.012 gr/dscf)
Small MWC plants 70 mg/dscm
(0.030 gr/dscf)
o Opacity (performance test by EPA Reference Method 9)
Large and small MWC 10 percent (6-minute
plants average)
o Cd (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29 )e
Large MWC plants 0.040 mg/dscm
(18 gr/million dscf)
Small MWC plants 0.10 mg/dscm
(44 gr/million dscf)
o Pb (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)e
pj/83-09 B-7
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
Large MWC plants 0.49 mg/dscm
(200 gr/million dscf)
Small MWC plants 1.6 mg/dscm
(700 gr/million dscf)
o Hg (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29 )e
Large and small MWC 0.080 mg/dscm
plants (35 gr/million dscf) or
85-percent reduction in
Hg emissions
o Basis for PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and Hg limits
Large MWC plants GCP and SD/ESP/CI or GCP
and SD/FF/CI
Small MWC plants GCP and DSI/ESP/CI
MWC Acid Gas Emissions
o SO2 (performance test by CEMS)
Large MWC plants 31 ppmv or 75-percent
reduction in SO2
emissions
Small MWC plants 80 ppmv or 50-percent
reduction in SO2
emissions
o HC1 (performance test by EPA Reference Method 26)
Large MWC plants 31 ppmv or 95-percent
reduction in HC1
emissions
Small MWC plants 250 ppmv or 50-percent
reduction in HC1
emissions
o Basis for SO2 and HC1 limits
Large and small See basis for MWC metals
MWC plants
pj/83-09 B-8
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
o NOX (performance test by CEMS)
Large MWC plants
Mass burn waterwall
Mass burn rotary
waterwall
Refuse-derived fuel
combustor
200
250
250 ppmvf
Fluidized bed combustor
Mass burn refractory
Other
Small MWC plants
o Basis for NOX limits
Large MWC plants
Refractory MWC plants
Small MWC plants
Fugitive Ash Emissions
o
240
No NOX control
requirement^
200
No NOX control
requirement
SNCR
No NOX control
requirement
No NOX control
requirement
Fugitive Emissions (performance test by EPA Reference
Method 22)
Large and small plants
Basis for fugitive
emission limit
Visible emissions less
than 5 percent of the
time from ash transfer
systems except during
maintenance and repair
activities
Wet ash handling or
enclosed ash handling
pj/83-09
B-9
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
o Reporting frequency Annual (semiannual if
violation)
o Load, flue gas Continuous monitoring,
temperature 4-hour block arithmetic
average
o CO GEMS, 4-hour block or 24-
hour daily arithmetic
average, as applicable
o Dioxins/furans, PM, Cd, Pb, HC1, and Hgc/9
Large MWC plants Annual stack test
Small MWC plants Annual or third year
stack testn
o Opacity COM3 (6-minute average)
and annual stack test
o SO2 CEMS, 24-hour daily
geometric mean
o NOX (large MWC plants CEMS, 24-hour daily
only) arithmetic average
o Fugitive ash emissions Annual test
Compliance Schedule
o Large MWC plants
State plans for large MWC plants are required to
include one of the following three retrofit schedules
for compliance with the guideline requirements:
(1) Full compliance or closure within 1 year following
EPA approval of the State plan; (2) full compliance in
l to 3 years following issuance of a revised
construction or operation permit if a permit
modification is required or in 1 to 3 years following
EPA approval of the State plan if a permit
modification is not required, provided the State plan
includes measurable and enforceable incremental steps
of progress toward compliance, but no later than
December 19, 2000; or (3) closure in 1 to 3 years
following approval of the State plan, provided the
PJ/83-09 B-10
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
State plan includes a closure agreement, but no later
than December 19, 2000. If a State plan allows the
second or third scheduling options (i.e., more than
1 year), the State plan submittal must include 1990 or
later dioxins/furans test data for all MWC units at
large plants under the extended schedule. (See
§ 60.21(h) of subpart B of 40 CFR 60 for additional
information relating to measurable and enforceable
incremental steps of progress toward compliance).
State plans for large MWC plants are required to
specify that all MWC's at large MWC plants for which
construction was commenced after June 26, 1987 comply
with the guidelines for Hg and dioxins/furans within
1 year following issuance of a revised construction or
operation permit if a permit modification is required,
or within 1 year following EPA approval of the State
plan, whichever is later.
State plans for large MWC plants are required to
specify that owners or operators of large MWC plants
comply with the ASME (or State) operator training and
certification requirements by 6 months after startup
or 1 year after State plan approval by the EPA,
whichever is later.
Small MWC plants
State plans for small MWC plants must require full
compliance or closure with regulatory requirements in
3 years or less following issuance of a revised
construction or operation permit if a permit
modification is required, or within 3 years following
EPA approval of the State plan if a permit
modification is not required, but no later than
December 19, 2000.
State plans for small MWC plants are required to
specify that owners or operators of small MWC plants
comply with the ASME or State operator training and
certification requirements by 6 months after startup
or 18 months after State plan approval by the EPA,
whichever is later.
All concentration levels in the table are converted to
7 percent ©2, dry basis.
Air curtain incinerators that combust only yard waste are
subject only to an opacity limit. Air curtain incinerators
pJ/83-09 B-ll
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MNC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
that combust other MSW are subject to all requirements under
the final emission guidelines (clean wood is not a MSW) .
The emission guidelines include provisions that allow
large and small MWC plants to conduct performance tests
for dioxins/furans on only one unit per year if all units
at the MWC plant achieve an emission level of 15 ng/dscm
total mass (large plants) or 30 ng/dscm total mass (small
plants) for 2 consecutive years.
Although not part of the dioxin/furan limit, the
dioxin/furan total mass limits of 30 ng/dscm,
60 ng/dscm, and 125 ng/dscm are equal to about
0.4 to 0.7 ng/dscm, about 0.8 to 1.3 ng/dscm, and about
1.8 to 2.8 ng/dscm in 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxin toxic equivalents, respectively, based on the 1989
international toxic equivalency factors. The optional
reduced testing limits of 15 ng/dscm and 30 ng/dscm total
mass are equal to about 0.2 to 0.3 ng/dscm and about 0.4
to 0.7 ng/dscm in 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxin toxic equivalents, respectively, based on the 1989
international toxic equivalency factors.
Method 29 was promulgated in the Federal Register on April 25,
1996 (61 FR 18260).
State plans may allow NOX emissions averaging between
existing MWC units at a large MWC plant. The daily
weighted average NOX emissions concentration from the
MWC units included in the emissions averaging plan must
comply with the following 24-hour limits: 180 ppmv for
mass burn waterwall combustors; 220 ppmv for mass burn
rotary waterwall combustors; 230 ppmv for
refuse-derived fuel combustors; 220 ppmv for fluidized
bed combustors; and 180 ppmv for other combustor types
(excluding mass burn refractory combustors).
Refer to the regulatory text of the emission guidelines
for additional details and procedures. State plans may
also establish a program to allow emissions trading
between noncontiguous MWC plants. Such a program
shall meet the requirements of the Open Market Trading
Rule of Ozone Smog Precursors, proposed August 3, 1995
(60 FR 39668) as finally promulgated.
pj/83-09 B-12
-------
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING MWC's (SUBPART Cb)a
(CONTINUED)
For Hg and dioxins/furans, the hourly carbon injection rate
must be calculated and compared to the hourly carbon
injection rates established during the most recent
performance tests for Hg and dioxins/furans. If the
calculated hourly carbon feed rate falls below the carbon
feed rate established during either the Hg or
dioxin/furan performance test, then the MWC owner or
operator is required to notify the regulatory agency, and
may be required to retest.
The emission guidelines include provisions that would
allow small MWC plants to conduct performance tests for
dioxin furans, PM, Cd, Pb, Hg, or HC1 every third year
if the MWC passes the annual performance test for the
pollutants for three years in a row. If any subsequent
annual test indicates noncomplinace, then annual testing
will again be required until three annual tests in a row
indicate compliance.
pj/83-09 B-13
-------
Abbreviations Used in this Fact Sheet and Summary Table
Act
ASME
Cd
GEMS
CO
COMS
DSI/ESP/CI
GCP
gr/dscf
gr/million dscf
HC1
Hg
mg/dscm
Mg/day
MSW
MWC
ng/dscm
NOX
Pb
PM
ppmv
RDF
SD/ESP/CI
SD/FF/CI
SNCR
SO2
Total mass
Clean Air Act
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
cadmium
continuous emission monitoring
system
carbon monoxide
continuous opacity monitoring
system
dry sorbent injection/electrostatic
precipitator/activated carbon
injection
good combustion practices
grains per dry standard cubic foot
grains per million dry standard
cubic feet
hydrogen chloride
mercury
milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter (100 mg/dscm = 0.044
gr/dscf)
megagrams per day (1 Mg/day =1.1
short tons/day
municipal solid waste
municipal waste combustor
nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (1,000,000 ng = 1 mg)
nitrogen oxides
lead
particulate matter
parts per million by volume
refuse-derived fuel
spray dryer/electrostatic
precipitator/activated carbon
injection system
spray dryer/fabric filter/activated
carbon injection system
selective noncatalytic reduction
sulfur dioxide
total mass of tetra- through octa-
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans.
pj/83-09
B-14
-------
Appendix C
Applicability Criteria for Emission Guidelines and NSPS
-------
APPENDIX C--APPLICABILITY CRITERIA FOR EMISSION GUIDELINES AND
NSPS
This document pertains to the MWC Emission Guidelines (40 CFR 60
Subpart Cb). The Emission Guidelines apply to MWC units located at MWC plants with
capacities greater than 35 Mg per day that commenced construction before
September 20, 1994. There are also three new source performance standards (NSPS)
that apply to MWCs as described below.
The first NSPS for MWC units, 40 CFR 60 Subpart E, was promulgated in 1971.
It applies to incinerators charging more than 45 Mg per day (50 tons per day) of MSW
that were constructed or modified after August 17, 1971. The only pollutant regulated
by Subpart E is PM, and the PM limit is higher than the limit in the Emission
Guidelines. Thus, MWC units complying with the Emission Guidelines PM limit would
also comply with the Subpart E NSPS emission limit for PM.
The second NSPS, Subpart Ea, was promulgated on February 11, 1991 and revised
on December 19, 1995. This NSPS applies to MWC units with capacities greater than
225 Mg per day (250 tons per day) that:
• Commenced construction after December 20, 1989 and on or before
September 20, 1994, or
• Commenced modification or reconstruction after December 20, 1989 and
on or before June 19, 1996. ("Modification" and "reconstruction" are
defined in the regulation.)
MWC units that started construction between December 20, 1989 and
September 20, 1994 are subject to both Subpart Cb (the Emission Guidelines) and
Subpart Ea NSPS. Table 1 presents an applicability summary for Subparts E, Cb, Ea,
and Eb, illustrating this dual coverage. Table 2 compares the emission limits in the
Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines with the Subpart Ea NSPS. MWC units must comply
with the most stringent emission limit. As seen on Table 2, the emission limits in
Subpart Ea NSPS are as stringent or more stringent than the Emission Guidelines,
except for the PM limit. The PM limit in the guidelines is slightly more stringent. Also
the Emission Guidelines have limits for three metals which are not regulated by
Subpart Ea. Units already complying with Subpart Ea should already meet the
Subpart Cb guideline emission limits, but will need to verify that the slightly more
stringent PM limit and the metals limit are being met.
The third NSPS, Subpart Eb, applies to MWC units that (1) commence
construction after September 20, 1994 or (2) commence modification or reconstruction
after June 19, 1996. There is no overlap between the Emission Guidelines and the
Subpart Eb NSPS - sources would not be subject to both rules as shown on Table 1.
The emission limits in Subpart Eb are as or more stringent than Subpart Cb.
pj/83-09 C-l
-------
Table 1. Applicability Summary for MWC Units
Date Commenced
Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction after
August 17, 1971
Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction on
or before December 20, 1989
Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction after
December 20, 1989 and on or before September
20, 1994
Construction after September 20, 1994
Modification or Reconstruction after September
20, 1994 and on or before June 19, 1996
Modification or Reconstruction after June 19, 1996
Applicable Subpart
Ea
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cbb
X
X
Eac
X
X
Ebd
X
X
8 Subpart E applies to units charging more than 45 Mg per day (approximately 50 tons
per day) of MSW.
b Subpart Cb applies only to MWC units located at MWC plants with capacities greater
than 35 Mg per day (approximately 39 tons per day) of MSW.
c Subpart Ea applies to MWC units with capacities greater than 225 Mg per day
(approximately 250 tons per day) of MSW.
d Subpart Eb applies only to MWC units located at MWC plants with capacities greater
than 35 Mg per day (approximately 39 tons per day) of MSW.
C-2
-------
Table 2. Comparison of Subpart Cb and Ea Emission Limits
for MWC Units at Large MWC Plants
Pollutant
Organics:
Dioxins/Furans
Metals: PM
Opacity
Cd
Pb
Hg
Acid Gas: SO2
Hd
MWC Type
MWC units utilizing
an ESP-based air
pollution control
system
MWC units utilizing
a non ESP-based air
pollution control
system
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Subpart Cb Level
60 ng/dscm total mass
(mandatory) or
15 ng/dscm total mass
(optional to qualify for
less frequent testing)
30 ng/dscm total mass
(mandatory) or
15 ng/dscm total mass
(optional to qualify for
less frequent testing)
27 mg/dscm
(0.012 gr/dscf)
10% (6-minute average)
0.040 mg/dscm
(18 gr/million dscf)
0.49 mg/dscm
(200 gr/million dscf)
0.080 mg/dscm
(35 gr/million dscf) or
85% reduction in Hg
emissions
31 ppmv or 75%
reduction in SO2
emissions
31 ppmv or 95%
reduction in HC1
emissions
Subpart Eb Level
30 ng/dscm total
mass
30 ng/dscm total
mass
34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf)
10% (6-minute
average)
NA
NA
NA
30 ppmv or 80%
reduction in SO2
emissions
25 ppmv or 95%
reduction in HC1
emissions
pj/8349
C-3
-------
Table 2. Continued
Pollutant
NOX
CO
Fugitive Ash
MWCType
Mass burn waterwall
Mass burn rotary
waterwall
Refuse-derived fuel
combustor
Fluidized bed
combustor
Mass burn refractory
Other
Modular starved-air
and excess air
Mass burn waterwall
and refractory
Mass bum rotary
refractory
Fluidized-bed
combustor
Pulverized coal/RDF
mixed fuel-fired
Spreader stoker
coal/RDF mixed
fuel-fired
RDF stoker
Mass burn rotary
waterwall
All
Subpart Cb Level
200 ppmv
250 ppmv
250 ppmv
240 ppmv
No NOX control
requirement
200 ppmv
50 ppmv
100 ppmv
100 ppmv
100 ppmv
150 ppmv
200 ppmv
200 ppmv
250 ppmv
Visible emissions less
than 5% of the time
from ash transfer
systems except during
maintenance and repair
activities
Subpart Eb Level
180 ppmv
50 ppmv
100 ppmv
NA
100 ppmv
150 ppmv
150 ppmv
150 ppmv
100 ppmv
NA
C-4
-------
Appendix D
MWC Implementation Timeline
-------
APPENDIX D-MWC IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
Emission
Guidelines
Promulgation
State
Plans State Federal
Due Plans Plan
Approved/ Published
Disapproved (only if the
State Plan
is not
approved)
MWC Compliance
Window
(Compliance schedules may vary
from unit to unit or
pollutant by pollutant)
Complete
Retrofit
or Cease
Operation
of Unit
MWC Implementation Timeline
pj/8349
D-l
-------
Appendix £
Contacts
El EPA Regional Municipal Waste Combustor Rule Contacts
E2 State Contacts
E3 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Contacts
-------
Appendix £1
EPA Regional Municipal Waste Combustor Rule Contacts
-------
PA REGIONAL MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR RULE CONTACTS
Regional Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Janet Beloin
U.S. EPA
Region I (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203-0001
617/565-3595
617/565-4940
Christine DeRosa
U.S. EPA
Region n (New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico)
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212/637-4070
212/637-3998
James B. Topsale
U.S. EPA/3AT22
Region UJ (Virginia, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia)
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215/566-2190
215/566-2124
Brian Beals
Scott Davis
U.S. EPA/APTMD
Region IV (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina,
Tennessee)
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404/347-3555
ext. 4167
ext. 4144
404/347-3059
Douglas Aburano (MN, WI)
Mark Palermo (ILL, IN, OH)
Rick Tonielli (MI)
U.S. EPA/AT18J
Region V (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, JJL 60604
312/353-6960
/886-6082
/886-6068
312/886-5824
As above
As above
E-l
-------
EPA REGIONAL MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR RULE CONTACTS
Regional Contact
Mick Cote
U.S. EPA
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas)
1445 Ross Av., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Joshua Tapp
U.S. EPA
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
726 Minnesota Av.
Kansas City, KS 66101
Ron Rutherford
Dennis Woljan
U.S. EPA
Region Vffl (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Patrica Bowlin
U.S. EPA/A-1
Region IX (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
John Keenan
Tamara Langton
Elizabeth Waddell
U.S. EPA
Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
1200 Sixth Av.
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone #
214/665-7219
913/551-7606
303/312-6180
303/312-6740
415/744-1188
206/553-1817
/553-2709
/553-4303
Fax#
214/665-7263
913/551-7065
303/312-6409
415/744-1076
206/553-0110
PJ/8S49
E-2
-------
Appendix £2
State Contacts
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Alabama
Department of Environmental Management
Air Division
1751 Cong. W.L. Dickenson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Chief: Richard E. Grusnick
(334) 271-7861
(334) 279-3044
Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Air & Water Quality Division
410 Willoughby Avenue
Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Director: Leonard D. Verrelli
(907) 465-5100
(907) 465-5129
Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
3033 North Central Avenue
5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Director: Nancy C. Wrona
(602) 207-2308
(602) 207-2366
California
Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
Executive Officer: James D. Boyd
(916) 445-4383
(916) 322-6003
Colorado
Department of Health
Air Pollution Control Division B-l
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
Acting Division Director: Margie M. Perkins
(303) 692-3100
(303) 782-5493
782-0278
Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Management
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Chief: Carmine DiBattista
(860) 424-3026
(860) 424-4063
pj/KM»
E-5
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Division of Air and Waste Management
Air Quality Management Section
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Administrator: Darryl Tyler
(302) 739-4791
(302) 739-3106
District of Columbia
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs
Environmental Regulation Administration
Air Resources Management Division
2100 MLK Avenue, SE, Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020-5732
Program Manager: Donald E. Wambsgans n
(202) 645-6093
x3067
(202) 645-6102
Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
Air Resources Management
Mail Station 5500
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Division Director: Howard Rhodes
(904) 488-0114
(904) 922-6979
Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Air Protection Branch
4244 International Parkway
Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30354
Chief: Ronald Methier
(404) 363-7000
(404) 363-7100
Hawaii
Department of Health
Clean Air Branch
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, ffl 96801
Chief: Wilfred Nagamine
(808) 586-4200
(808) 586-4359
E-6
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality
Permits and Enforcement
1410 North Hilton, 3rd Floor
Boise, ID 83706
Assistant Administrator: Orville Green
(208) 373-0502
(208) 373-0417
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Air
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, XL 62794-9276
Chief: Bharat Mathur
(217) 785-4140
(217) 782-2465
Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
Office of Air Management
P.O. Box 6015
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Deputy Commissioner: Timothy J. Method
Assistant Commissioner: Felicia R. George
(317) 233-0178
(317) 233-5967
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality Bureau
Henry Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines, IA 50319
Chief: Pete Hamlin
(515) 281-8852
(515) 281-8895
Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
Bureau of Air and Radiation
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
Director: John C. Irwin
(913) 296-1593
(913) 296-1545
pj/83-09
E-7
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection
Division for Air Quality
803 Schenkel Lane
Frankfort, KY 40601
Division Director: John E. Hornback
(502) 573-3382
(502) 573-3787
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135
Assisstant Secretary: Gustave Von Bodungen
(504) 765-0219
(504) 765-0222
Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality Control
State House, Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Director: James P. Brooks
(207) 287-2437
(207) 287-7641
Maryland
Department of the Environment
Air and Radiation Management Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Director: Menylin Zaw-Mon
(410) 631-3255
(410) 631-3391
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Air Quality Control
One Winter Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Director: Barbara A. Kwetz
(617) 292-5630
(617) 292-5778
Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
P.O. Box 30260
Lansing, MI 48909-7760
Chief: Dennis Drake
(517) 373-7023
(517) 335-6993
pj/83-09
E-8
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
Air Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Manager: Rod Massey
(612) 296-7512
(612) 297-7709
Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control - Air Division
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289
Chief: Dwight Wylie
(601) 961-5171
(601) 961-5742
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
Air Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Staff Director: Roger Randolph
(573) 751-4817
(573) 751-2706
Montana
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
Medcalf Building
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Division Administrator: Jeffrey Chaffee
(406) 444-3454
(406) 444-5275
Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality
Air and Waste Management Division
1200 N Street, Suite 400
Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Assistant Director: Joe Francis
(402) 471-0001
(402) 471-2909
E-9
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
Bureau Chief: Jolaine Johnson
(702) 687-4670
(702) 687-6396
New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
Air Resources Division
64 North Main Street
Caller Box 2033
Concord, NH 03301
Director: Kenneth A Colburn
(603) 271-1370
(603) 271-1381
New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Air Quality Management
401 East State Street
7th Floor West
Trenton, NJ 08625
Administrator: John Elston
(609) 292-6710
(609) 633-6198
New Mexico
Environment Department
Environmental Protection Division
Air Quality Bureau
Harold Runnels Building
Room S2100
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
Chief: Cecilia Williams
(505) 827-0031
(505) 827-0045
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Air Resources
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3250
Director: Arthur J. Fossa
(518) 457-7230
(518) 457-0794
pj/83-09
E-10
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Air Quality Section
P.O. Box 29580
Raleigh, NC 27626-0580
Chief: Alan Klimek
(919) 715-6233
(919) 715-7175
North Dakota
Department of Health
Division of Environmental Engineering
1200 Missouri Avenue, Room 304
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58506-5520
Director: Dana K. Mount
(701) 328-5188
(701) 328-5200
Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216-0149
Chief: Robert Hodanbosi
(614) 644-2270
(614) 644-3681
Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
4545 North Lincoln Boulevard - Suite 250
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3483
Director: Larry Byrum
(405) 271-5220
(405) 271-7508
Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Administrator: Gregory A. Green
(503) 229-5359
(503) 229-5675
pj/83-09
E-ll
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Air Quality Control
400 Market Street
P.O. Box 8468
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468
Director: James M. Salvaggio
(717) 787-9702
(717) 772-2303
Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management
Division of Air Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
Chief: Stephen Majkut
(401) 277-2808
(401) 277-2017
South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Air Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Chief: James A Joy HI
(803) 734-4750
(803) 734-4556
South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Air and Surface Water Program
523 East Capitol Avenue
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
Air Director: Tim Tollefsrud
(605) 773-3351
(605) 773-5286
Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation
Division of Air Pollution Control
401 Church Street, 9th Floor
L & C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1531
Director: John W. Walton
(615) 532-0554
(615) 532-0614
E-12
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Texas
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
Office of Policy and Regulatory Development
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Deputy Director: Beverly Hartsock
(512) 239-5818
(512) 239-4808
Utah
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Air Quality
150 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Director: Russell Roberts
(801) 536-4000
(801) 536-4099
Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources
Air Pollution Control Division
103 South Main Street
Building 3 South
Waterbury, VT 05676
Director: Richard Valentinetti
(802) 241-3840
(802) 241-2590
Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Division
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240
Director: John M. Daniel, Jr.
(804) 698-4311
(804) 698-4510
Washington
Department of Ecology
Air Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Director: Joseph Williams
(360) 407-6800
(360) 407-6802
West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection
Office of Air Quality
1558 Washington Street, East
Charleston, WV 25311
Chief: G. Dale Farley
(304) 558-3286
(304) 558-3287
E-13
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management (AM/10)
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Director: Donald F. Theiler
Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Administrator: Charles Collins
Phone #
(608) 266-7718
(307) 777-7391
Fax#
(608) 267-0560
(307) 777-5616
pj/83-09
E-14
-------
Appendix £3
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Contacts
-------
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE CONTACTS
EPA Headquarters
Sofia S. Kosim, P.E. (2242A)
Aii Enforcement Division/ Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Joyce Chandler, Chemical Engineer (2224A)
Chemical, Commercial Services and
Municipal Division
Office of Compliance
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone #
202-564-8733
202-564-7073
Fax#
202-564-0068
202-564-0037
E-17
-------
Appendix F
Inventory of MWC Plants
Fl EPA Inventory of MWC Plants
F2 IWSA Inventory of MWC Plants
-------
APPENDIX F-EPA INVENTORY OF MWC PLANTS
Attached is the EPA inventory of municipal waste combustor (MWC) plants used
to develop the emission guidelines (Subpart Cb).* The inventory lists MWC plants with
a total plant combustion capacity of 35 Mg per day or more (39 tons per day) and
identifies the number of MWC units at each plant (where the information is available).
The 35 Mg per day plant capacity level is the lower size cutoff for Subpart Cb. As
discussed below, the inventory places MWC plants in a number of status categories
including "under construction", "operating" and "inactive". The full inventory lists 205
MWC plants, including inactive plants, plants on hold, plants under construction, and
plants being planned. All of these should be considered in determining which MWC
plants are subject to the Subpart Cb emission guidelines and which are subject to the
Subpart Eb (NSPS). At a minimum the 128 operating MWC plants and 40 inactive
MWC plants in the inventory are considered to be subject to Subpart Cb and must be
addressed by State Plans (see Section 3.7.5).
The inventory presents data on MWC plant name, MWC plant capacity, number
of MWC units at the plant, start-up date, current air pollution control equipment,
ownership, operator, and other information of interest. All of these data are used in
developing State Plans. Plant name and location data are important for identifying
MWC units for control under Subpart Cb and considering location(s) for pubh'c hearings
on State Plans. Plant capacity data are used to determine if the MWC plant is a "small"
or "large" plant. Different guideline emission levels apply to different size plants.
The data on the number of MWC units at a plant are considered in developing
retrofit schedules for each MWC unit. Retrofit schedules are normally more flexible for
plants with more units (a four-unit plant generally has more flexibility with its retrofit
schedule than a two-unit plant). The data on current air pollution control equipment
indicate the level of retrofit required. A plant already equipped with a spray
dryer/fabric filter scrubbing system (SD/FF) will need less retrofit than a plant equipped
with only an electrostatic precipitator.
Particular attention should be paid to Columns 6 and 10 of the inventory.
Column 6 places a plant into one of six plant status categories as follows:
Symbol Status Category
OP operating
IA inactive
IR retrofit underway
P planning
'Docket A-90-45, item IV-B-2.
F-l
-------
Symbol Status Category
OH on hold
UC under construction
It is suggested that states update the 1995 EPA inventory as necessary, particularly
Column 6. A number of MWC units in the OP (operating) category have changed to the
IA (inactive) category [e.g., the Pulaski (Maryland) MWC plant]. State Plans for inactive
MWC plants can focus on cease operations agreements. Over the past few years the
number of inactive plants has increased as plants have ceased operations. Some plants
have been "mothballed" and others have been dismantled (e.g., Philadelphia-Northwest
MWC plant). Dismantled MWC units do not have to be addressed in State Plans
(beyond identification of dismantlement).
The data on UC (under construction) plants should be reviewed to determine if
the plant being reviewed has completed construction and moved to the operating
category [e.g., Lee County (Florida) and Montgomery County (Maryland) MWC plants].
The under construction category should also be reviewed to determine if the plant is
subject to Subpart Cb (the Emission Guidelines) or Subpart Eb (NSPS). Plants subject
to Subpart Eb do not have to be addressed in State Plans other than to identify them as
Subpart Eb plants.
Column 10, total plant capacity, also provides important data for the State Plan.
MWC plants above 225 Mg per day capacity (about 250 tons/day) are classified as large
MWC plants. MWC plants between 35 and 225 Mg per day capacity (about 39 to
250 tons/day) are classified as small MWC plants. Each MWC unit located at a MWC
plant (there are typically 2 to 4 units at a plant) is an affected facility and must comply
with the Emission Guidelines. One set of regulatory requirements and compliance
schedules applies to MWC units located at large plants, and another set of requirements
applies to MWC units located at small plants.
In summary, the attached EPA inventory (1995) is used to identify MWC plants to
be addressed by State Plans. It is suggested that State Plans update the listing as
appropriate. The IWSA inventory (1996) is also attached to aid states in their update
efforts. The EPA has not attempted to verify differences between the 1995 EPA
inventory and the 1996 IWSA inventory. Any changes made to the EPA inventory
(1995) must be noted in the State Plan with support information provided as necessary.
pj/83-09 F-2
-------
Appendix Fl
EPA Inventory of MWC Plants
-------
MEMORANDUM
TO: Walt Stevenson, EPA/Combustion Group
FROM: Denise Bevington, Brian Palmer, Rich Potter, and Brad
Nelson, Radian Corporation
DATE: March 1, 1995 (Memo corrected on May 17, 1995)
SUBJECT: Municipal Waste Combustor Inventory Database
The current database of existing municipal waste combustor
(MWC) facilities (Attachment 1) was compiled primarily to
identify and characterize all MWC plants that would be subject to
the emission guidelines for existing MWC facilities proposed on
September 20, 1994. The information contained in the database is
based on past surveys of the MWC industry, test reports,
telephone contacts, and facility permits.
The current database updates the database delivered to the
EPA on March 9, 1992. The database lists 130 MWC facilities that
have plant capacities of 39 tons per day (tpd) or more and that
were known to be in operation or under construction on or before
September 20, 1994 (i.e., that are subject to the proposed
emission guidelines). In addition, the database lists 39
inactive facilities with plant capacities of 39 tpd or more.
The database presents 62 fields of information; however,
most of these apply to the control devices. A detailed
description of each field is included as Attachment 2.
Based on the 130 MWC facilities operating or under
construction and subject to the proposed emission guidelines, the
total MWC capacity in the United States is approximately
103,300 tpd. For the purpose of this memorandum, reference to
"total MWC capacity" and "total MWC units" refers to the
population of MWC facilities subject to the proposed emission
guidelines. Of these 130 plants, 128 plants (100 units at small
plants and 207 units at large plants) are operating, and 2 plants
are under construction. A total of at least 307 units are
operating at these facilities (for two operating facilities the
pj/KM»
-------
Memorandum
March 1, 1995
Page 2
number of units is unknown, and it was assumed they are each
operating with two units). The number of units located at each
facility ranges from one to six, with the average being two.
Unit capacity ranges from 20 to 1,100 tpd, and total facility
capacity ranges from 40 to 3,000 tpd. The average facility
capacity is 700 tpd. The age of the facilities ranges from 3 to
40 years old. About 94 percent of the existing MWC capacity is
located at plants with total plant capacities greater than
250 tpd. Plants with total plant capacities greater than 250 tpd
account for 63 percent of all existing MWC's.
There are three main types of technologies used to combust
municipal solid waste: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived
fuel (RDF). A fourth type, fluidized-bed combustors (FBCs), is
less common and can be considered a subset of the RDF technology.
Of the 130 facilities, 73 (56 percent) are mass burn,
37 (29 percent) are modular, and 20 (15 percent) are RDF
(including FBC). Of the total MWC capacity in the United States
(103,300 tpd), 70 percent (72,300 tpd) is at mass burn
facilities, about 25 percent (26,200 tpd) is at RDF facilities,
and 4 percent (4,400 tpd) is at modular facilities. The
remaining MWC's are other technologies such as co-fired RDF
combustors.
According to the database, 91 percent of the MWC facilities
(99 percent of the MWC capacity) employ some kind of APCD. The
9 percent that do not are plants with capacities less than or
equal to 250 tpd. Furthermore, 116 of the 130 existing MWC
facilities employ heat recovery technology. This represents
95 percent of the existing MWC capacity in the United States.
The database also indicates the geographic distribution of
the MWC facility population. Of the 130 MWC facilities subject
to the emission guidelines, the highest concentration is found in
the Northeast. New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, and New York have between 6 and 13 existing
pj/8349
-------
Memorandum
March 1, 1995
Page 3
facilities each. In terms of total capacity, however, Florida is
the leader with a capacity of about 17,050 tpd. New York,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Connecticut have the
next largest capacities, ranging from 6,050 to 11,000 tpd.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR DATABASE
-------
Reference Name
Juneau
Sitka
Huntavllle
Tuscatoosa
Blytheville
Stuttaart
LanenCo.
Modesto
Bristol
New London Co.
Stamford II
New Canaan
Wallingford
Windham RRF
D.C.
Sussex
Kent
Bay Co.
North Broward Co.
South Broward Co.
DadeCo.
Dade Co. Expansion
Tampa
lake Co.
Lee Co.
Mayport
McKay Bay
Miami Airport
West Palm Beach
PascoCo.
Wheelabrator Pinedas RRF
Savannah
Honolulu
Walpahu
Burley
Beardstown
Havana
Northwest
UnttName
uneau RRF
Sitka WTE Plant
Huntsvllle Refuse-Fired Steam Fac.
ruscatoosa Solid Waste Fac.
Blytheville Incinerator
North Little Rock RRF
Osceola
Stuttgart Incinerator
Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Fac.
Lessen Community College
Long Beach (SERRF)
Modesto
Bridgeport RESCO
Bristol RRF
Lisbon RRF
Mid-Connneeticut Project
Southeastern Connecticut RRF
stamford I
Stamford II Incinerator
Town of New Canaan Volume Reduction Plant
Wallingford RRF
Windham RRF
Solid Waste Reduction Center No.1
Pigeon Point
Sussex
Kent
Bay Resource Mgt Center
Steward Co. RRF North
Broward Co. RRF South
DadeCo. RRF
Dade Co. RRF Expansion
HHIsborough Co. RRF
Lake Co. RR
Lee Co. RRF
Mayport NAS
McKay Bay REF
Miami International Airport
North Co. Region RR Project
Pasco Co. Solid Waste RRF
Southernmost WTE
Wheelabrator Pinellas RRF
Savannah RRF
Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture
Walpahu Incinerator
Burley
Beardstown
Havana WTE Fac.
Northwest WTE
Robblns RRF
County
uneau Burough
ttka Borough
Madison and Limestone
uscaloosa
ndependenee
Mississippi
Pulaskl
Mississippi
Arkansas
os Angeles
assen
os Angeles
Stanislaus
Fairfield
Hartford
New London
lartford
New London
Fairfield
Fairfield
Falrfield
New Haven
Windham
District of Columbia
Newcastle
Sussex
Kent
Bay
Broward
Broward
Dade
Dade
HHIsborough
Lake
Lee
Duval
Hillsborough
Dade
West Palm Beach
Pasco
Monroe
Pinellas
Chatham
Honolulu
Honolulu
Cassia
Cass
Mason
Cook & DuPage Co.
Cook
Location
uneau
itka
Huntsville
uscaloosa
Batesville
Blytheville
North Little Rock
Osceola
Stuttgart
Commerce
Susanville
Long Beach
Crows Landing
Bridgeport
Bristol
Jsbon
Hartford
Preston
Stamford
Stamford
New Canaan
Wallingford
Windham
Washington
Wilmington
Panama City
Pompano Beach
3ompano Beach
Miami
Miami
Tampa
Okahumpka
Fort Myers
Mayport NAS
Tampa
Miami
West Palm Beach
Hudson
Key West
St Petersburg
Savannah
Honolulu
Honolulu
Burley
Beardstown
Havana
Chicago
Robbins
State
AK
AK
AL
AL
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
DC
DE
DE
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
HI
HI
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
Project
Status
OP
OP
OP
IA
OP
OP
IA
OP
OP
OP
IA
OP
OP
OP
OP
UC
OP
OP
IA
IA (1994)
OP
OP
IA
IA
IA
On Hold
On Hold
OP
OP
OP
OP
On Hold
OP
OP
UC
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
IA
OP
P
P
OP
P
Const
Start
1985
1984
1988
1985
1986
1986
1985
1985
1985
1987
1985
1989
1989
1985
1988
1983
1985
1989
1980
1987
1978
1995
1994
Unit
Start
1985
1985
1991
1984
1981
1975
1977
1980
1971
1987
1985
1989
1989
1988
1988
1995
1988
1992
1958
1973
1971
1989
1981
1972
1987
1996
1996
1987
1992
1991
1982
1995
1987
1991
1995
1979
1985
1984
1989
1991
1986
1983
1987
1990
1970
1981
1998
1997
1970
1996
on/Attain
or Ozone
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
Total Plant
Capacity
(TPD)
70
50
690
300
100
70
100
50
63
380
100
1380
800
2250
650
500
2000
600
150
360
125
420
108
1000
600
600
1800
510
2250
2250
3000
750
1200
528
1200
SO
1000
60
2000
1050
150
3000
500
2160
600
50
1800
1800
1600
1600
Number
of Units
2
1
2
4
2
2
4
2
5
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
<
j
4
<
2
•:
3
t
3
;
2
1
4
1
2
3
;
3
;
'.
2
CombustorType
VIOD/SA
MOD/EA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MB/WW
too
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
MB/WW
MB/REF
MB/REF
MB/REF
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
MB/REF
MOD
MB
MB/RC
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MOD/EA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
RDF
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
MB/REF
MOD/SA
RDF
RDF
MB/WW
RDF/FB
Page 1a
07/24/96
-------
Reference Name
Juneau
Srtka
Huntsville
Tuscaloosa
Batesville
Glyttieville
North Little Rock
Ofeeola
Stuttgart
h*ommerce
Lassen Co.
Long Beach
Modesto
Bridgeport
Bristol
Lisbon
Hartford
New London Co.
Stamford 1
Stamford II
New Canaan
Walllngford
Wlndham RRF
O.C.
Pigeon Point
Sussex
Kent
Bay Co.
North Breward Co.
South Broward Co.
DadeCo.
Dade Co. Expansion
Tampa
Lake Co.
Lee Co.
Mayport
McKay Bay
Miami Airport
West Palm Beach
PaseoCo.
Monroe Co.
Wheelabrator Plnellas RRF
Savannah
Honolulu
Walpahu
Buriey
EJeardstown
Havana
Northwest
Cook Co.
Mr Pollution Control Devices
ESP
ESPDSI
FFSD
ESP
none
none
none
none
DOfW
FFSOSNCR
FFDSI
FFSDSNCR
FFSDSNCR
FFSO
FFSO
FFSOSNCR
FFSD
FFSD
ESP
ESP
WS
FFSO
FFSO
ESP
ESP
none
none
ESP
FFSD
FFSD
ESP
FFSDSNCRCI
ESP
FFSO
FFSDSNCRCI
Cye
ESP
none
ESPSD
FFSD
ESP
ESP
ESPFF(r)SD(r)
ESP SO
ESP
rwiw
FFSDSNCR
FFSDSNCR
ESP
FFSOSNCR
Owner
Channel Sanitation Corp.
Sitka
SW Disposal Authority of Huntsville
Public
City of Batesville
CityofBlytheville
Public
Public
Public
Commerce Refuse4o-Energy Authority
Lassen Community College
SERRF
Ogden Martin
Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority
Ogden Martin
Wheelabrator
Connecticut RR Authority
Connecticut RR Authority
Public
Public
Public
Ogden Projects
Public
Public
General Electric Capital SW Authority
Delaware Solid Waste Authority.
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Ford Motor Credit Corp.
Wheelabrator
Wheelabrator
DadeCo.
DadeCo.
Hillsborough Co.
Ogden Martin
Lee Co.
US Navy
City of Tampa
DadeCo.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach
PaseoCo.
Catalyst WTE Corp.
PinellasCo.
Katy-Seghers
Ford Motor Credit Corp.
City 4 County of Honolulu
Public
Energy Answer & Klrby • Coffman
Havana SW Energy Answers IncVKirby-Coffman
Cfty of Chicago
Reading Energy/Foster Wheeler
Operator
Channel Sanitation Corp.
Sheldan Jackson College
Ogden Martin
Consumat
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
LA Sanitation Dlst
Montenay Pacific Power
Ogden Martin
Wheelabrator
Ogden Martin
Wheelabrator
ABB RRS
American Ref-Fuel
Public
Public
Public
Ogden Projects
Public
Public
United Assoc. of Delaware
Westinghouse
Wheelabrator
Wheelabrator
Montenay Power Corp.
Montenay Power Corp
Ogden Martin
Ogden Martin
Ogden Martin
US Navy
Wheelabrator
DadeCo.
Babcock&Wilcox
Ogden Martin
City of Key West
Wheelabrator
Katy Industries
Ogden Martin
City (County of Honolulu
Public
Not Selected
City of Chicago
:oster Wheeler
Energy
None
Stm
Son
Stm
STM
None
Stm
Stm
None
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
None
None
None
COG
COO
None
COG
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Stm
Ele
Stm
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
COG
Ele
None
Stm
Ele
Ele
Stm
Ele
References
I.SW.Tele
LSW.Tele
I.SW
I.SW
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Report
I.SW
I.SW.Report
I.SW.Report
I.SW.Tele
I.SW
LSW.Art
I.SW
I.SW
I.SW.Fax, Memo
I.SW
I.SW.Tele
SW.Tele
SW.Fax
I.SW,ArLFax
SW.Tele
l,SW,Tele
l,SW,Art
I.SW
l,SW,Art,Fax
I.SW.Tele
I.SW.Memo
I.SW
,SW,Report.Letter
.SW
.SW.Tele
,SW
,SW
,SW
.SW.Art
.SW.Fax
.SW.ArtFax
,SW
Fax, Reg IX,Telecon
Fax
,Tele
,SW
SW.Art
SW,Art
Pagelb
-------
Reference Name
Juneau
Sitka
Huntsville
Tuscaloota
Batetvffle
Blytheville
North Little Rock
Otceola
Stuttgart
Commerce
Lassen Co.
Long Beach
Modesto
Bridgeport
Bristol
Lisbon
Hartford
New London Co.
Stamford!
Stamford II
New Canaan
Wallingford
Wfndnam RRF
D.C.
Pi jftoo Point
Sussex
Kent
Bay Co.
North Broward Co.
South Broward Co.
DadeCo.
Dade Co. Expansion
Tampa
Lake Co.
Lee Co.
Mayport
McKay Bay
Miami Airport
West Palm Beach
PascoCo.
Monroe Co.
Wheelabntor Plnellas RRF
Savannah
Honolulu
Waipahu
Buriey
Beardstown
Havana
Northwest
Cook Co.
Cyclone
Into
Cyc
Cyclone
Original
(x=orig)
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
X
I ESP I
ESP Info
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Original
(x=orig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
(y»ar)
Inactive
(year)
Fabric Filter
FFInto
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF
FF
FF
Original
(x=oria)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
(yearL
Inactive
(year)
Duct Sorbent Injection
DSI Info
OS)
DSI
Original
(x=orio7
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Page 1c
Furnace Sorbent Infection
FSI Info
Original
(x=orig)
Retrofit
(year) .
Inactive
(year)
07/24W
-------
Reference Name
Juneau
SHka
Huntevilto
Tuccatoot*
Batetville
Blytheville
North Little Rock
Oaceola
Stutt0art
Commerce
LaisanCo.
Long Beach
Modesto
Bridgeport
Bristol
Lisbon
Hartford
New London Co.
Stamford 1
Stamford II
New Canaan
Walllngford
Windham RRF
O.C.
Pigeon Point
Sussex
Kent
Bay Co.
North Broward Co.
South Broward Co.
DadeCo.
Dade Co. Expansion
Tampa
Lake Co.
Lee Co.
Mayport
McKay Bay
Miami Airport
West Palm Beach
PascoCo.
Monroe Co.
Wheelabrator Pinedas RRF
Savannah
Honolulu
Waipahu
Burtey
Beardstown
Havana
Northwest
Cook Co.
SO Info
SD
SO
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
«w»
SD
SD
SD
SD
Original
6c=ortg)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
fi«")
1996
Inactive
(year)
WSInfo
WS
Original
(x=orig)
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
1 V/»^»..rf C~,..kK-,
VSInfo
Original
-------
Reference Name
Summit
Indianapolis
Monroe
Corfaln
Loultville
Louliville
Fall River
Framlngham
Lawrence
Haverhlll
Montachusetts
North Andover
Pittsfield
Saugus
SEMASS
Agayvan
Military
HartbrdCo.
Montgomery
Pulaski
Southwest RRF
Franchville
Portland
Biddeford - Saco
Auburn
Penobscot
Wayne Co.
Clinton
Greater Detroit
Jackson
Kent
Oakland
Elk River
Fergus Falls
Hennepln Co.
Olmstead Co.
Perham
Polk Co.
Pope-Douglas
Ramsey-Washington
Red Wing
Savage Co.
Western Lake Superior
Mankato
Ft Leonard Wood
St Louis
Moss Point
Unit Name
West Suburban Recycling and Energy Center
Indianapolis RRF
Bloomington
Kentucky Energy Assoc.
Louisville Energy Generating Fac.
Louisville Incinerator
Fall River Incinerator
Framlngham
Haverhlll Lawrence RDF
Haverhill RRF
Montachusetts RRF
North Andover RESCO
Pittsfield RRF
Saugus RESCO
SEMASS RRF Untt1&2
SEMASS RRF Unit 3
Springfield RRF
WheelabratorMillbury
Harford Co. WTE Fac.
Montgomery Co. RRF
Pulaski
Southwest RRF (RESCO)
FrenchviNe
Greater Portland Region RRF
Maine Energy Recovery
Mid Maine Waste Action Corp.
9enobscot Energy Recovery Comp.
Central Wayne Co. Sanitation Auth
Clinton Township
Greater Detroit RRF Unit #1
Greater Detroit RRF Unit #2
Greater Detroit RRF Unit «
Jackson Co. RRF
Kent Co. WTE Fac.
Oakland Co. WTE Fac.
Elk River FFR
-ergus Falls
•lennepin Energy Recovery Facility
Olmstead WTE Facility
'erham Renewable RF
'oik Co. Solid Waste Resource Recovery
Pope-Douglas Solid Waste
Ramsey-Washington
ied Wing Solid Waste Boiler Facility
Richards Asphalt Co. Facility
Vestem Lake Superior Sanitary District
Wilmarth Plant
:t Leonard Wood RRF
SI Louis WTE
Pascagoula Energy Recovery Facility
County
Cook
Marion
WhWey&Knox
Jefferson
Bristol
Middlesex
Essex
Essex
Middlesex
Essex
Berkshire
Essex
Plymouth
Hampden
Worcester
Harford
Montgomery
ndependent City
Independent City
Aroostook
York
Androscoggln
Penobscot
Wayne
Macomb
Wayne
Jackson
olk
Douglas
loodhue
Soodhue
Savage
St Louis
Jlue Earth & Nicollet
>ulaskl
ndependent City
lackson
Location
Summit
Indianapolis
Certain
Louisville
Louisville
Fall River
Framlngham
Lawrence
Haverhill
Shirley
Pittsfield
Saugus
Rochester
Agawan
Millbury
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Dickerson
Baltimore
Baltimore
Frenchvllle
Portland
Biddeford - Saco
Auburn
Clinton Township
Detroit
Jackson
Grand Rapids
Auburn Hills
\noka
Fergus Falls
Minneapolis
'erham
:osston
Alexandria
tod Wing
ted Wing
Scott
Juluth
riankato
:t Leonard Wood
St Louis
toss Point
State
IL
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MS
Project
Status
P
OP
On Hold
P
On Hold
IA
OP
IA
OP
OP
uc
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
uc
OP
OP
IA
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
On Hold
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
IA
P
OP
Const
Start
1995
1986
1981
1986
1993
1982
1978
1972
1985
1985
1985
1982
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1986
1986
Unit
Start
1997
1988
1997
1995
1957
1972
1970
1984
1989
1995
1985
1981
1975
1988
1993
1986i
1987
1987
1996
1982
1935
1984
1988
1967
1992
1988
1964
1972
1988
1988
1988
1967
1990
1998
1989
1989
1989
1987
1986
1988
1987
1988
1982
1982
1985
1987
1982
1985
Non/Attaln
for Ozone
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
Page 2a
Total Plant
Capacity
(TPD)
1600
2382
300
500
250
100
600
500
710
1650
243
1500
240
1500
1800
900
390
1500
360
1800
1500
2250
50
500
600
200
700
500
600
1100
1100
1100
200
625
2000
1500
94
1200
200
114
80
72
720
72
70
260
720
76
1200
150
Number
of Units
2
3
4
2|
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
3|
2
4
5
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
i 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
CombustorType
RDF/WW
MB/WW
MB
MB
RDF/FB
Unknown
MB/REF
MB/REF
RDF
MB/WW
MB/WW
MOD/EA
RDF
MOD
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MB/REF
MB/WW
Unknown
MB/WW
RDF
MB
RDF
RDF
MB/REF
RDF
RDF
RDF
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB
RDF
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
RDF
MOD/EA
MOD
RDF
RDF
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
rnnwe
-------
Reference Name
Summit
Indianapolis
Monroe
Corbin
Louisville
Louisville
Fall River
Framingham
Lawrence
Haverhlll
Montachusetts
North Andover
PMsfield
Saugus
SEMASS
Agawan
Military
Harford Co.
Montgomery
Pulaski
Southwest RRF
Frenchville
Portland
Biddeford - Saco
Auburn
Penobscot
Wayne Co.
Clinton
Greater Detroit
Jackson
Kent
Oakland
Elk River
Fergus Falls
Hennepin Co.
Olmstead Co.
Perham
Polk Co.
Pope-Douglas
Ramsey-Washington
Red Wing
Savage Co.
Western Lake Superior
Mankato
Ft Leonard Wood
St Louis
Moss Point
Air Pollution Control Devices
FF SD SNCR
FFSD
FFSDSNCR
Cyc FF SNCR
WS
WS
FFSD
ESPFSI(r)
ESPSD
FF SD SNCR Cl
ESPFSI(r)
ESPWS
FF(r)SD(r)
ESPSD
FF SD SNCR
FFDSI
ESPSD
ESP
FFSD SNCR Cl
ESP
ESP
none
ESPSD
FFSD
FFSD
FFSD
ESP
ESP
FFMSDM
FFMSDM
FFMSDM
FFSD
FFSD
FFSDCI
=FDSI
WS
FFSD SNCR Cl(r)
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
VS
FFMSDfr)
none
FFSDSNCR
ESP
Owner
West Suburban Recycling and Energy Center
Ogden Martin
Westinghouse
Kentucky Energy Assoc.
Vedco Energy Corp.
City of Louisville
City of Fall River
Public
Ogden Martin
Ogden Martin
riRU
/Vheelabrator
Vlcon Recovery System
/Vheelabrator
SEMASS Partnership
Sprinflfwd RRF
Wheelabntor
ENSCO
YE Maryland Solid Waste Auth
'ulaski
-ord Motor Co.
AroostookCo.
Regional Waste System
Maine Energy Recovery Comp.
Mid Maine Waste Corp.
CD Energy
Central Wayne Co. Sanitation Auth
Sross Point - Clinton Refuse Disposal Auth
Philip Morris Capital Corp
Jackson Co.
tent Co.
Oakland Co.
Northern States Power & United Anoka County Power
City of Fergus Falls
Hennepin Energy Recovery Corp
Olmstead County
Quadrant Co/Ottertail Power
>dkCo
Pope-Douglas Joint Solid Waste Board
Northern States Power
City of Red Wing
Richards Asphalt
>ubllc (WLSSD)
Northern States Power
US. Army
City
CityofPascagoula
Operator
Energy Answer, Inc.
Ogden Martin
Westinghouse
Kentucky Energy Assoc.
Vedco Energy Corp.
City of Louisville
City of Fall River
Public
Ogden Martin
Ogden Martin
TIRU
Wheelabrator
Vicon Recovery System
Wheelabrator
Bechtel
Springfield RRF
Wheelabrator
ENSCO
Ogden Martin
Pulaski
Wheelabrator
^roostook Co,
Regional Waste System
KTI Energy
American Energy Corp.
ENSOCO
Central Wayne Co. Sanitation Auth
Gross Point • Clinton Refuse Disposal Auth
Ogden Martin/Michigan Waste Energy Inc.
Metcatt & Eddy Services
Ogden Martin
Not Selected
Northern States Power & United Anoka County Power
City of Fergus Falls
Ogden Martin
Olmstead County
Quadrant Co/Ottertall Power
Polk Co.
Public
•Jorthem States Power
City of Red Wing
Richards Asphalt
Public (WLSSD)
Northern States Power
Harbert International
Thermal Energy
City of Pascagoula
Energy
Ele
Stm
Cog
Ele
Stm
None
None
none
COG
Be
Ele
Ele
STM
Ele
Ele
COG
Ele
COG
Ele
None
COG
none
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
none
none
COG
COG
COG
Ele
Elec
Stm
Elec
COG
Stm
Stm
Elec
Stm
Elec
Stm
COG
References
I.SW.Tele
I,SW
1
1
SW.Tele
Fax,Art
I,SW
I.SW,Fax,Tele
I.SW
I.SW.Tele.Art
I.SW.FaxTele
l,SW,Fax,Tele
I.SW.Tele
I,SW
I.SW.Tele.Fax,Art
I.SW.Report
l,SW,Tele
l,SW,Art,Report
1, SW, Fax
1, SW
SW, Fax
I,SW
I,SW
I.SW.Tele
l,Fax
Fax
I.SW.Tele.Fax.Art
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Fax
,SW
,SW,Fax,Tele
.SW.Report
SW,Art
SW
SW.Tele
SW
SW.Tele
SWJele
SW.Fax
SW.Tele
SW.Memo
SW
SW,Tele,Fax
Page 2b
-------
Reference Name
Summit
Indianapolis
Monroe
Corbln
Louisville
.oulsvllle
Fall River
Framingham
Lawrence
Haverhlll
Montachusetts
North Andover
Pittsfleld
Saugus
SEMASS
Agawan
Military
Harford Co.
Montgomery
Pulaskl
Southwest RRF
Frenchville
Portland
Biddeford-Saco
Auburn
Penobscot
Wayne Co.
Clinton
Greater Detroit
Jackson
Kent
Oakland
Elk River
Fergus Falls
Hennepln Co.
Olmstead Co.
Perham
Polk Co.
Pope-Douglas
Ramsey-Washington
RedWing
Savage Co.
Western Lake Superior
Mankato
Ft Leonard Wood
St Louis
Moss Point
Cyclone
Cyclone
Info
Cyc
Original
0=ortB)
X
Retrofit
fiwan
Inactive
(year)
ESt>
ESP Info
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP^
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Original
OFOrig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
1883
1884
1885
1880
Fabric Filter
FFInfo
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF(r)
FF(r)
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF
Original
(x*orig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
1891
1893
1994
1995
1990
Inactive
(year)
Duct Sorbent Iniection
DSIInfo
DSI
DSI
Original
(x=orig)
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Furnace Sorbent Injection
FSI Info
FSIfr)
FSI(r)
Original
(x=orig)
Retrofit
(year)
1983
1882
Inactive
(year)
Page 2c
07/24/96
-------
Reference Name
Summit
Indianapolis
Monroe
Corbin
Louisville
Louisville
Fall River
Ffamlngham
Lawrence
Haverhill
Montachusetts
North Andover
PKtsfield
Saugus
SEMASS
Agawan
Military
Harford Co.
Montflo mcry
Pulaskl
Southwest RRF
Frenchville
Portland
Biddeford - Saco
Auburn
Penobscot
Wayne Co.
Clinton
Greater Detroit
Jackson
Kent
Oakland
Elk River
Fergus Falls
Hennepln Co.
Olmstead Co.
Perham
Polk Co.
Pope-Douglas
Ramsey-Washington
Red Wing
Savage Co.
Western Lake Superior
Mankato
Ft Leonard Wood
St Louis
Moss Point
1 ,_ Spray Dryer
SDInfo
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SU(r)
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SU(r)
SL)(r)
SU(r)
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD(r)
SD
original
-------
Reference Name
Park Co.
Fayetteville
New Hanover Co.
NIEHS
Chariotte
Wiightsville
Claremont
Camden RRF
Essex Co.
FortDix
M«rc*rCo.
Oxford Township
Albany
Babylon RRF
BettsAve.
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Cattaraugus Co.
Dutches* Co.
Glen Cove
Green Island
Green Point
Hempstead
Rochester
Long Beach
Itlip
MER
Monroe Co.
Niagara Falls
Oceanslde
OneidaCo.
Onondaga Co.
OswegoCo.
Port of Albany
Brooklyn Bay
WestehesterRESCO
Akron
Columbus
Euclid
Mad River
Unit Name
Mngston/Park County MWC
Carolina Energy Corp
ayettevttle RRF
New Hanover Co. WTE Unit 1 & 2
New Hanover Co. WTE Unit 3
NIEHS
University City RRF
Lamprey Regional SW Coop.
Pittsfield Incinerator
SES Claremont RRF
Wheelabrator Concord
Camden RRF
Essex Co. RRF
FortDix RRF
Gloucester County
Mercer County RRF
Union Co. RRF
Adirondack RRF
Albany Steam Plant
Babylon RRF
Betls Ave. Incinerator
Brooklyn Navy Yard RRF
Cattaraugus Co. WTE Plant
Dutches* Co. RRF
Glen Cove
Green Island WTE Plant
Green Point Incinerator
Hempstead
Henry St Incinerator
Huntington RRF
Kodak RRF
Long Beach RRF
MacArthurWTE
MER Expansion
Monroe Co. RRF
Niagara Falls RDF WTE
Oceanslde RRF
Onelda Co. ERF
Onondaga Co. RRF
OswegoCo. WTE
Port of Albany WTE Fac.
South West Brooklyn Incinerator
WestchesterRESCO
Akron Recycle Energy System
Euclid
Mad River RRF
ark
enoir
ew Hanover
Durham
Mecklenburg Co.
New Hanover
Sullivan
Merrimack
Camden County
Essex Co.
Burlington
Gloucester
Mercer
Union
Warren
Washington
Albany
Suffolk
Queens
Kings
Cattaraugus
Dutches* Co.
Nassau
Albany
Kings
Nassau
Kings
Suffolk
Monroe
Nassau
Suffolk
Suffolk
Monroe
Niagara
Nassau
Onelda
38WB0O
Albany
Kings
Westehester
Summit
Franklin & Falrfield
Cuyahoga
Clark
Location
Park County
Klnston
ayettevllle
Wilmington
RTP
Charlotte
Wrlghtsville Beach
Durham
Pittsfield
«1aremont
Concord
Camden
Newark
Wrightstown
Vcswille
Hamilton Township
Rahway
Oxford Township
Hudson Falls
Albany
Babylon
Queens
Brooklyn
Cuba
Poughkeepsie
Glen Cove
Green Island
Green Point
Westbury
Brooklyn
Huntington
Rochester
Long Beach
Isllp/Ronkonkoma
Islip/Ronkonkoma
Rochester
Niagara Falls
Oceanslde
Rome
Jamesville
Fulton
Port of Albany
Brooklyn Bay 41st Si
Peekskill
Akron
Columbus
Euclid
Spcinflfwld
State
MT
NC
NC
NC .
NC
NC
NC
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
Project
Status
OP
P
UC
OP
OP
OP
OP
IA
OP
IA
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
P
OP
OP
OP
IA
OP
IA
P
IA
OP
IA
P
IA
OP
IA
OP
OP
OP
OP
On Hold
IA
OP
IA
OP
UC
OP
P
IA
OP
IA
IA
IA
IP
Const
Start
1994
1993
1985
1987
1988
1988
1988
1994
1992
1986
1979
1996
1983
1979
1994
1986
1989
1985
1986
1978
1982
1983
1958
198
1971
197
1994
Unit
Start
1982
1997
1995
1984
1991
1985
1989
1977
1980
1977
1987
1989
1991
1990
1986
1990
1994
1988
1992
1981
1989
1984
1999
1983
1988
1983
1997
1959
1989
1959
1991
1970
1988
1990
1983
1981
1974
1985
1995
1981
1998
1959
1985
197
198:
195
1996
on/Attain
lor Ozone
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
^NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
otal Plant
Capacity
(TPD)
72
600
600
200
249
40
235
50
132
48
200
500
1050
2277
60
575
1450
1440
400
432
600
750
1000
3000
112
400
250
1500
100
2505
750
150
20
518
39
200
2200
750
200
99
200
1300
960
2250
1000
2000
20
1750
umber
of Units
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
j
4
4
2
5
2
2
2
I
t
;
2
!
3
3
•
2
2
CombustorType
MOD/SA
DF
DF/FB
MB/WW
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
MB/WW
MB/REF
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/RC
MB/WW
MB
Unknown
MB/WW
Jnknown
MB
RDF
MB/WW
MB/RC
MB
RDF
RDF
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB
MB/REF
MB/WW
RDF
RDF
MB/REF
MB/WW
Page 3a
-------
Reference Name
Park Co.
Klnston
Fayettevllle
New Hanover Co.
NIEHS
Charlotte
Wrlghtsville
StraffordCo.
Prttsfield
Claramont
Concord
Camden RRF
Essex Co.
FortDIx
Gloucester Co.
Mercer Co.
Union Co.
Oxford Township
Adirondack
Albany
Babylon RRF
Belts Ave.
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Cattaraugus Co.
Outchess Co.
Glen Cove
Green Island
Green Point
Hempstead
Brooklyn
Huntingdon
Rochester
Long Beach
(slip
MER
Monroe Co.
Niagara Falls
Oceanslde
OneldaCo.
Onondaga Co.
OswegoCo.
Port of Albany
Brooklyn Bay
WestohesterRESCO
Akron
Columbus
Euclid
Mad River
Air Pollution Control Devices
none
FFDSISNCRCI
D9SNCRCI
ESPSD(r)
FFSDSNCR
none
ESP
none
Cve
none
FFDSI
FFOSI
ESPSD
ESP SO
FFWS
FFSD
FFSDSNCRCI
FFSDSNCRCI
FFSD
ESPSD
ESP
FFSD
ESP
FFSDSNCRCI
none
FFDSI
FF(r)DSI
FFSDSNCR
ESP
FFSD
ESP
FFSDSNCR
ESP
ESP
FFDSI
FF
none
ESP
ESP
ESP
FFSDSNCRCI
ESP
FFSDSNCRCI
FF(r) DSI(r) SD(f) SNCR(r) Cl(r)
ESP
ESP
ESP FF(r) SD(r)
ESP
FFSDSNCR O
Owner
Park County
Carolina
BCH Energy Limited Partnership
NMV HvnovBf Co.
NIEHS
Mecklenburg Co.
Town of Wrlghtsville Beach
Lamprey Regional SW Coop
Town of PMjfwtd
Wheelabrator
Wheelabrator
Camden Co. Energy Recovery Assc.
RRPortAuthofNYandNJ
U.S. Army
Wheelabrator
Mercer Co.
Union Co. Utilities Authority
Warren Co. Resource Sorp
Wheelabrator
State of New York
Ofldon Msftin
City of NY
Wheelabrator
Cattaraugus Co.
Outchess Co.
City of Glen Cove
American Ref-Fuel
NYC Dept of Sanitation
American Ref-Fuel
NYC Dept of Sanitation
Huntington & Ogden Martin
Kodak
ERDMgmtCorp.
telipRR
(slip RR Agency
Monroe Co.
American Ref-Fuel
Township of Hempstead
Onelda-Herklmer Solid Waste Mgt
Ogden Martin
OswegoCo.
30040 Mlluft
NYC Dept Sanitation
Wheelabrator
City of Akron
City of Columbus
City of Euclid
Ohio Edison Co.
Operator
Park County
Quixx Power
Quixx Power
Mew Hanover Co. .
Private
MX Ferguson
Town of Wrightsvilte Beach
Public
TownofPtttsfleld
Wheelabrator
Wheelabrator
Camden Co. Energy Recovery Assc.
American Ref-Fuel
North America RR Corp.
Wheelabrator
Odgen Martin
Ogden Martin
Ogden Martin
Wheelabrator
State of New York
Ogden Martin
City of NY
Wheelabrator
Kinetic Tech. International
Westinghouse Subsidiary
PSC Environmental Services
Not Selected
NYC Dept of Sanitation
American Ref-Fuel
NYC Dept of Sanitation
Ogden Martin
Kodak
ERDMgmtCorp.
Montenayftllp
Montenay
American Ref-Fuel
Township of Hempstead
Onelda-Herklmer Solid Waste Mgt
Ogden Martin
OswegoCo.
Ogden Martin
NYC Dept Sanitation
Wheelabrator
WTECorp
City of Columbus
City of Euclid
Ogden Martin Systems of Clark
Energy
None
Stm
COG
COG
Heat
COG
u___
PfOfW
Stm
None
Be
Ele
Ele
Ele
Stm
COG
Ele
Ele
Be
Ele
Stm
Ele
Stm
Stm
Stm
COG
Ele
Ele
None
Ele
None
Ele
COG
COG
Ele
Ele
Ele
COG
COG
COG
Ete
COG
COG
Adding in 1998
Ele
Stm/Heat
El*
None
Ele
References
I.Fax
Tele
l,SW.Tele,Art
rele.Memo.Report
Tel,Letter
l,SW.Tele,Fax
SW,Tele,Letter
I.SW.Fax
SW.Tele.Fax
l,SW,Tele
I, SW, Tele
I.SW.Art
l,SW,Tele
I.SW.Tele
I.SW
l,SW.Tele,Art
I.SW.ReportArt
I.SW
I.SW.Report
l,SW,Fax
I,SW
I.SW,Fax,Art
I.SW.Art
I.SW
I,SW
l,Fax
I.SW
SW.Art
I,SW
l,SW,Tde,Report
SW
l,SW,Tele,Fax,Art
,SW
SW
.SW.Teto.Fax.Art
SW
,SW,Tele
,SW,Report,Art
,SW,Art
.SW
,SW,Fax,Teto
.SW
,SW,Tete
.SW
SW
.SW.BACT.Art
Page 3b
-------
Reference Name
Park Co.
Klnston
Fayetteville
New Hanover Co.
NIEHS
Charlotte
Wrfghtsville
Stafford Co.
Ptttsfield
Claremont
Concord
Camden RRF
Essex Co.
FortDix
Gloucester Co.
Mercer Co.
Union Co.
Oxford Township
Adirondack
Babylon RRF
BottsAve.
Brooklyn Navy Yard
CattarauflusCo.
Dutches* Co.
Glen Cove
Green Island
Green Point
Hempstead
Brooklyn
Huntfngton
Rochester
Long Beach
Islip
MER
Monroe Co.
Niagara Falls
Oceanslde
Onelda Co.
Onondaga Co.
OswegoCo.
Port of Albany
Brooklyn Bay
WestehesterRESCO
Akron
Columbus
Euclid
Mad River
Cyclone
Info
Cyc
origTSiT
<**orfg)
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
frear)
1 EEB
ESP Info
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Original
(x=erig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•Ribofir
ftwr)
Inactive
&*»')
1894
1991
I tr-l— 1- +m—
FFInfo
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF(f)
FF
Original
(x=orig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ReiofT
(y«»r)
1994
199S
1995
Inactive
(year)
OSIInfo
DSI
DSI
DSI
DSI
DSI
DSI
DSI
DSI(r)
Original
(rang)
X
X
X
X
X
X I
X
Retrofit
(year)
1995
Inactive
(year)
FSIInfo
Page 3c
naceson
Original
(x=orlg)
pent injeci
Retrofit
(year)
lion
Inactive
(year)
-------
Reference Name
Park Co.
Kinston
Fayettevllle
New Hanover Co.
NIEHS
Charlotte
Wrightsville
Stafford Co.
Pttttfield
Claremont
Concord
Camden RRF
Essex Co.
FortOix
Gloucester Co.
Mercer Co.
Union Co.
Oxford Township
Adirondack
Albany
Babylon RRF
Belts Awe.
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Cattaraugus Co.
Dutches* Co.
Glen Cove
Green Island
Green Point
Hernpstead
Brooklyn
Huntington
Rochester
Long Beach
(slip
MER
Monroe Co.
Niagara Falls
Oceanslde
OneldaCo.
Onondaga Co.
OswegoCo.
Port of Albany
Brooklyn Bay
WestchesterRESCO
Akron
Columbus
Euclid
Mad River
Spray Dryer
SO Mo
SD(r)
SD
SD
SO
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
sow
SD(r)
SD
Original
0(=orig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
1681
1995
1996
Inactive
(year)
Wet Scrubber
WSInfo
WS
Original
Gloria)
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Venturi Scrubber
VSInto
Original
-------
Reference Name
Montgomery Co. North
Montgomery Co. South
Miami
Tulsa
Coos Bay
Marlon Co.
Delaware Co.
Qlendon
Harrisburg
Lancaster Co.
Montgomery Co.
Potter Co.
Westmoreland
Falls Township
York Co.
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
San Juan
Central Falls
Johnston
North Kingston
Quonset Point
Hampton Co.
Charleston
Dyersburg RRF
Lewisburg
Nashville
Gallatin
Shelby Co.
Clebume
Panola Co.
Waxahachle
Davis Co.
Alexandria
Galax City SW Steam Recovery Unit
Harrisonburg
Henri co
Fairfax
Hampton
Norfolk Navy Yard
Manassass
Salem
Norfolk Naval Station
Pentagon
Rutland
Fort Lewis
Unit Name
Montgomery Co. North RRF Unit #1
Montgomery Co. North RRF Unit «
Montgomery Co. North RRF Unit #3
Montgomery Co. South RRF Unit #1
Montgomery Co. South RRF Unit #2
Montgomery Co. South RRF Unit #3
Miami RRF
Walter B. Hall RRF
Coos Bay Incinerator
Marion Co. WTE
Delaware Co. RRF
Glendon RR Project
HarrisburgWTE
Lancaster Co. RRF
Montgomery Co. RRF
Potter Co. RR
Westmoreland WTE Fac.
Wheelabrator Falls RRF
York Co. RR Center
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
San Juan
Central Falls RRF
Johnston RRF
North Kingston Solid Waste Fae.
Quonset Point RRF
Chamber Medical Tech. of SC
Foster Wheeler Charleston RR
Dyersburg RRF
Lewisburg RRF
Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp
Resource Authority in Sumner Co.
Center RRF
City of Clebume
Panola Co. WTE
Waxahachle Solid Waste RR
Davis Co. WTE
Alexandria/Arlington RRF
Galax City SW Steam Recovery Unit
Harrisonburg RRF
HenricoCo. RRF
1-95 Energy RRF
NASA Refuse-fired Steam Generator
Norfolk Navy Yard
Prince William and London Counties
Salem Waste Disposal Energy Recovery
Norfolk Naval Station
Arlington - Pentagon
Rutland RR Center
Fort Lewis RRF
County
Montgomery Co.
Montgomery Co.
Ottawa
Tulsa & Osage
Coqullle
Marion
Delaware
Northhampton
Dauphin
Lancaster Co.
Montgomery Co.
Potter Co.
Westmoreland
Bucks
York Co.
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
^rovidence
Providence
Washington
Hampton
Charleston
Dyes
Marshall
Davidson
Sumner
Shelby
Johnson
Panola
Ellis
Davis
Alexandria
Grayson
Rockingham
Henrico
Fairfax
Independent City
Independent City
Independent City
Roanoke
Independent City
Arlington
Rutland
Pierce
Location
Dayton
Dayton
Miami
Tulsa
Coqullte
Brooks
Chester
Glendon
Harrisburg
Balnbridge
Conshohoken
Greensburg
Falls Township
Manchester Township
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
San Juan
Central Falls
Johnston
North Kingston
Quonset Point
Hampton
Charleston
Dyersburg
Lewisburg
Nashville
Gallatin
Center
Clebume
Carthage
Waxahachle
Layton
Alexandria
Galax
Harrisonburg
Richmond
Lofton
Hampton
Norfolk
Manassass
Salem
Norfolk Naval Station
Arlington - Pentagon
Rutland
Fort Lewis
State
OH
OH
OK
OK
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PR
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
WA
Project
Status
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
P
OP
OP
OP
P
OP
OP
OP
IA
IA
P
P
P
P
P
OP
OP
IA
IA
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
IA
OP
OP
IA
OP
IA
OP
OP
OP
P
IA
IA
OP
IA
UC
Const
Start
1967
1967
1967
1967
1984
1964
1988
1989
1987
1987
1994
1985
1987
1980
1983
1985
1988
1984
Unit
Start
1970
1970
1988
1970
1970
1988
1982
1986
1980
1986
1992
1995
1972
1991
1992
1987
1994
1989
1965
1965
1997
1986
1989
1980
1980
1974
1981
1986
1988
1986
1982
1988
1988
1986
1982
1983
1990
1980
1988
1978
1967
1955
1987
1996
Non/Attaln
for Ozone
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NA
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
Total Plant
Capacity
(TPD)
300
300
300
300
300
300
105
1125
125
550
2686
500
720
1200
1200
48
50
1500
1344
750
750
1200
750
750
750
710
270
600
100
60
1050
200
40
115
40
50
400
975
56
100
250
3000
200
2000
1700
100
360
50
240
120
Number
of Units
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
6
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
2
4
4
2
1
2
3
CombustorType
MB/RC/REF
MB/RC/REF
MB/RC/REF
MB/RC/REF
MB/RC/REF
MB/RC/REF
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MB/RC/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MOD
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MB/RC/WW
MB/WW
MW/WW
MB/WW
MB
MB/WW
MB
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MOD
MB/WW
MB/RC
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MB/REF
MB/WW
MB/RC/WW
MB/WW
RDF/FB
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/WW
MOD/SA
MB/MOD
MB/WW
Page 4a
07/2*96
-------
Reference Name
Montgomery Co. North
Montgomery Co. South
Miami
Turn
Coos Bay
Marion Co.
Delaware Co.
Glendon
Harrisburg
Lancaster Co.
MontgomeiyCo.
Potter Co.
Westmoreland
:all* Township
York Co.
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
San Juan
Central Falls
Johnston
^loitn KinQston
Quonset Point
Hampton Co.
Charleston
Dyersburg RRF
Lewlsburg
Nashville
Gallatin
Shelby Co.
Clebume
Panola Co.
Waxahachto
Davis Co.
Alexandria
Galax City SW Steam Recovery Unit
Harrisonburg
Henrico
Fairfax
Hampton
Norfolk Navy Yard
Manassass
Salem
Norfolk Naval Station
Rutland
Fort Lewis
Air Pollution Control Devices
ESP FSI
ESPFSI
ESP FSI
ESPFSI
ESP FSI
ESP FSI
none
ESP
none
FFSD
FFSD
FFSDSNCRCI
ESP
FFSD
FFSD
FFSD
ESP
FF SD SNCR Cl
FFSD
ESP
ESP
FFSDSNCRCI
none
FFSDSNCRCI
none
FFSDSNCRCI
ESPDSISD
ESPSD
none
VIS
ESP
ESP
WS
ESP
WS
none
ESPDSI
ESPDSId(r)
FF
ESP
none
FFSD
ESP
ESPFF(r)SD(r)
FFSDSNCRCI
none
ESPSD(r)
none
ESPWS
FFSD SNCR
Owner
Montgomery Co.
Montgomery Co.
City of Miami
CD Group
Coos Co.
Oflden Martin
Chester SWA
Glendon Energy
City of Harrisburg
Lancaster Co. SW Mgt Authority
Montenay
Potter Co.
Westmoreland Co.
rVheelabrator
York Co.
Public
Public
Northwestern RR Corp.
Rl Solid Waste Mgt Corp
Chambers Development
AT&T Charleston Co.
City of Dyenburg
City of Lewlsburg
Nashville and Davidson Co.
Resource Authority In Sumner Co.
City of Center
City of Clebume
City of Carthage
CityofWaxahachie
Davis Co. SW Mgt
Oflden Martin
City of Galax
City of Harrisonburg
CAQ Partnership
Ogden Martin
NASA/City of Hampton
US Navy
Prince William/London Counties
City of Salem
US Navy
Pentagon
Vermont Integrated Waste Solutions
US Army
Operator
Montgomery Co.
Montgomery Co.
Consumat
Ogden Martin
Coos Co.
Ogden Martin
Westinghouse Subsidiary
Not Selected
City of Harrisburg
Ogden Martin
Montenay
Not yet selected
Schneider Engineering
Wheelabrator
Westinghouse
Public
Public
Montenay Power Corp
Ogden Martin
CMTofSC
Foster Wheeler
City of Dyersburg
CityofLewisburg
Nashville Thermal Transfer
Resource Authority in Sumner Co.
City of Center
City of Clebume
City of Carthage
CityofWaxahachie
Davis Co. SW Mgt
Ogden Martin
City of Galax
Ctty of Harrisonburg
CAG Partnership
Ogden Martin
City of Hampton
US Navy
Not Selected
City of Salem
US Navy
Pentagon
Vermont Integrated Waste Solutions
US Army
Energy
Ele (unit 3 only)
None
Stm
COG
None
Ele
Ele
Ele
COG
Ele
Ele
COG
Ele.
Ele
None
None
COG
Ele
Ele.
Ele
COG
Stm
COG
Stm
Stm
COG
COG
Stm
Ele
Stm
Stm
Stm
Ele
Stm
COG
Ele
Stm
Ele
COG
Stm
Stm
None
Ele
Stm
References
,SW
,SW
,SW,Fax
l,SW,Fax,Tele
l,SW,Tele,Fax
I,SW
I.SW
I.SW
I.SW.Art
I.SW.Report
I,SW
SW
I.SW.Tele
l,SW.Tele,Art
I,SW
Tele.Fax
Fax
I.Art
SW
SW
SW
SW
I.SW.Tele.Memo
I,SW
SW.Memo
I,SW
l,SW,Tele,Memo,Art
l,SW,Fax,Memo
I.SW.Fax
l,SW,Fax
I.SW.Fax
l,SW,Memo
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Fax
SW
I.SW
I.SW
Letters from Dept APC of VA
I.SW
I.SW.Fax
Fax
1
I.SW.Tele.Fax
l,SW.Tele,Fax
Page4b
-------
Reference Nam*
Montgomery Co. North
Montgomery Co. South
Miami
Tulsa
Coos Bay
Marion Co.
Delaware Co.
Glendon
Harrisburg
Lancaster Co.
Montgomery Co.
Potter Co.
Westmoreland
Falls Township
York Co.
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
San Juan
Central Falls
Johnston
North Kingston
Quonset Point
Hampton Co.
Charleston
Dyersburg RRF
Lewlsburg
Nashville
Gallatin
Shelby Co.
Ctebume
Panola Co.
Waxahachto
Davis Co.
Alexandria
Oalax City SW Steam Recovery Unit
Ham'sonburg
Henrico
Fairfax
Hampton
Norfolk Navy Yard
Manassass
Salem
Norfolk Naval Station
Pentagon
Rutland
Fort Lewis
Cyclone
Info
Original
0<=ortg)
Retrofit
drear)
Inactive
(year)
[ ESS
ESP Info
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Original
CK=orig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
fywr)
Inactive
(year)
FFInfo
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF(r)
FF
FF
Original
(x=orig)
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
1995
Inactive
(year)
DSIInfo
DSI
DSI
DSI
Original
(x=orig)
x
x
x
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Fur
FSIInfo
FSI
FSI
FSI
FSI
FSI
FSI
Page4c
naceson
Original
(x=ortg)
x
X ]
X
X
x
aent mjeci
Retrofit
(year)
ton
Inactive
(year)
-------
Reference Name
Montgomery Co. North
Montgomery Co. South
Miami
Tulsa
Coos Bay
Marion Co.
Delaware Co.
Glendon
Harrisburg
Lancaster Co.
Montgomery Co.
Potter Co.
Westmoreland
Falls Township
York Co.
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
San Juan
Central Falls
Johnston
North Kingston
Quonset Point
Hampton Co.
Charleston
Dyersburg RRF
Lewlsburg
Nashville
Gallatln
Shelby Co.
Cteburne
Panola Co.
Waxahachie
Davis Co.
Alexandria
Galax City SW Steam Recovery Unit
Harrisonburg
Henrico
Fairfax
H&rnpton
Norfolk Navy Yard
Manassass
Salem
Norfolk Naval Station
Pentagon
Rutland
Fort Lewis
SDInfo
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
so
SD
SO
SD
SD
SD
SD(r)
SD
SD(r)
SD
Spray Dryer
Original
-------
Reference Name
Bellingham
SkagitCo.
Spokane
Tacoma
Barren Co.
LaCrost e Co.
Madison
StCroixCo.
Waukesha
Winnebago
Sheboygan
Unit Name
Recomp Bellingham RRF
SkagitCo. RRF
Spokane Regional Disposal Fac.
Tacoma
Barren Co. WTE Fac.
laCrosse Co.
Madison Power Plant
Muscoda RRF
StCroixCo-WTEFac.
Waukesha RRF
Winnebago
Sheboygan
County
Whatcom
SkagitCo.
Spokane
Pierce
Barren
LaCrosse Co.
Dane
Grant
StCroix
Waukesha
Winnebago
Sheboygan
Location
Bellingham
Mt Vemon
Spokane
Tacoma
Mmena
French Island
Muscoda
Waukesha
Winnebago
Sheboygan
State
WA
WA
WA
WA
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Project
Status
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
IA
IA
OP
IA
P
OP
Const
Start
1969
1986
1980
Unit
Start
1986
1988
1991
1991
1986
1988
1979
1989
1988
1971
1965
Non/Attain
for Ozone
NON
NON
NON
Total Plant
Capacity
(TPD)
100
178
800
300
100
400
120
120
115
175
500-1000
216
Number
of Units
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
CombustwType
MOD/SA
4B/WW
MB/WW
CofiredRDF/FB
MOD/SA
RDF/FB
CofindRDF
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MB/REF
MB/REF
Page 5a
-------
Reference Name
Belllngham
SkagttCo.
Spokane
Tacoma
BanonCo.
LaCrosse Co.
Madison
Museoda
StCroixCo.
Waukesha
Winnebago
Sheboygan
Air Pollution Control Devices
FFWS
FFSD
FF SO SNCR
FFOSI
ESP
DSI EGB
ESP
FFOSI
FFDSI
ESP
none
WS
Owner
Recomp of Washington
SkagttCo.
City of Spokane
Tacoma City lights
Barren Co.
Northern States Power
Madison Gas & Electric
Museoda Solid Waste Commission
American Resource Recovery
City of Waukesha
Public
Operator
Recomp of Washington
SkagttCo.
Wheelabrator
Tacoma City lights .
Consumat Systems Inc
Northern States Power
Madison Gas & Electric
Museoda Solid Waste Commission
American Resource Recovery
City of Waukesha
Public
Energy
Ete
Ele
Ele
Ele
COO
Ele
Ele
COO
COO
Stm
None
References
I.SW.Fax, Art
l,SW,Te!e
I.SW.Report
I.Tele
l,SW,F«x
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Tele.Fax
l,SW,Tel«
I.SW.Fax
I.SW.Fax
Page 5b
-------
Reference Name
SkagttCo.
Spokane
Tacoma
Barren Co.
LaCrone Co.
Muscoda
St Croix Co.
Waukesha
Winnebago
Sheboygan
Cyclone
Cyclone
Original
(x=orig)
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Original
(x*orig)
X
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Fabric Filter
FFInto
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
Original
-------
Reference Name
Bellingham
SkagltCo.
Spokane
Tacoma
Barren Co.
LaCrone Co.
Madison
Muscoda
StCrorxCo.
Waukesha
Winnebago
Sheboygan
Spray Dryer
SO Info
SO
SO
Original
(x=orig)
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Wet Scrubber
WSInfo
WS
WS
Original
OForfg)
X
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Venturi Scrubber
VSInfo
Original
0c=orifl)
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Electrified Gravel Bed
EGBInto
EGB
Original
(x=orkj)
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
SNCR
SNCRInf
SNCR
Original
fJForig)
X
Retrofit
(year)
Inactive
(year)
Reagent
Type
NH3
Carbon Injection
Cllnfo
Ofiyirul
(x=orfg)
Retrofit
(year)
tractive
b«ar)
Page 5d
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR DATABASE
GUIDE TO COLUMN HEADINGS AND ABBREVIATIONS
-------
Attachment 2
Municipal Waste Combustor Database
Guide to Column Headings and Abbreviations
The following is a key to the information found in each
column of the database. The information in this guide is
arranged in the same order as the columns of the database when
the columns of the database are read from left to right.
Reference name: A shortened name for the MWC facility, developed
by Radian from the unit name or the location of the MWC
facility.
Unit name: The name of the MWC facility specified by the
owner/operator or as it appears on permits.
County: The county in which the MWC facility is located. This
was identified from the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas, if
the location of the MWC facility was known, or from the unit
name if the county is part of the unit name, e.g., Kent
County Waste to Energy Facility.
Location: The city or town in which the MWC facility is located.
The county was entered as the city if the city could not be
identified.
State: The State in which the MWC facility is located.
Project Status: The project status (e.g., operating or planning)
of the MWC facility or unit, as follows:
OP: Operating. The MWC facility (or unit, if the
multiple units at the facility are listed
separately in the database) is operating.
IA: Inactive. The MWC facility is inactive and is
no longer operating. The facility may or may
not have been demolished.
IR: The entire facility is in the process of being
retrofit.
P: In planning. Plans for a new MWC facility or
unit may be at various stages of development,
including preliminary discussions with a
municipality regarding a new MWC facility or
submission of permit applications to begin
construction.
OH: On hold. Plans for a new MWC facility or unit
-------
are suspended indefinitely or permanently.
When it could be determined that plans have
been permanently suspended (i.e., a project has
been canceled) the MWC facility or unit was not
entered into the database.
UC: Under construction. The MWC facility or unit
was physically under construction at the time
the data were collected.
Const, start: The date that construction started for the MWC
facility or unit. This could not be determined
for all MWC facilities.
Unit start: The year in which the MWC facility began
operating commercially. If separate lines
are provided in the database for individual
units with different starting dates, then the
starting date is indicated for each unit.
Non/Attain. for Ozone: Designation of whether the MWC facility
is located in an ozone non-attainment area. Attainment
status was determined according to the county in which the
MWC is located, using the attached list of ozone
non-attainment areas. MWC facilities located in
non-attainment areas are designated as "NON"; all others are
assumed to be in attainment areas.
Total plant capacity (TPD) : Capacity of the MWC facility in tons
per day. If separate lines are provided in the database for
individual units, then the capacity of each unit is
indicated.
Number of Units: The number of units at the MWC facility. This
information was not available for all MWC facilities.
Combustor Type: The types of combustors utilized at the facility
as follows:
Incinerator: MWC's with no energy recovery.
MB: Mass burn. Typically with a single combustion
chamber, constructed on-site and with energy
recovery.
MB/RC: Mass burn/rotary combustor.
MB/RTY: Mass burn/rotary combustor.
MB/RC/WW: MB/RC water wall combustion with energy
recovery.
MB/RC/REF: MB/RC refractory combustor without energy
recovery.
A_2
-------
MB/REF: Mass burn/refractory; those designated as
"Incinerator" are most likely MB/REF.
MB/WW: Mass burn/water-wall; similar to MB but known
to have a water-wall combustion chamber.
MOD: Modular combustors typically with two stage combustion,
fabricated in a shop and erected in the field. May
also be MOD/SA (modular starved air) or MOD/EA (modular
excess air). Those units known to be built by Consumat
were assumed to be MOD/SA. Modular combustors may have
energy recovery.
MOD/SA: See MOD.
MOD/EA: See MOD.
RDF: Refuse-derived fuel. Facility with extensive
front-end waste processing and a dedicated
boiler for combusting prepared fuel on-site.
Does not include those facilities that combust
less than 10 percent waste with other fuels
(e.g., coal).
RDF/FB: Refuse derived fuel/fluidized bed combustor.
Co-fired RDF: A facility that combusts a mixture of at
least 10 percent RDF with other fuels, such
as coal.
NA: The combustor type is not available.
Air Pollution Control Devices: These are designated by the
abbreviations listed below. An "(r)" following an
abbreviation indicates that it is a retrofitted control. If
the startup date of the retrofitted control is expected to
be post-1994, then both the original and the retrofit
controls may be displayed, e.g., ESP FF(r).
For each type of control device listed below, the primary
pollutant or set of pollutants that the control device acts
upon (i.e., reduces) is mentioned for the sake of
comparison.
CI: Activated carbon injection for mercury control.
Cyc: Cyclone particle separator for particulate
matter (PM) control.
DSI: Dry sorbent injection for acid gas control.
EGB: Electrified gravel bed for PM control.
Pj/f»-09 A-3
-------
ESP: Electrostatic precipitator for PM control.
FF: Fabric filter baghouse for PM control.
FSI: Furnace sorbent injection for acid gas control.
SD: Spray dryer (lime slurry injection into a
dedicated reaction chamber) for acid gas
control.
SNCR: Selective non-catalytic reduction for nitrogen
oxide control.
WS: Wet scrubber for acid gas control.
None: No air pollution controls in place or
planned.
Owner: The owner of the MWC facility. When the owner of the MWC
facility is not known, an "NA" is specified; however, if it
is known whether the owner is a private interest or a public
municipality or agency, "private" or "public" is specified.
Operator: The operator of the MWC facility. When the operator
of the MWC facility is now known, an "NA" is specified;
however if it is known whether the operator is a private
interest or a public municipality or agency, "private" or
"public" is specified.
Energy: The type of energy produced, if the MWC facility has
energy recovery, is as follows:
None: The MWC facility has no energy recovery.
COG: The MWC facility produces both electricity and
steam.
ELE: The MWC facility produced electricity.
STM: The MWC facility produced steam, other than for
generating electricity.
Hot Water: The MWC facility produces hot water, generally
for in-house use.
NA/ND: The type of energy produced is not available or
there are no data, respectively.
References: The sources from which the information in the
database was obtained. Copies of all references are
included in the notebooks containing the raw data sheets.
References specific to each plant (i.e., Fax, Tele, Art, and
Memo) are kept in a separate notebook section for each
plant. If the only reference for an MWC facility is the
PJ/8M9 A-4
-------
1992 database, then this is listed as the reference.
I: The Integrated Waste Services Association
Municipal Waste Combustion Directory: 1993
Update of U.S. Plants.
SW: The Solid Waste & Power 1993 Energy-from-Waste
Activity Report.
Fax: Information sent by facsimile transmission from
an EPA regional office, the plant itself, or a
State or local agency.
Tele: A telephone conversation with an EPA regional
office, the plant itself, or a State or local
agency.
Art: An article or news item from a magazine or
journal.
Report: NOX Control Technologies Applicable to
Municipal Waste Combustion. Prepared by Radian
Corporation for the Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory (EPA) and National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE). August
1994.
Memo: EPA technical memoranda.
The columns in the database following the "References"
column provide additional information about the air pollution
control device(s) (APCD) specified in the "Air Pollution Control
Devices" column for each MWC facility. For each APCD listed
under the "Air Pollution Control Devices" column for a given
facility, the columns following the "References" column specify
whether the APCD was installed before the facility started
operation (i.e., was the "original" control device) or was
installed after the facility started operation, in some cases
replacing another type of APCD that had the purpose of
controlling the same set of pollutants (i.e., was "retrofitted"
on an existing facility).
The columns following the "References" column consist of 11
groups of columns, each group representing an APCD. All APCDs
specified in the "Air Pollution Control Devices" column are
represented in these 11 groups. Each of the 11 groups of columns
representing an APCD consists of four columns that specify the
following information:
[APCD] Info: Indicates whether the given type of APCD is
currently being utilized or is planned to be
utilized at the facility. The APCD specified
B/83-09 A-5
-------
in this column may be either the original APCD
(see "Original" below) or a retrofit APCD (see
"Retrofit" below), in which case an "(r)" is
placed next to the control device to specify
its retrofit status.
*[Note: In the spreadsheet, "APCD" is replaced with the
abbreviation for the actual name of the control device.
Original: An "x" indicates that the control device is the
original control device on the facility.
Retrofit: Indicates the year of the retrofit, if the
control device was retrofitted or is planned to
be retrofitted (post-1994). As described above
under the explanation of the column "Air
Pollution Control Devices," if the year
specified for the retrofit is post-1994, then
both the original control device and the
planned retrofit control device are indicated
in that column of the spreadsheet. However, if
the retrofit has already been performed (i.e.,
the date specified is pre-1995), then the
retrofit control device is indicated in the
columns "Air Pollution Control Devices" and
"[APCD] Info" (as mentioned below under
"Inactive.")
Inactive: Indicates the year that a control device was
inactivated, due to its replacement with
another type of control device (retrofit). If
a control device has been inactivated, the
control device is not indicated in the "Air
Pollution Control Devices" or "[APCD] Info"
columns, and is mentioned only in terms of the
date it was inactivated.
Additionally, an extra column is added to the group of
columns dedicated to describing the status of SNCR for NOX
control at an MWC facility. The column is labeled as "Reagent"
and specifies which SNCR reagent (i.e., ammonia [NHs] or urea) is
utilized at the facility.
A-6
-------
Appendix F2
1996 IWSA Inventoiy of MWC Plants
-------
The 1996 IWSA Municipal
Waste Combustion Directory Of
United States
Facilities*
Graphic
By Alysha Taylor
& Maria Zannes
34 States with MWC plants in operation
The 1996 Directory revises the IWSA survey completed in March, 1995.
Written surveys were sent to operating and planned municipal waste
combustor facilities in the United States and its territories. This was
followed by telephone polling to every facility not initially responding to
the survey as well interviewing appropriate state and local agencies.
IWSA also reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
municipal waste combustion inventory, as well as local and national
media reports.
1996 Municipal Waste
Combustion Facility Status
There are 146 Municipal
Waste Combustion (MWC)
facilities operating in the U.S. (See
Table 1). MWC facilities include
the following technologies:
• Mass Burn (MB) waste-to-
energy plants that generate
electricity or steam from
garbage by feeding mixed
municipal waste into large
furnaces dedicated solely to
burning trash.
• Refuse-derived fuel
Processing (RDF-P) waste-to-
energy plants that remove
recyclable or unbumable
1. Annual capacity equals daily design capacity multiplied by 365 (days/year) multiplied by 85%. materials and shred or process
Eighty-five percent of design capacity is a typical system guarantee of annual facility throughput. me rest of the trash into a
2. Includes incinerator, modular, mass burn and all types of RDF plants. . - ~ .
3. Does not include RDF-Processing plants. uniionn luei.
4. Does not include RDF-Processing plants or Incinerators.
Source: Alysha Taylor & Maria Zannes, Integrated Waste Services Association, 5/96.
TABLE 1
Ooeratina MWC Plants
TECHNOLOGY
Incinerator
Modular
Mass Burn
RDF Process &
Combustion
RDF-Processing Only
RDF-Combustion Only
Total US Plants2
MWC Facilities3
WTE Facilities4
bv Technoloav
#OF
OPERATING
PLANTS
21
21
70
15
11
8
146
135
114
DAILY
DESIGN CAPACITY
(tons)
2,881
2,529
72,813
22,584
4,528
2.995
108,330
103,802
100,921
Annual
Capacity
(million tons)1
0.9
0.8
22.6
7.0
1.4
0.9
33.6
32.2
31.3
(* This update reflects the status of MWC
facilities in the U.S. as of May, 1996 and is
based on the best available information at
that date.)
• Refused-derived fuel
-------
Combustion (RDF-C) waste-
to-energy plants that combust
RDF to generate electricity or
steam.
• Modular (MOD) waste-to-
energy plants that are similar to
mass bum plants, but these
smaller plants are
prefabricated and can be
quickly assembled where they
are needed.
• Incinerators (INCIN) that
combust trash but do not
recover energy from waste.
Of these MWC facilities, 135
plants are combusting garbage
(including mass bum, RDF-
combustion, modular, and
incinerators) and an additional 11
facilities process trash into an
RDF fuel in furnaces dedicated to
bum the RDF or in furnaces that
also bum coal or other waste-fuels.
A total of 114 waste-to-energy
facilities are operating, excluding
RDF-processing plants and
incinerators.
Nearly 32 million tons of
trash, or 15% of America's
waste, is being used as fuel to
generate energy equivalent to
meet the power needs of 1.2
million homes and businesses
across the country. Waste-to-
energy plants generate more than
2,650 megawatts of electricity and
nearly 1.4 million pounds of steam
per hour. America's trash is used
as fuel to replace approximately 30
million barrels of crude oil
annually.
More than 41 million people in
34 states safely dispose of their
trash at municipal waste
combustor facilities. More than
1,600 communities are served by
waste-to-energy facilities, as well
as 57 communities that rely on an
incinerator to dispose of their
municipal solid waste.
Communities with waste-to-
energy plants recycle an average
of 26% of their trash, up a
percentage point from last year and
four percentage points higher than
the national average of 22%,
according to the U.S. EPA. More
than 850,000 tons of waste is
recycled on-site at waste-to-
energy plants, including glass,
metals, paper, plastic, batteries,
yard waste and white goods.
Waste-to-energy facilities
nationwide recycle nearly 740,000
tons of ferrous metal annually as
part of the combustion process.
Although the number of
municipal waste combustion
facilities decreased, from 148 to
135, since publication of the 1995
MWC Directory, the annual
disposal capacity of combustion
facilities increased from 31.4
million tons of waste per year to
32.2 million tons per year.
Annual design capacity
reported in this Directory assumes
85 percent availability of design
capacity. Eighty five percent
availability is a typical system
guarantee. Responses to surveys
indicate that the amount of waste
processed at waste-to-energy
facilities nationwide averages
slightly more than 85 percent of
rated design capacity.
The amount of trash being
turned into energy also
increased from last year, with
more than 31 million tons of
trash each year generating
power as compared to slightly
more than 30 million tons per year
in 1995. More than 101,000 tons
of refuse each day is now being
converted into energy as compared
to slightly less than 97,000 tons
per day in 1995.
The increase in the 1996
municipal waste combustion
capacity reflects start-up of larger,
more modem waste-to-energy
plants and increasing capacity at
existing plants despite the closing
of smaller, older facilities or
conversion of existing facilities to
the use of other fuels. Several
existing facilities increased their
capacity for processing and
combusting waste, as well as
increasing existing facility design
efficiency and throughput.
Three facilities started-up since
publication of the 1995 Directory,
with total design capacity of 3,500
tons per day. Increased design
capacity at existing facilities
accounted for an additional 2,000
tons per day. Responses to surveys
revealed an additional 1,000 tons
of existing daily capacity which
had not been previously reported.
In total, 6,500 tons-per-day of
design capacity, or about 2
million tons of annual capacity
has been added since
publication of the 1995
Directory.
Approximately 1.3 million tons
of annual combustion capacity has
been taken off-line, including 1.2
million tons related to permanent
closure or conversion of existing
facilities and 88,500 tons of annual
capacity reported as temporarily
closed. Waste-to-energy facility
closures or conversions accounted
for 800,000 tons of the capacity
shut-down, most of which was
related to facilities shifting fuel use
RECYCLING & WASTE-TO-ENERGY
WTE Community Recycling Rates
26%*
Annual WTE On-site Facility Recycling* * 117,000 tons
Annual WTE Ferrous Metal Recycling* * * 739.000 tons
Total Annual WTE Recycling 856,000 tons
* As compared to national average of 22 percent.
" On-site recycling includes glass, plastics, oil, white goods, tires, batteries, corrugated
paper, non-ferrous metals, yard waste and paper.
*** Ferrous Metals Recovery is unique to the waste-to-energy process, providing high-
grade metal recycling as part of the combustion process.
-------
to other waste fuels such as paper
sludge and wood waste.
The number of waste-to-energy
facilities decreased from 121 to
114. Three facilities started up
commercial operation. IWSA
identified four facilities which
converted from burning trash as
fuel to another fuel such as waste
paper sludge or coal. Five smaller
mass burn or modular waste-to-
energy facih'ties closed, as well as
one RDF-combustion facility.
The total number of municipal
waste facih'ties, including
combustion and RDF processing
plants decreased as six incinerators
and two RDF-processing facilities
also closed.
Five waste-to-energy plants are
under construction with a daily
design capacity of 2,645 tons per
day. Seven facilities, with a total
capacity of 10,523 tons per day,
are in the advanced planning
stages.
New Clean Air Act Rules
The U.S. EPA promulgated
new clean air act standards in
December, 1995, for municipal
waste combustors that are among
the most stringent environmental
standards in the world. Many
modern existing facilities will be
able to meet the new emission
standards with relatively minor
equipment additions. Other
facilities will make more
significant retrofits of newer
technology to their existing air
pollution control equipment.
While minor changes to plant
operations may be accomplished
soon, some of the more extensive
retrofits — such as adding new
scrubbers and paniculate
equipment — will be completed
within three years after states adopt
the federal rules or no later than
the year 2000. EPA estimates a
household might pay less than a
nickel to as much as three dollars a
month more for disposal at
facilities that must add new
pollution control equipment
The aggressive environmental
standards limit emissions of
cadmium, lead, particulate, sulphur
dioxide, hydrogen chloride,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,
dioxin and furans, fugitive
emissions and opacity. The
standards govern environmental
control at existing and future
plants. The industry, taken as a
whole, will represent less than 3%
of all anthropogenic, or man-made,
mercury sources and less than one-
half of one percent of all known
dioxin sources.
Ash Management
The U.S. EPA also issued
important directives in 1995
regarding the safe management of
municipal waste combustor ash.
EPA Administrator Carol Browner
announced in January support for
the existing safe management
practice of combining ash streams
prior to testing the residue for final
reuse or disposal. EPA later
issued a
series of documents detailing safe
ash management and testing
procedures. Facilities have been
testing ash under federal rules for
more than two years. Studies
conducted over the past decade
show that leachate from ash
landfills is similar to salty ocean
water, with metals content at about
the same level as the standards set
for safe drinking water. Municipal
waste combustion ash tested under
federal guidelines has consistently
show to be non-hazardous.
Ash reuse is increasing due to
settlement of the ash testing and
management issue. Fifteen
facilities currently are using ash as
landfill cover, road building
material and artificial reefs. Ash
reuse is underway in projects from
Florida to Maryland, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,
Tennessee and New York.
TABLE 2
Contribution of IWSA Members in Managing
U.S. Trash Through Waste-to-Enerov
Operating IWSA WTE Plants
Combined Daily Plant Design Capacity
Annual Net Processing Capacity1
IWSA Percentage of Waste-to-Energy Plants
IWSA Percentage of U.S. Waste-to-Energy Capacity
States with IWSA Plants
People Served by IWSA Plants
64
82,825 tons
25.7 million tons
56.14%
82.07%
22
35.4 million
Homes Supplied with Power from IWSA Plants 1 million
1. Annual net processing capacity assumes that plants operate at 85% of design capacity.
Source: Arysha Taylor & Maria Zannes. Integrated Waste Services Association, 5/96
-------
TABLE 3
Key Facts Pertaining to Ooeratina MWC Facilities
WTE
INCINERATOR
TOT AI MWP.
Percentage of U.S. Waste
Managed by MWC's
Annual Disposal Capacity
of MWC Facilities1
Number of Facilities
Population Served2
Communities Served3
# States with Plants
Ferrous Metals Recovered4
On-srte Recycling5
# Homes Supplied
With Electricity
15.0%
31.3 million tons
114
40.5 Million
1,631
32
739,000 tpy
856,000 tpy
1.2 million
0.4%
0.9 million tons
21
700.000
57
13
15,000 tpy
30,600 tpy
15.4%
32.2 million tons
135
41.2 Million
1,688
34
754,000 tpy
887,000 tpy
1.2 million
1. Annual disposal capacity equals daily design capacity multiplied by 365 (days/year) multiplied by 85%.
2. Based on the response from representatives of 100 WTE projects and 17 Incinerator projects.
3. Based on the response from representatives of 106 WTE projects and 17 Incinerator projects.
4. Based on the response from representatives of 74 WTE projects and 7 Incinerator projects.
5. Based on the response from representatives of 93 WTE projects and 11 Incinerator projects.
Source: Alysha Taylor & Maria Zannes, Integrated Waste Services Association, 5/96.
Key Terms
State/Plant Name/Location -States and
localities are listed in alphabetical order.
Within each state category, operating
waste-to-energy projects are listed first
followed by operating incinerators.
facilities under construction, and projects
currently in the planning stage.
Design Capacity - Expressed in tons-
per-day. The design capacity is the rated
capacity for the facility assuming all units
are operating. Annual capacity as
expressed in Table 1 and elsewhere
equals the daily design capacity multiplied
by 365 days per year multiplied by 85%.
Eighty five percent is a typical system
guarantee of annual throughput.
Technology Type - The following
technologies are listed in this column.
Please refer to the text of this Directory for
an explanation of technologies.
Abbreviations are listed below:
INCIN: Incinerator Facility without
energy recovery
RDF: RDF Processing and
Combustion Facility; RDF is prepared
and combusted on-site
RDF-P: RDF Processing Only
Facility; RDF is combusted off-site
RDF-C: RDF Combustion Only
Facility; RDF is supplied to this
combustion unit
MB: Mass Bum Facility generating
either electricity or steam for power
MOD: Modular Facility generating
either electricity or steam for power
Project Status/Startup Year - The
actual or projected year of commercial
startup is listed. Abbreviations are
explained below:
OP: Operational on a commercial
basis.
UC: Under Construction; covers the
period from ground breaking until
commercial operation.
AP: Advanced Planning stage of
project development. Permit
application process underway;
covers the procurement period up to
ground breaking for construction.
OH: On Hold; Project in Advanced
Planning stage that is on hold
pending resolution of a particular
issue.
APC System: The column reflects the Air
Pollution Control System in use at
operating facility or planned at future
facilities. Abbreviations are listed below:
Carbon: Activated Carbon Injection
CEM: Continuous Emissions
Monitoring equipment
Cyclone: Cyclone Separator
ESP: Electrostatic PrecipKator
FF: Fabric Filter
Hg: Facility equipped with pollution
control for mercury emissions
UME: Lime Injection
LINK: Computer link to regulatory
agency allowing 24-hour monitoring
of air emissions
NOx: Nitrogen Oxide control
DSCRUB: Dry Scrubber
WSCRUB: Wet Scrubber
SCRUB: Scrubber
SDA: Spray Dryer Absorber
N/A: Respondent to survey regarding
operating facility did not provide
information regarding pollution
control equipment; respondent to
survey regarding planned facility
either did not provide information or
has not determined pollution control
equipment
Energy Output Expressed in megawatts
(MW) for electric generating facilities or
pounds of steam per hour (Ibs/hr.) for
steam generating facilities. Typically, a
facility will use 10% of its energy output
for in-plant operations and sell 90% of its
power generation. Abbreviations are
listed below:
STM: Steam generating facility
ELE: Electricity generating facility
COG: Steam and electricity are
generated at the facility
RDF: Refuse Derived Fuel is
generated for combustion off-site.
Off-site user of the RDF is listed
when information is available.
None: No energy is recovered as part
of the combustion process
Owner/Operator: In cases where the
owner and operator of the facility is the
same entity, only one name is listed in
this column.
On-site Ferrous Metals Recovered
(TPY): The tons per year of ferrous metals
recovered as part of plant operations is
listed. N/A reflects either no response to
the survey question or an inability to
determine the amount of ferrous metals
recovered by the facility.
On-site Recycling Quantity (TPY): The
amount of recyclable material recovered
as part of plant operations (prior to
combustion of waste). N/A reflects either
no response to the survey question or an
inability to determine the amount of
recyclable material recovered at the
facility.
Community Recycling Rate: The actual
rate of recycling achieved by a community
disposing of waste at the listed municipal
waste combustor. N/A reflects either no
response to the survey question or an
inability to determine the recycling rate at
a given community.
-------
The 1996 IWSA MWC Directory of United States Facilities
This Directory provides data on all MWC projects operating, under construction, or in advanced planning in the
U.S. as of May, 1996. The information is arranged alphabetically by state and by operating status within each state.
WTE plants are listed separately from incinerator operations. Key terms used in the directory are provided below.
Plant Name/Location Design
Capacity
(TPD)
Alabama
HuntsvilleWTE 690
Faciltty/Huntsville
Alaska
Fairbanks/Fairbanks 40
Sllka/Sheldon Jackson 30
College
Juneau/Juneau 70
Arkansas
Osceola/Osceola 40
Blythevllle/Btytheville 70
California
Commerce/Los Angeles 380
County
Long Beach (SERRF)/ 1 ,380
Long Beach
Stanislaus County 800
Resource Recovery
Facility/Modesto
Colorado
Yuma County/Eckley 25
(County landfill)
Technology
Type
MB
RDF-P
MOD
INCIN
MOO
INCIN
MB
MB
MB
MOD
Project
Status/
Startup
Year
OP/1990
OP/1988
OP/1985
OP/1986
OP/1980
OP/1975
OP/1986
OP/1988
OP/1989
UC/1996
APC System
LIME;SDA;FF;
NOx;CEM;LINK
FF
SDA;ESP;CEM;
Cyclone
ESP
FF;LIME;CEM
None
LIME;SDA;FF;
NOx;CEM
SDA;FF;DSCRUB;NO
x;CEM
SDA;FF;NOx;
CEM;LINK
FF;CEM
Energy Output
STM/
180.000 Ibs/hr.
RDF Fuel (For
area markets)
STM/
5500 Ibs/hr.
None
STM/
12000 Ibs/hr.
None
ELE/11.5MW
ELE/38MW
ELE/22MW
STM
Owner/Operator
SWDA.CItyof
Huntsv!lle/OMS of
Huntsville, Inc.
Interior Services
Silka/Sheldon Jackson
College
Channel Corporation
Cityof Osceola
CityofBytheville
Commerce Refuse to
Energy Authority/L A
Sanitation District
Joint Powers Authority (LA
Sanitation District 4 C«y
of Long Beach)/ Montenay
Pacific Power Corporation
OMS of Stanislaus, Inc.
Yuma County
On-site
Ferrous
Metals
Recovered
(TPY)
None
None
50
2,900
None
N/A
1,600
13,000
4,960
N/A
On-Site
Recycling
Quantity
(TPY)
None
4,000
100
2,900
None
N/A
1,600
13,000
4.960
N/A
Community
Recycling
Rate
11%
0%
30%
1%
10%
N/A
28%
27%
26%
N/A
-------
Connecticut
Bridgeport RESCO/
Bridgeport
Bristol Resource
Recovery Facility/
Bristol
2,250
650
MB
MB
OP/1988 SDA;FF;CEM
ELE/66.97MW
Connecticut Resources
Recovery Authority/
Wheelabrator
OP/1988 SDA;FF;CEM;UNK ELE/16MW OMS of Bristol, Inc.
4,000
5,500
4,000
5,700
24%
25%
Lisbon Resource 500 MB
Recovery Facility/
Lisbon
MID-Connecticut 2,000 RDF
RRF/Hartford
Southeastern/ 689 MB
Preston
Wallingford Resource 420 MB
Recovery Facility/
Wallingford
Florida
Bay County/ 510 MB
Panama Crty
Dade County Resource 3,000 RDF
Recovery
Facility/Greater Miami
Metro Area
OP/1995 SDA;FF;NOx;CEM ELE/14MW
OP/1987 LIME;DSCRUB; ELE/68 MW
FF;CEM;LINK
OP/1992 SDA;FF;CEM ELE/17MW
OP/1989 LIME;SDA;FF;CEM STM/
107233 Ibs/hr.
OP/1987 ESP
OP/1982 DSCRB.FF,
CARBON.CEM
Eastern Connecticut 0
Resources Recovery
Authortty/Riley Energy
Systems of Lisbon Corp.
(Wheelabrator Subsidiary)
Connecticut Resources 24,500
Recovery Authority (PBF);
CT Light 4 Power (EGF)/
Resource Recovery
Systems of Connecticut,
Inc. (a subsidiary of OMS)
24,500
27%
13%
American Ref-Fuel
Ogden Projects of
Wallingford
Ford Motor Credit/
Westlnghouse Subsidiary
Dade County/ Montenay
5,000
105
None
30,000
5,000
105
None
30.600
23%
12%
13%
31%
Power Corp.
Hillsborough County 1,200 MB
Solid Waste Energy
Facility/Tampa
Lake County Resource 528 MB
Recovery
Facllity/Okahumpka
Lakeland/Lakeland 300 RDF
Lee County Solid Waste 1,200 MB
Resource Recovery
Facility/
Fort Myers
McKay Bay Refuse to 1,000 MB
Energy Facility/
Tampa
Palm Beach County/ 2,000 RDF
West Palm Beach
OP/1987 ESP;CEM
OP/1991 SDA;FF;CEM;
CARBON
OP/1983 WSCRUB;ESP
ELE/29MW Hillsborough County/ OMS 5,700
of Hillsborough, Inc.
ELE/16MW OMS of Lake County, Inc. 3,100
RDF Fuel (For
Orlando Utility
Commission)
OP/1994 SDA;FF;CARBON;NO ELE/40MW
x;CEM
OP/1985 ESP;CEM ELE/20 MW
OP/1989 SDA;ESP;CEM ELE/56 MW
City of Lakeland/ Orlando N/A
Utility Commission/City of
Lakeland
Lee County/OMS of Lee 9,658
County, Inc.
City of Tampa/ 8,500
Wheelabrator McKay Bay
Solid Waste Authority of
Palm Beach County/
Babcock and Wilcox
31,000
5,700
3,100
N/A
9,658
8,500
31,000
30%
27%
0%
42%
18%
45%
Pasco County/
1 050
DP/1QQ1 SnA'FF-CFM
Fl F/31 MW
Pnllnh//
-------
Pinellas County/ 3,000 MB
Si. Petersburg
Southern Most WTE 150 MB
Facililty/KeyWest
(Monroe County)
Wheelabrator North 2,250 MB
Broward/Pompano
Beach
Wheelabrator South 2,250 MB
Broward/
Ft. Lauderdale
Dade County 865 RDF-P
(Expansion) - Biomass
Fuel Export/ Dade
County
Miami International 60 INCIN
Airport/Miami
Georgia
Savannah/Savannah 500 MB
Hawaii
Honolulu Resource 2,160 RDF
Recovery Venture/
Honolulu
Illinois
Chicago NW/Chlcago 1,600 MB
Robblns/Robblns 1,600 RDF
Beardstown/ 1,800 RDF
Cass County
Havana WTE 1,800 RDF
Facility/Havana
West Suburban 1.800 RDF
Recycling and Energy
Center/
Villages of Summit &
McCook
Indiana
Indianapolis Resource 2,362 MB
Recovery
OP/1983
OP/1986
OP/1991
OP/1991
UC/1997
OP/1984
OP/1987
OP/1990
OP/1970
UC/1997
OH/
OH/
AP/1997
OP/1988
ESP;CEM
ESP;CEM
SDA;FF;CEM
SDA;FF;CEM
N/A
Secondary Burners
ESP;CEM
SDA;ESP;CEM
ESP
SDA;FF;CARBON;NO
x;CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;NOx;
CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;NOx;
CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;NOx;
CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;CEM
ELE/75 MW
ELE/4 MW
ELE/66MW
ELE/66MW
None
COG/8 MW
ELE/57MW
STM/
90,000 Ibs/hr.
ELE/50MW
ELE/52MW
ELE/52MW
ELE/52MW
STM/
558,000 Ibs/hr.
Pinellas County/ 39,082
Wheelabrator
City of Key West None
Wheelabrator 18,000
Wheelabrator 18,000
Dade County/ Montenay 8,000
Power Corp.
Dade County None
Katy-Seghers N/A
Ford Motor Credit 12,000
Corporation/Honolulu
Resource Recovery
Venture (OMS)
City of Chicago N/A
Foster Wheeler Power 20,000
Systems
Energy Answers, Inc.; 31 ,000
Kirby-Coffman, Inc./ N/D
Energy Answers, Inc.; 31,000
Kirby-Coffman, Inc./ N/D
Kirby-Coffman, Inc. & 31 ,000
Energy Answers
Corporation
OMS of Indianapolis, Inc. 15,580
40,074
None
18,000
18,000
220,000
None
N/A
12.000
N/A
20,000
31,000
31,000
33,520
15,580
35%
35%
31%
31%
31%
33%
0%
20%
25%
12%
0%
0%
8%
15%
Facility/Indianapolis
-------
Iowa
AG Processing (Iowa
Falls RDF Market)/
Eagle Grove
Ames Municipal Electric
Utility (RDF
MarkeQ/Ames
Ames/Ames
Maine
Greater Portland Waste-
to-Energy
Facility/Portland
Maine Energy Recovery
CoV
Biddeford
Mid-ME Waste/
Auburn
Penobscot Energy
Recovery Company/
Orrlnglon
Strawberry Creek
Recycling/South
Harpswell
Maryland
Baltimore RESCO
Company, L.PJ
Baltimore
Harford County Waste-
To-Energy
Facility/Aberdeen
Proving Grounds (Army)
Montgomery County
Resource Recovery
Project/Dlckereon
Harford County
(Expansion)/ Aberdeen
Proving Grounds (Army)
Massachusetts
Haverhill Resource
Recovery Facility/
Haverhill
Haverhill/Lawrence
RRF/
Haverhill/Lawrence
40
150
150
500
950
200
750
14
2,250
360
1,800
125
1,650
710
RDF-C
RDF-C
RDF-P
MB
RDF
MB
RDF
INCIN
MB
MOD
MB
MOD
MB
RDF
OP/1988
OP/1975
OP/1975
OP/1988
OP/1987
OP/1992
OP/1988
OP/1975
OP/1985
OP/1988
OP/1995
AP/OH
OP/1989
OP/1984
FF
ESP;NOx;CEM
FF
SDA;ESP;CEM; LINK
SDA;FF;CEM
SDA;FF;CEM;
WSCRUB; DSCRUB
SDA;FF;CEM
DSCRUB
ESP;CEM
ESP;CEM;LINK; SoC2
LIME;SDA;FF;
CARBON;NOx;
CEM;LINK
NIC
SDA;ESP;CEM
ESP;LrME
ELE/11 MW
EUE/103MW
RDF Fuel
(ForMEU)
ELE/12 MW
ELE/22MW
ELE/3.3MW
ELE/25MW
None
ELE/60MW
STM/1.2MW
ELE/86MW
STM
ELE/46 MW
COG/1 8 MW
AG Processing
Ames Municipal Electric
Utlity/Ames Municipal
Electric Utility
City of Ames/Ames Public
Works
Regional Waste Systems,
Inc.
Maine Energy Recovery
Company/ KTI Operations
Mid-Maine Waste Action
Corporation/ American
Energy
KTI and Energy
National/Esoco-Orrington
Inc.
Town of Harpswell/
Roland Berry
State Bank & Trust
Company/Baltimore
RESCO Company, L.P.
Waste Energy Partners
Limited
Partnership/Maryland
Waste Converters (Ensco)
N.E. Maryland Waste
Disposal Authority/ OMS
of Montgomery, Inc.
Waste Energy
Partners/Maryland Waste
Converters (Ensco)
OMS of Haverhill, Inc.
SBR Associates & OMS of
Haverhill, Inc./ OMS of
Haverhill, Inc.
N/A
1,800
1,700
5
8,000
N/A
8,000
0
23,000
None
12,000
None
17,700
13,000
N/A
1,800
1,700
8,000
8,024
N/A
8.000
100
23.000
None
12,000
None
17,700
13,000
0%
40%
18%
36%
29%
29%
0%
44%
10%
25%
20%
22%
15%
15%
-------
Massachusetts Refuse
Tech Inc./
North Andover
1,500
MB
OP/1985 LIME;ESP;CEM ELE/40.25MW Wheelabrator
9,500
9,500
18%
Pittsfield Resource 240 MB
Recovery Facility/
Pittsfield
SaugusRESCO/ 1,500 MB
Saugus
SEMASS Waste-To- 2,800 RDF
Energy Facility/
Rochester
Springfield RRF/ 408 MOD
Agawam
Wheelabrator 1,500 MB
Millbury/Millbury
Montachusetts Regional 243 MB
Recycling Facility/Shirley
Fall River/Fall River 250 INCIN
Michigan
Greater Detroit 2,194 RDF
Resource Recovery
Facility/Detroit
Jackson County 200 MB
Resource Recovery
Facility/Jackson
Kent County/ 625 MB
Grand Rapids
Central Wayne County/ 500 INCIN
Dearborn Heights
Grosse Pointes- Clinton 600 INCIN
Refuse Disposal
Authority/
Macomb County
Minnesota
Eden Prairie/ 560 RDF-P
Hennepin County
Elk River Rescource 1,500 RDF-P
Recovery Facility/
Anoka County
Fergus Falls RRF/ 94 MOD
Fergus Falls
OP/1981
OP/1975
OP/1988
OP/1988
OP/1987
OH/1998
OP/1972
OP/1989
OP/1987
OP/1990
OP/1965
OP/1972
OP/1987
OP/1989
OP/1988
WSCRUBjESP; CEM
SDA;FF;CEM
SDA;ESP;NOx; CEM
DSCRUB;FF;LIME
SDA;ESP;CEM
SCRUB;FF;
CARBON;NOx; CEM
WSCRUB
SDA;FF;CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;CEM
SDA;FF;CEM;LINK
ESP
ESP
FF
WSCRUB;CEM
STM/
50,000 Ibs/hr.
ELE/54 MW
ELE/78MW
COG/9.4 MW
ELE/45MW
ELE/7MW
None
COG/65 MW
COG/4 MW
COG/18 MW
None
None
RDF Fuel (For
Wilmarth plant)
STM/
22,000 Ibs/hr.
Energy Answers 3,000
Corporalion/EAC
Operatlons/Pittsfield, Inc.
Wheelabrator Saugus 17,000
Inc./Wheelabrator North
Shore IncV Wheelabrator
E.S.P.
SEMASS Partnership/ 30,000
Bechtel Corporation
Springfield Resource None
Recovery/Springfield
Resource Recovery
Ford Motor Credit 5,000
Corporation/
Wheelabrator
Tiru/Tiru N/A
Town of Fall River N/A
Phillip Morris Leasing 37,000
Corp. & G.E. Credit
CorpJMichigan Waste
Energy, Inc.
Jackson County/ Metcalf & None
Eddy Services, Inc. P.S.G.
Kent County/OMS of Kent, 5,617
Inc.
Central Wayne Co. 3,700
Sanitation Authority
(CWCSA)/CWCSA
Grosse Point - Clinton 5,000
Refuse Disposal
Authority/Grosse Point -
Clinton Refuse Disposal
Authority
Browning Ferris Industries 1 ,560
Nothem States Power/
United Power
Association/Northern
States Power
City of Fergus Falls 80
4,850
17,000
30,000
None
2.800
N/A
N/A
37,000
None
5.617
21,700
5.000
3.640
80
26%
15%
18%
32%
37%
15%
0%
5%
0%
28%
19%
20%
43%
42%
40%
-------
Hennepln County 1,200
RRF/Minneapolis
Olmsled Waste-To- 200
Energy Facility/
Rochester
Perham Renewable 100
Resource Facility/
Perham
Polk County Solid Waste 80
Recovery
Facility/Fosston
Pope-Douglas Solid 72
Waste/Alexandria
Ramsey-Washington/ 1,200
Newport
Ramsey-Washington 720
(Newport RDF
Marke))/RedWing
Red Wing Solid Waste 72
Boiler Facility/Red Wing
Thief River Falls/ 40
Thief River Falls
Thief River Falls (TRF 40
RDF Market)/
Northwest Medical
Center
United Power Elk River 1 .000
Station/Elk River
Western Lake Superior 120
MB
MB
MOD
MOD
MOD
RDF-P
RDF-C
MOD
RDF-P
RDF-C
RDF-C
RDF
OP/1989
OP/1987
OP/1986
OP/1988
OP/1987
OP/1987
OP/1988
OP/1982
OP/1985
OP/1985
OP/1989
OP/1985
SDA;FF;CARBON;NO
x;CEM
ESP
ESP
ESP;CEM
ESP
None
ESP
ESP
Cyclone
None
DSCRUB;FF
WSCRUB;Hg;CEM
ELE/38MW
COG/4 MW
STM/
25,000 Ibs/hr.
STM/
22,000 Ibs/hr.
STM/
14,000 Ibs/hr.
RDF Fuel
ELE/20MW
STM/
15,000 Ibs/hr.
RDF Fuel
(For TRF)
STM
ELE/23MW
STM/
General Electric Capital
Corporation & Ogden
Energy Resource CorpV
Hennepin Energy
Resource Co.
Olmsted County
Quadrant Corporation
Polk County
Pope-Douglas Joint Solid
Waste Board
NRG Energy, Inc.
(subsidiary of Northern
States Power)
Northern States Power
City of Red Wing
Pennington County/
Future Fuel
Northwest Medical Center
United Power
WLSSD/WLSSD
10,800
200
None
None
N/A
12,000
N/A
N/A
800
None
None
N/A
10,800
254
None
None
N/A
12,000
N/A
N/A
800
None
None
N/A
48%
43%
29%
15%
34%
45%
40%
0%
20%
0%
N/A
30%
Sanitary District
(WLSSD)/
Duluth
Wllmarth Plant (Elk 720 RDF-C
River and Newport RDF
Market)/
Mankato
Mississippi
Pascagoula ERF/ 150 MOD
Moss Point
Montana
Livingston/Park County 72 INCIN
OP/1987 DSCRUB;FF
47,000 Ibs/hr.
ELE/22MW
Northern States Power
None
OP/1985 ESP;CEM
OP/1982 Cyclone
STM/
30,000 Ibs/hr.
None
City of Pascagoula
Park County
None
SO
None
None
55
0%
0%
0%
-------
New Hampshire
Concord Regional Solid 500
Waste Recovery Facility/
Concord
MB
OP/1989 LIME;FF;CEM
ELE/14MW
Wheelabrator Concord
Company
None
None
10%
Wheelabrator
Claremont/Claremont
Auburn/Auburn
Candla/Candla
Lincoln/Lincoln
Litchfield/LHchfield
Nottingham/ Nottingham
Pelham/Pelham
Plymouth/Plymouth
Wilton/Wilton
New Jersey
Camden Resource
Recovery Facility/
Camden
Essex County Resource
Recovery
Facility/Newark
Fort Dix/Wrightstown
Union County Resource
Recovery
Facility/Rahway
Warren Energy
Resource Company/
Oxford Township,
Warren County
Wheelabrator
Gloucester Company,
L.P7 Gloucester County
Mercer County Regional
Resource Recovery
Facility/ Hamilton
Township
New York
Adirondack Resource
Recovery Facility/
Hudson Falls
200
6
15
2A
22
8
24
16
30
1,050
2,505
80
1,440
448
575
1,450
500
MB
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
MB
MB
MOD
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
OP/1987
OP/1979
OP/
OP/1980
OP/
OP/1972
OP/1978
OP/1976
OP/1979
OP/1991
OP/1990
OP/1986
OP/1994
OP/1988
OP/1990
AP/1998
OP/1991
LIME;FF;CEM
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
SDA;ESP;CEM;
LINK;CARBON
LIME;SDA;ESP;NOx;L
INK;CEM; CARBON
WSCRUB;FF
SDA;FF;CARBON;NO
x;CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;CEM;LINK
LIME;SDA;FF;
CEM;LINK; CARBON
SDA;FF;CARBON;NO
x;CEM;UNK
LIME;DSCRUB;
ESP;CEM
ELE/4 MW
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
ELE/34MW
ELE/68MW
STM/
14.000 Ibs/hr.
ELE/44MW
ELE/13MW
ELE/14MW
ELE/52MW
ELE/14MW
Wheelabrator Claremont
Company
Town of Auburn
Town of Candla
Lincoln- Woodstock Solid
Waste District
TownofLitchfleld
Town of Nottingham
Town of Pelham
Town of Plymouth
Town of Wilton
Camden County Energy
Recovery Associates L.PJ
Camden County Energy
Recovery Corporation
American Ref-Fuel
Company of Essex County
U.S. Army/United
Co-Generators
Union County Utilities
Authority/QMS Union, Inc.
Warren Energy Resource
Company, L.P.
Wheelabrator
Mercer County
Improvement
Authority/QMS of Mercer,
Inc.
Foster Wheeler
None
N/A
3,320
None
None
None
None
None
None
2,000
24.000
None
12,000
6,700
4,660
N/A
6,000
None
N/A
3,320
None
None
None
None
400
429
5,000
24,000
None
12,000
6,700
4,660
N/A
6,000
12%
0%
0%
5%
40%
25%
0%
38%
35%
41%
42%
20%
53%
25%
43%
64%
40%
-------
ANSWERS Waste
Processing Facility/
Albany
Babylon Resource
Recovery Facility/
Babylon
Dutchess County/
Poughkeepsfe
Environmental Waste
Incineration/Long Beach
Hempstead/ Westbury
HunlingtonRRF/East
Northport
(slip (MacArthur Energy
Recovery)/ Ronkonkoma
Niagara Falls/ Niagara
Falls
Onondaga County
Resource Recovery
Facility/Onondaga
County
Oswego County Energy
Recovery Facility/Fulton
Westchester
RESCO/Peekskill
Brooklyn Navy Yard/New
York City
Capital District/ Green
Island
Saltaire/Fire Island
North Carolina
BCH Energy Limited
Partnership/ Fayetteville
New Hanover
County/Wilmington
NIEHS/Research
Triangle Park.
450
750
506
200
2.505
750
518
2,000
990
200
2.250
3.000
1.800
12
1,200
450
40
RDF-P
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
RDF
MB
MOD
MB
MB
MB
INCIN
RDF
MB
MOD
OP/1981
OP/1989
OP/1988
OP/1988
OP/1989
OP/1991
OP/1990
OP/1981
OP/1995
OP/1986
OP/1984
AP/1999
AP/1999
OP/1975
OP/1995
OP/1984
OP/1985
N/A
SDA;FF;CEM
LIME;DSCRUB;
FF;CEM
ESP
SDA;FF;CEM
SDA;FF;NOx;CEM
LIME;DSCRUB;
FF£EM
ESP
SDA;FF;CARBON;NO
x;CEM
ESP;CEM
ESP;CEM;LIME
LIME;DSCRUB;
FF;CARBON;NOx;CE
M;LINK
SDA;FF;NOx;CEM
WSCRUB
LIME;DSCRUB;
FF;CARBON;NOx;CE
M
LIME;ESP;FF;
NOx;CEM
NONE
RDF Fuel
(No market)
ELE/17MW
COG/1 2 MW
Ele/4MW
ELE/72MW
ELE/25MW
ELE/12 MW
COG/50 MW
ELE/40MW
COG/4 MW
ELE/60MW
STM
ELE/45 MW
None
COG/18 MW
COG/10 MW
STM
CttyofAlbany/EAC
Operations/Albany Inc.
QMS of Babylon, Inc.
Dutchess County R. R.
Agency/Westing house
Subsidiary
ERD Waste Corp./
Environmental Waste
Incineration, Inc.
American Ref-Fuel
OMSofHuntington.LP
(slip Resource Recovery
Agency/ Montenay (slip
American Ref-Fuel
Onondaga County
Resource Recovery
Agency/OMS of
Onondaga, L.P.
Oswego County
WheelabratorRESCO
Company, L.P.
Wheelabrator
American Ref-Fuel
Village of SaHalre
BCH Energy Limited
Partnership/Qulxx Power
Services
New Hanover County
National Instiute of
Environmental Health
Science/Private
1,950
3,142
6,200
2,400
28,000
7,658
6,000
36,000
7.683
None
23,000
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
200
None
1,950
3,142
6,200
2,400
28,000
7.658
6,000
10,000
7.683
None
23.000
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
200
None
0%
30%
25%
25%
35%
25%
38%
17%
50%
45%
26%
15%
18%
0%
N/A
5%
N/A
Carolina Energy Limited
Partnership/ Lenoir
County
600
RDF
UC/1997 LIME;DSCRUB; STM
FF;CARBON;NOx;CE
M
Carolina Energy Limited N/A
Partnership/ Quixx Power
Services
N/A
50%
-------
Carolina Energy Limited 300
Partnership/Wilson
County
Ohio
RDF
UC/1997 LIME;DSCRUB; STW8MW
FF;CARBON;NOx;CE
M
Carolina Energy Limited N/A
Partnership/ Qulxx Power
Services
N/A
50%
Montgomery County 300 MB
North/Dayton
Montgomery County 900 INCIN
South/Dayton
Oklahoma
Miami/Miami 108 MOD
W.B. Hall Resource 1.125 MB
Recovery Facility/ Tulsa
Poteau/Poteau 25 INCIN
Oregon
Marion County Solid 550 MB
Waste-to-Energy
Facility/Brooks
Beaver Hill Disposal 150 INCIN
Site/Coos County
Pennsylvania
Delaware 2.688 MB
County/Chester
Harrisburg/Harristaurg 720 MB
Lancaster County 1,200 MB
RRF/Bainbridge
Montgomery County 1,200 MB
Resource Recovery
Facility/ Conshohocken
Wheelabrator Falls 1,500 MB
IncyFalls Township
York County/ 1,344 MB
Manchester Township
OP/1970
OP/1970
OP/1982
OP/1986
OP/1974
OP/1986
OP/1980
OP/1992
OP/1972
OP/1991
OP/1991
OP/1994
OP/1989
ESP;CEM;LIME
ESP;CEM;LIME
None
ESP;CEM
None
SDA;FF;CEM
DSCRUB
LIME;SDA;FF;
CEM;LINK
ESP
LIME;SDA;FF;
CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;CEM;LINK
SDA;FF;NOx;
CEM;CARBON-INJ
SDA;FF;CEM;LINK
None
None
COG/18 MW
None
ELE/13MW
None
ELE/80MW
COG/8 MW
ELE/36MW
ELE/32MW
ELE/53MW
ELE/36MW
Montgomery County
Montgomery County
City of Miami -Special
Utility Authority/City of
Miami -Solid Waste
Department
CIT Group/
OMS of Tulsa, Inc.
Town of Poteau
Ogden Martin Systems of
Marion, Inc.
Coos County/Coos County
Solid Waste Department
Fleet National Bank of
Connecticut/
Weslinghouse Subsidiary
CityofHarrisburg/
Marrisburg Resource
Recovery
Lancaster County Solid
Waste Management
Authority/OMS of
Lancaster, Inc.
Montenay Montgomery
Limited Partnership/
Montenay Energy
Resources of Montgomery
County
Wheelabrator
York County Solid Waste
Authority/ Weslinghouse
Subsidiary
N/A
N/A
12
7,300
N/A
3,200
N/A
17,000
4,700
6.100
5.400
6,000
6.900
N/A
N/A
12
7.300
N/A
3,200
N/A
17,000
4,700
6,100
5.400
48,000
6,900
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
28%
21%
26%
16%
25%
26%
24%
28%
Glendon/Glendon
490
RDF
AP/1988 SDA;FF;CARBON;No ELE/15MW
x;CEM;LINK;
LIME;WSCRUB;
ESP;DSCRUB
Gtendon Energy CoVN/D 12,400
12,400
15%
-------
Puerto Rico
NORECORP/Guaynabo 1,983
South Carolina
MB
AP/2000 SDA;FF;CARBON;NO ELE/35 MW
x;CEM
Northeastern Resource
Recovery
Corporalion/Montenay
Power Corporation
N/A
127,365
0%
Chambers Medical
Technologies of SC,
IncTHampton
Charleston/ Charleston
County
Tennessee
Nashville Thermal/
Nashville
Robertson County
Recycling Facility/
Springfield
Sumner County
Resource Authority/
Oallatin
Texas
Carthage City/ Carthage
City
Cass County/Linden
Cass County (Linden
RDF Market)/
International Paper;
Georgia Pacific
Center/Center
Clebume/Cleburne
Utah
Davis County/Layton
Vermont
Readsboro/ Readsboro
Virginia
Alexandria/Arlington
Resource Recovery
Facility/Alexandria
270
600
1,050
25
200
40
50
25
40
115
400
13
975
MOD
MB
MB
RDF-P
MB
MOD
RDF-P
RDF-C
MOD
MOD
MB
INCIN
MB
OP/1985
OP/1989
OP/1974
OP/1990
OP/1981
OP/1986
OP/1993
OP/1993
OP/1986
OP/1986
OP/1988
OP/
OP/1988
DSCRUB;ESP; CEM STM/
20,000 Ibs/hr.
SDA;ESP;CEM COG/13 MW
ESP COG;Chilled
H20/7.24MW
FF;CEM RDF Fuel (For
area markets)
ESP COG
WSCRUB;CEM STM/
8,500 Ibs/hr.
FF RDF Fuel
(For Int. Paper/
Georgia Pacific)
N/A N/A
WSCRUB STM/
5,000 Ibs/hr.
ESP;CEM; DSCRUB ELE/1 MW
DSCRUB;LIME; ESP STM/
100,000 Ibs/hr.
None None
LIME;ESP;CEM; ELE/22 MW
CARBON
USA Waste Services N/A
IncyChambers Medical
Technologies of SC, Inc.
AT&T/Foster Wheeler 600
Metropolitan - None
Nashville/Davidson
County/Nashville Thermal
Transfer Corp.
Robertson County N/A
Sumner County & Cities of 1 ,095
Gallatin & Hendersonville/
Sumner County Resource
Authority
City of Carthage & Panola 36
County/City of Carthage
Cass County N/A
International N/A
Paper;Georgia
Pacific/International
Paper;Georgia Pacific
City of Center N/A
CityofCleburne 85
Davis County SWM& N/A
Energy District
Town of Readsboro N/A
OMS of Alexandria/ None
Arlington, Inc.
N/A
600
None
N/A
7,970
36
N/A
N/A
N/A
85
N/A
N/A
423
0%
25%
16%
0%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
-------
Arlington/Pentagon
Hampton/NASA Refuse-
fired Steam
Generator/Hampton
Harrisonburg Resource
Recovery
Facility/Harrisonburg
1-95 Energy/ Resource
Recovery Faciltty/Lorton
Southeastern Public
Service Authority of
Virginia/Portsmouth
Washington
Bellingham/Ferndale
Spokane Regional Solid
Waste Disposal
Facility/Spokane
Tacoma (City
LandfilQ/Tacoma
Tacoma (RDF
Market)/Tacoma
Fort Lewis/Fort Lewis
Wisconsin
Barren County Waste-
to-Energy & Recycling
Facility/ Almena
La Crosse County/
French Island
Marathon County RDF
50
200
100
3,000
2.000
100
800
500
300
120
80
400
13
MOD
MB
MB
MB
RDF
MOD
MB
RDF-P
RDF-C
MB
MOD
RDF
RDF-P
OP/1955
OP/1980
OP/1982
OP/1990
OP/1988
OP/1985
OP/1991
OP/1979
OP/1991
UC/1996
OP/1986
OP/1988
OP/1991
FF
ESP;CEM
ESP
SDA;FF;CEM;LINK
CEM;WSCRUB
DSCRUB;FF;CEM;LI
ME
SDA;FF;NOx;CEM
N/A
LIME;FF
LIME;DSCRUB;
FF;NOx;CARBON;CE
M;LINK
ESP;CEM
Gravel Bed;LIME
N/A
NONE
STM/
66,000 Ibs/hr.
COG
ELE/80MW
COG/40 MW
ELE/2MW
ELE/26MW
RDF Fuel
ELE/50MW
STM
COG/.26 MW
ELE/30MW
RDF Fuel (For
Pentagon
NASA & City of
Hampton/City of Hampton
City of Harrisonburg
OMS of Fairfax, Inc.
SPSA (RDF); U.S. Navy
(Power Plant)/ SPSA
(RDF); SPSA (Power
Plant)
Recomp of Washington
City of Spokane/
Wheelabrator Spokane
City of Tacoma
Tacoma CHy Light
U.S. Army
Barren County/
ZAC. Inc.
Northern States Power
Marathon County
N/A
None
4,700
16,000
15,500
900
10,725
N/A
N/A
2,200
150
None
24
None
None
4,700
21.535
15,500
18,000
10,725
N/A
N/A
12.200
64,000
None
24
20%
45%
15%
31%
12%
30%
39%
0%
0%
18%
4%
17%
0%
Plant/Ringle
Weyerhauser)
-------
The Integrated Waste Services Association is a national trade
group located in Washington, D.C. For more information about
waste-to-energy and integrated waste management, call IWSA
at (202) 467-6240.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Appendix G
MWC Emission Inventory
Gl AP-42 Emission Factors for Municipal Waste Combustors
G2 Example Calculation for Estimating MWC Emissions
-------
Appendix Gl
AP-42 Emission Factors for Municipal Waste Combustors
-------
APPENDIX G-MWC EMISSION INVENTORY
APPENDIX Gl-AP-42 EMISSION FACTORS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
The pollutants emitted from municipal waste combustors (MWC) include the
following:
• metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury),
• paniculate matter (PM),
• acid gases (hydrogen chloride, HC1, and sulfur dioxide, SO2),
• organic compounds (dioxins and furans),
• carbon monoxide (CO), and
• nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Emission factors for each of these pollutants are included in the following tables,
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's compilation of emission factors,
AP-42.1 AP-42 records different emission factors for different kinds of combustors. The
following tables from Section 2.1 of AP-42, Refuse Combustion, include emission factors
for each of the pollutants and each of the combustor types, in both English and metric
units.
The emission factors are for distinct combustor types (that is, mass burn
waterwall, mass burn rotary waterwall, mass burn refractory wall, and refuse derived fuel
combustors). Emission factors are listed for uncontrolled emissions (before any pollution
control device) and for controlled emissions based on various control device types. See
AP-42 for more information on the data on which emission factors are based. The
tables contain emission factors for the following pollutants and control types:
• Table G-l and G-2, PM, metals, and acid gases for mass burn and modular
excess air combustors;
*U.S. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5th ed. (AP-42), Vol. I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.1: "Refuse Combustion," Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, January 1995. This document is on the EPA: Technology
Transfer Network (TTN) bulletin board.
pj/8^09 G-l
-------
Table G-3 and G-4, Organic compounds, NO,, and CO for mass burn
waterwall combustors;
Table G-5, Organic compounds, NO^ and CO for mass burn rotary
waterwall combustors;
Table G-6, Organic compounds, NO^ and CO for mass bum refractory
wall combustors;
• Table G-7, Organic compounds, NO^ and CO for modular excess air
combustors;
• Table G-8, All pollutants for refuse-derived fuel-fired combustors;
• Table G-9, All pollutants for modular starved-air combustors;
• Table G-10 and G-ll Conversion factors for unit conversions; and
• Table G-12 All pollutants for refuse combustors other than municipal
waste combustors.
The emission factors in the AP-42 tables are rated for quality. The emission
factor rating is an overall assessment of how good a factor is, based on both the quality
of the test(s) or information that is the source of the factor and on how well the factor
represents the emission source. The factor is assigned a rating from A to E, with A
being the highest. Higher ratings are for factors based on many unbiased observations,
or on widely accepted test procedures. For example, ten or more source tests on
different randomly selected plants would likely be assigned an "A" rating if all tests are
conducted using a single valid reference measurement method. Likewise, a single
observation based on questionable methods of testing would be assigned an "E," and a
factor extrapolated from higher-rated factors for similar processes would be assigned a
"D" or "E." For definitions of the factor quality ratings, see AP-42.
A large amount of data is available for MWC emissions and, as a result, many of
the emission factors have high quality ratings. However, some emission factors are based
on only limited data, and their ratings are low. In these cases, refer to the EPA
Background Information Documents (BDDs) developed for the NSPS and emission
guidelines for MWCs, which more thoroughly analyze the MWC data than does AP-42,
and which discuss the performance capabilities of the control technologies and expected
emission levels. When using the MWC emission factors, keep hi mind that they are
average values, and emissions from MWCs are greatly affected by the composition of the
waste and may vary for different facilities due to seasonal and regional differences.
PJ/83-09 G-2
-------
For more information about the AP-42 emission factors and documentation of the
assumptions and calculations, see Chapter 2 in AP-42. AP-42 is being updated, and the
emission factors listed here may change.
pj/83-09 G-3
-------
s.
Table G-l. PARTICULATE MATTER, METALS, AND ACID GAS EMISSION FACTORS FOR MASS BURN
AND MODULAR EXCESS AIR COMBUSTORSa-k
Pollutant
PMk
As1
Crf
Ci*
Kg1
N?
Pbl
SOj
HC1'
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
1.26 E+01
2.14 E-03
5.45 E-03
4.49 E-03
2.8 E-03
3.93 E-03
1.07 E-01
1.73 E+00
3.20 E+00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
ESP"
kg/Mg
1.05 E-01
1.09 E-05
3.23 E-04
5.65 E-05
2.8 E-03
5.60 E-05
1.50 E-03
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
NA
NA
DSI/ESP"
kg/Mg
2.95 E-02
ND)
4.44 E-05
1.55 E-05
1.98 E-03
1.61 E-03
1.45 E-03
4.76 E-01
1.39 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
SD/ESP
kg/Mg
3.52 E-02
6.85 E-06
3.76 E-06
1.30 E-04
1.63 E-03
1.35 E-04
4.58 E-04
3.27 E-01k
7.90 E-02k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DSI/FF
kg/Mg
8.95 E-02
5.15 E-06
1.17 E-05
1.00 E-04
1.10 E-03
7.15 E-05
1.49 E-04
7.15 E-01
3.19 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SD/FF
kg/Mg
3.11 E-02
2.12 E-05
1.36 E-05
1.50 E-05
1.10 E-03
2.58 E-05
1.31 E-04
2.77 E-01k
1.06 E-01k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
o
* All factors in kg/Mg refuse combusted. Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/joule (J)
and a heating value of 10,466 J/g. Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value
and dividing by 10,466 J/g. Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-04, 5-01-001-05, 5-01-001-06, 5-01-001-07, 5-03-001-11,
5-03-001-12, 5-03-001-13, 5-03-001-15. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g.,
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d DSI/ESP = Duct Sorbent Injection/Electrostatic Precipitator
• SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
' DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
• SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
k PM = total paniculate matter, as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
1 Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
' No data available at levels greater than detection limits.
k Acid gas emissions from SD/ESP- and SD/FF-equipped MWCs are essentially the same. Any differences are due to scatter in the data.
-------
Table G-2. PARTICULATE MATTER, METALS, AND ACID GAS EMISSION FACTORS
FOR MASS BURN AND MODULAR EXCESS AIR COMBUSTORSa-b
Pollutant
PMh
As'
Cd1
Ci*
Kg*
Ni'
Pb1
SO2
HC11
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
2.51 E+01
4.37 E-03
1.09 E-02
8.97 E-03
5.6 E-03
7.85 E-03
2.13 E-01
3.46 E+00
6.40 E+00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
ESP°
Ib/ton
2.10 E-01
2.17 E-05
6.46 E-04
1.13E-04
5.6 E-03
1.12 E-04
3.00 E-03
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
NA
NA
DSI/ESpd
Ib/ton
5.90 E-02
ND)
8.87 E-05
3.09 E-05
3.96 E-03
3.22 E-05
2.90 E-03
9.51 E-01
2.78 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
SD/ESP8
Ib/ton
7.03 E-02
1.37 E-05
7.51 E-05
2.59 E-04
3.26 E-03
2.70 E-04
9.15 E-04
6.53 E-01k
4.58 E-01k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DSI/FF*
Ib/ton
1.79 E-01
1.03 E-05
2.34 E-05
2.00 E-04
2.20 E-03
1.43 E-04
2.97 E-O4
1.43 E-00
6.36 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SD/FFi
Ib/ton
6.20 E-02
4.23 E-06
2.71 E-05
3.00 E-05
2.20 E-03
5.16 E-05
2.61 E-04
5.54 E-01k
2.11 E-01k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Q • All factors in Ib/ton refuse combusted. Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 9,570 dscf/MBtu and a
<^> heating value of 4,500 Btu/lb. Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 4,500 Btu/lb. Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-04, 5-01-001-05, 5-01-001-06, 5-01-001-07, 5-03-001-11, 5-03-001-12,
5-03-001-13, 5-03-001-15. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., SO2).
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d DSI/ESP = Duct Sorbent Injection/Electrostatic Precipitator
e SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
f DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
g SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
h PM = total particulate matter, as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
1 Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
j No data available at levels greater than detection limits.
k Acid gas emissions from SD/ESP- and SD/FF-equipped MWCs are essentially the same. Any differences are due to scatter in the data.
-------
Table G-3. ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
MASS BURN WATERWALL COMBUSTORS'-b
Pollutant
CDD/CDP
NOxh
CO11
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
8.35 E-07 A
1.83 E+00 A
2.32 E-01 A
ESP°
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
5.85 E-07 A
*
*
SD/ESP1
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.11 E-07 A
*
*
DSI/FF1
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
8.0 E-08 C
*
*
SD/FP
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.31 E-08 A
*
*
* All factors in kg/Mg refuse combusted. Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J and a
heating value of 10,466 J/g. Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 10,466 J/g. Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-05, 5-03-001-12. * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOJ.
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
O d SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
^ e DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
f SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
8 CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in 1990 Clean Air Act.
b Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
-------
Table G-4. ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
MASS BURN WATERWALL COMBUStORS"'11
Pollutant
CDD/CDF*
NO,*
COh
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.67 E-06 A
3.56 E+00 A
4.63 E-01 A
ESP
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.17 E-06 A
*
*
SD/ESP4
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
6.21 E-07 A
*
*
DSI/FP
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.60 E-07 C
*
*
SD/FF*
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
6.61 E-08 A
*
*
AH factors in Ib/ton refuse combusted. Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 9,570 dscf/MBtu and a
heating value of 4,500 Btu/lb. Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 4,500 Btu/lb. Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-05, 5-03-001-12. * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOJ.
ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
-------
Table G-5. ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR MASS BURN ROTARY WATERWALL COMBUSTORS"*
Pollutant
CDD/CDF*
NCV
C0«
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND ND NA
1.13 E+00 2.25 E+00 E
3.83 E-01 7.66 E-01 C
ESP
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND ND NA
* *
* *
DSI/FP1
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
4.58 E-08 9.16 E-O8 D
* *
* *
SD/FP
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
2.66 E-08 5.31E-08 B
* *
* *
9
00
• Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of
10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb). Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb). Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-06, 5-03-001-13. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
* = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOX).
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
' DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
e SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
f CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
dibenzoftirans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
8 Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
-------
s.
Table G-6. ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR MASS BURN REFRACTORY WALL COMBUSTORS'*
Pollutant
CDD/CDP
NO/
CO'
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
7.50 E-06 1.50 E-05 D
1.23E+00 2.46 E+00 A
6.85 E-01 1.37 E+00 C
ESP"
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.63 E-05 7.25 E-05 D
* *
* *
DSI/ESP11
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
2.31 E-07 4.61 E-07 E
* *
* *
o
* Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of
10,466 Jig (4,500 Btu/lb). Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 10,466 Jig (4,500 BtuAb). Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-04, 5-03-001-11. * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these
pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOX).
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d DSI/ESP = Duct Sorbent Injection/Electrostatic Precipitator
6 CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
{ Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
-------
a.
Table G-7. ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR MODULAR EXCESS AIR COMBUSTORS"'k
Pollutant
CDD/CDP
NO/
CO*
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND ND NA
1.24 E+00 2.47 E+00 A
ND ND NA
ESP
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.11E-06 2.22 E-06 C
* *
* *
DSI/FP1
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.12 E-08 6.23 E-08 E
* *
* *
o
* Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of
10,466 Jig (4,500 Btu/lb). Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 10,466 Jig (4,500 Btu/lb). Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-07, 5-03-001-15. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
* = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOJ.
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
• CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
dibenzoftirans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
f Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
-------
Table G-8. EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL-FIRED COMBUSTORS"-b
Pollutant
PMf
As«
Cd«
Cr«
Hg«
Ni«
Pb«
SO2
HC1«
NO,J
CO*
CDD/CDFk
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
3.48 E+01
2.97 E-03
4.37 E-03
6.99 E-03
2.8 E-03
2.18 E-03
1.00 E-01
1.95 E+00
3.49 E+00
2.51 E+00
9.60 E-01
4.73 E-06
Ib/ton
6.96 E+01
5.94 E-03
8.75 E-03
1.40E-02
5.5 E-03
4.36 E-03
2.01 E-01
3.90 E+00
6.97 E+00
5.02 E+00
1.92 E+00
9.47 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
B
C
B
D
C
C
C
E
A
A
D
kg/Mg
5. 17 E-01
6.70 E-05
1.10E-04
2.34 E-04
2.8 E-03
9.05 E-03
1.84 E-03h
ND
*
*
*
8.46 E-06
ESP0
Ib/ton
1.04 E+00
1.34 E-04
2.20 E-04
4.68 E-04
5.5 E-03
1.81 E-02
3.66 E-03h
ND
*
*
*
1.69 E-05
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
D
C
D
D
D
A
NA
B
SD/ESP41
kg/Mg
4.82 E-02
5.41 E-06
4.18 E-05
5.44 E-05
2.10 E-04
9.64 E-05
5.77 E-04
7.99 E-01
ND
*
*
5.31 E-08
Ib/ton
9.65 E-02
1.08 E-05
8.37 E-05
1.09 E-04
4.20 E-04
1.93 E-04
1.16 E-03
1.60E+00
ND
*
*
1.06 E-07
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
D
D
D
B
D
B
D
NA
D
kg/Mg
6.64 E-02
2.59 E-06h
1.66 E-05h
2.04 E-05
1.46 E-04
3.15 E-05»
5.19 E-04
2.21 E-01
2.64 E-02
*
*
1.22 E-08
SD/FF*
Ib/ton
1.33 E-01
5.17 E-06h
3.32 E-05h
4.07 E-05
2.92 E-04
6.30 E-05'
1.04 E-03
4.41 E-01
5.28 E-02
*
*
2.44 E-08
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
A
A
D
D
A
D
D
C
E
Q
• Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of
12,792 Jig (5,500 Btu/lb). Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
dividing by 12,792 J/g (5,500 Btu/lb). Source Classification Code 5-01-001-03. ND = no data. NA = not applicable. * = Same as
uncontrolled for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (SO2, NOX, CO).
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
e SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
f PM = total paniculate matter, as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
' Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
h Levels were measured at non-detect levels, where the detection limit was higher than levels measured at other similarly equipped MWCs.
Emission factors shown are based on emission levels from similarly equipped mass burn and MOD/EA combustors.
1 No data available. Values shown are based on emission levels from SD/FF-equipped mass burn combustors.
j Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
k CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
-------
Table G-9. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODULAR STARVED-AIR COMBUSTORS"-b
Pollutant
PMd
Ase
Cde
Cre
Hge'f
Nie
Pbe
SO2
HCle
NOX*
CO*
CDD/CDFh
kg/Mg
1.72 E+00
3.34 E-04
1.20 E-03
1.65 E-03
2.8 E-03
2.76 E-03
ND
1.61 E+00
1.08 E+00
1.58 E+00
1.50 E-01
1.47 E-06
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
3.43 E+00
6.69 E-04
2.41 E-03
3.31 E-03
5.6 E-03
5.52 E-03
ND
3.23 E+00
2.15 E+00
3.16 E+00
2.99 E-01
2.94 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
C
D
C
A
D
NA
E
D
B
B
D
kg/Mg
1.74 E-01
5.25 E-05
2.30 E-04
3.08 E-04
2.8 E-03
5.04 E-04
1.41 E-03
*
*
*
*
1.88 E-06
ESPC
Ib/ton
3.48 E-01
1.05 E-04
4.59 E-04
6.16 E-04
5.6 E-03
1.01 E-03
2.82 E-03
*
*
*
*
3.76 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
D
D
D
A
E
C
C
* Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J
(9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of 10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb). Other heating values can be
substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and dividing by 10,466 J/g
(4,500 Btu/lb). Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-01, 5-03-001-14. ND = no data. NA = not
applicable. * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This
particularly applies to pollutants measured with a continuous emission monitoring system
(e. g., CO, NOJ.
e ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d PM = total paniculate matter, as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
e Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
1 Mercury levels based on emission levels measured at mass burn, MOD/EA, and MOD/SA
combustors.
* Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
h CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans,
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the
Clean Air Act.
G-12
-------
Table G-10. CONVERSION FACTORS FOR ALL COMBUSTOR TYPES EXCEPT RDF
Divide
For As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, and CDD/CDF:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For PM:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For HC1:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For SO2:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For NOX:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For CO:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
By
4.03 x 10-*
8.06 x 10*
4.03 x 10'3
8.06 x 10-3
6.15x lO'3
1.23 x 10-2
1.07 x lO'2
2.15x lO'2
7.70 x lO'3
1.54xlO'2
4.69 x 10-3
9.4 x 10-3
To Obtain"
/xg/dscm
mg/dscm
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
At 7% 02.
pj/SNW
G-13
-------
Table G-ll. CONVERSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL COMBUSTORS
Divide
For As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, and CDD/CDF:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For PM:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For HC1:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For SO2:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For NOX:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
For CO:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
By
4.92 x ID*
9.85 x 10-6
4.92 x ID'3
9.85 x lO'3
7.5 x 10"3
1.5 x IF2
1.31 x 10-2
2.62 x lO'2
9.45 x lO'3
1.89 x lO'2
5.75 x lO'3
1.15xlO-2
To Obtain'
pg/dscm
mg/dscm
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
• At 7% O2.
pj/8349
G-14
-------
Table G-12. UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE COMBUSTORS OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL WASTE4
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Combustor Type
Industrial/commercial
Multiple chamber
Single chamber
Trench
Wood
(SCC 5-01-005-10,
5-03-001-06)
Rubber tires
(SCC 5-01-005-11,
5-03-001-07)
Municipal refuse
(SCC 5-01-005-12,
5-03-001-09)
Flue-fed single chamber
Flue-fed (modified)
Domestic single chamber
(no SCC)
Without primary burner
With primary burner
PM
kg/Mg
3.50 E+00
7.50 E+00
6.50 E+00
6.90 E+01
1.85 E+01
1.50 E+01
3.00 E+00
1.75 E+01
3.50 E+00
Ib/ton
7.00 E+00
1.50 E+01
1.30 E+01
1.38 E+02
3.70 E+01
3.00 E+01
6.00 E+00
3.50 E+01
7.00 E+00
SO2
kg/Mg
1.25 E+00
1.25 E+00
5.00 E-02
ND
1.25 E+00
2.50 E-01
2.50 E-01
2.50 E-01
2.50 E-01
Ib/ton
2.50 E+00
2.50 E+00
1.00 E-01
ND
2.50 E+00
5.00 E-01
5.00 E-01
5.00 E-01
5.00 E-01
CO
kg/Mg 1 Ib/ton
5.00 E+00 1.00 E+01
1.00 E+01 2.00 E+01
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
1.00 E+01 2.00 E+01
5.00 E+00 1.00 E+01
1.50 E+02 3.00 E+02
Neg Neg
Total Organic
Compounds'"
kg/Mg
1.50 E+00
7.50 E+01
ND
ND
ND
7.50 E+00
1.50 E+00
5.00 E+01
1.00 E+00
Ib/ton
3.00 E+00
1.50 E+01
ND
ND
ND
1.50 E+01
3.00 E+00
1.00 E+02
2.00 E+00
NOX
kg/Mg 1 Ib/ton
1.50 E+00 3.00 E+00
1.00 E+00 2.00 E+00
2.00 E+00 4.00 E+00
ND ND
ND ND
1.50 E+00 3.00 E+00
5.00 E+00 1.00 E+01
5.00 E-01 1.00 E+00
1.00 E+00 2.00 E+00
" References 116-123. ND = no data. SCC = Source Classification Code. Neg = negligible.
k Expressed as methane.
-------
Appendix G2
Example Calculation for Estimating MWC Emissions
-------
APPENDIX G2-EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR ESTIMATING MWC EMISSIONS
The first step in calculating annual emissions from MWC plants is to calculate the
emissions from individual MWC units at the plant. This task is accomplished with plant-
specific information such as flue gas pollutant concentration, rated unit capacity, unit
capacity factor, fuel heating value, and the Fd factor (from EPA Method 19).
The following equation can be used to convert stack concentrations to megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) emitted:
K CxVxT
c, =
109
where:
E = Annual Pollutant Emissions (Mg/yr)
C = Flue Gas Pollutant Concentration (mg/dscm @ 7% O2)
V = Volumetric Flow Factor (dscm @7% O^Mg waste fired)
T = MSW Combusted (Mg waste burned/year)
The volumetric flow factor (V) is calculated as follows:
Fd x HV 20.9
V =
ID'3 x 10-3 20.9-7
PJ/KU9 G-19
-------
where:
Fd = Dry F factor from EPA Method 19 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A)
HV = Heating Value b,500 —
I kg
for MSw]
J
V =
2.57 x ID
7 dscm @ 0% O,
i-/ *
f10-500 SI
20.9
ID'3 Mg
ID'3 kJ
20.9 - 7
V = 4,060
Mg MSW
If stack concentration data are in units of parts per million (ppm) rather than
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), the data can be converted to
mg/dscm as follows:
where:
C =
P =
MW =
C =
MW x 453,592 x 3531
106 x 385.5
Flue gas pollutant concentration (mg/dscm @ 7% O2)
Flue gas pollutant concentration (ppm @ 7% O2)
Molecular weight of pollutant (Ib/lb-mol)
pj/83-09
G-20
-------
Example Calculation for PM
For a mass burn/waterwall unit which burns 85,000 Mg of MSW per year with an
outlet PM concentration of 35 mg/dscm @ 7 percent O2, annual PM emissions can be
calculated to be:
f35 mg ^ 1% 0 1
(dscm ^ *\
i^ftdscm@7%02
Mg
(85,000 Mg/yr)
109 mg
Mg
E =
E = 12.1 Mg PM/yr
Examle Calculation for SO
@
For the same unit described above, with an outlet SO2 concentration of 31
7 percent O2, annual SO2 emissions can be calculated as follows:
ppm
C =
(31 ppm @ 7 % 02) b _J!_1 f453-592 "•«] f35-31 *tf]
1 yr 2' I Ib-mol || Ib || dscm |
I f
(106) ^85.5 dscf 1
V ' [ Ib-molJ
C = 82.4 mg SO^dscm @ 7 % O2
and:
[82.4 mg ^
\ dscm
2 7 %02|
,n,n dscm
109 mg
Mg
@ 7 %O2
Mg
(85,OOOMg/yr)
E =
E = 28.4 Mg
G-21
-------
Appendix H
Pollutant Data
HI Dioxin Data
H2 References on Health Effects
-------
Appendix HI
Dioxin Data
-------
APPENDIX H-POLLUTANT DATA
APPENDDC Hl-DIOXIN DATA
The Emission Guidelines for MWC units contain emission limits for 9 pollutants.
The emission limits in the guidelines are implemented through State Plans following
procedures and requirements under Sections lll(d) and Section 129 of the CAA. State
Plans must include compliance schedules for complying with the Emission Guidelines.
State air pollution control agencies establish compliance schedules based on local
considerations.
State agencies may vary compliance schedules from plant to plant within a state
and from unit to unit within a plant, but no retrofit or cease operation agreement may
extend beyond three years from State Plan approval or December 19, 2000, whichever is
earlier. Additionally, any State Plan that includes a compliance schedule (retrofit or
cease operation agreement) for an MWC unit located at a large plant that extends more
than one year beyond approval of the State Plan must include a dioxin test conducted
during or after 1990 for each MWC unit with a compliance schedule that extends beyond
one year. See the questions and answers in Appendix A, Section 4 for a discussion of
reduced dioxin testing. Dioxin tests are not required for MWC units at small plants
(plant capacity <225 Mg/day).
The owner of the MWC plant would provide the dioxin test data to the state
agency for consideration during development of the retrofit schedule. The dioxin test
data would also be made available to the public for consideration at public hearings.
To assist state agencies and the public in use of the dioxin test data relative to
judging what are typical dioxin levels for an MWC that had not yet retrofitted a
scrubbing system, the attached EPA report, "Compilation of MWC Dioxin Data," is
provided. The report lists all dioxin data from MWC units available to EPA at the time
the report was prepared (July 1995).
The attached bar chart graphically summarizes the dioxin data in the report for
those MWC units that are not equipped with a scrubbing system (the MWC units have
only an ESP control systems). The data for ESP-equipped MWC units are from 63
MWC units and the distribution of data is expected to be representative of other MWC
units that have not yet conducted baseline dioxin tests. You will note that the test
results for over 70 percent of the units fall in one data grouping and only a limited
number of units have higher dioxin levels. Following retrofit of a spray dryer/fabric filter
scrubbing system with activated carbon injection, which is expected to be retrofitted to
many MWC units, dioxin levels will be less than 20 ng/dscm.
pj/83-09 H-l
-------
MWC DIOXIN DISTRIBUTION
MWCs without scrubbing systems
1,000
to
2,000
2,000
to
3,000
3,000
to
4,000
4,000
to
5,000
>5,000
Note: Based on survey of 63 MWC units without scrubbers
H-2
-------
Jun 6 1995
COMPILATION OF MWC DIOXIN DATA
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
Attached is EPA's compilation of dioxin1 data from
municipal waste combustors (MWCs). This compilation is a summary
of the data available as of January 31, 1995, within EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. The data are compiled in terms of
nanograms of total dioxin per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm)
at 7 percent oxygen. This attachment summarizes the data
available regarding the concentration of dioxin in the stack
gases released to the atmosphere by various MWCs. Please note,
this is the concentrat ion of dioxin in the stack gases; not the
amount of dioxins emitted to the atmosphere.
The attachments present baseline dioxin data for MWCs. New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines were
proposed on September 20, 1994, which would limit emissions of
dioxins from MWCs. The proposed dioxin emission levels on a
total mass basis are 13 ng/dscm for new MWC plants, 30 ng/dscm
for existing MWC plants larger than approximately 250 tons per
day (tpd) capacity, and 60 ng/dscm for existing MWC plants in the
approximately 40 tpd to 250 tpd capacity range. The final
standards and guidelines are scheduled to be promulgated on
September 1, 1995. States would be required to submit to EPA a
plan implementing the emission guidelines at existing plants
within 1 year after promulgation, and plants must be in
compliance within 3 years following approval of the State plan.
Attachment 1 compiles the most recent data available from
each MWC unit. The data are compiled from emission source tests
performed between 1985 and 1994. Where the emission test date is
shown as 1985 through 1989, the data were gathered by OAQPS to
develop the NSPS and Emission Guidelines proposed in December
1989 for MWCs. Where the emission test date is shown as 1990
through 1994, the data were gathered by OAQPS, or submitted to
OAQPS, as part of one of the following efforts:
"Dioxin" means tetra through octa polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofurans.
pj/83-09 Page 1 of 3
-------
1. Data gathered by OAQPS to develop the revised NSPS and
Emission Guidelines for MWCs which were proposed on
September 20, 1994;
2. Data submitted to OAQPS in response to the 1994 MWC dioxin
survey; or
3. Data submitted to the docket (A-90-45) as public comments on
the revised NSPS and Emission Guidelines proposed on
September 20, 1994.
Data gathered by OAQPS have been reviewed to ensure EPA test
methods and analytical procedures were employed and quality
control and quality assurance procedures were incorporated into
the testing and analysis. These data may be found in the
rulemaking dockets A-89-08 and A-90-45.
Data submitted to OAQPS in response to the 1994 MWC dioxin
survey are not available in the rulemaking dockets and there is
no further documentation of these data within OAQPS. These data
were generally submitted to OAQPS in telephone conversations. As
a result, these data have not been reviewed to ensure EPA test
methods and analytical procedures were employed, nor have they
been reviewed to ensure quality control and quality assurance
procedures were incorporated into the testing and analysis. The
use of EPA test methods and analytical procedures, as well as
some form of quality control and quality assurance, however, is
the "norm" with regard to dioxin testing at MWCs in the U.S. The
data were not considered suspect by the EPA regional offices and
State agencies who submitted the data.
Data submitted to the docket as public comments on the
revised NSPS and Emission Guidelines proposed on September 20,
1994, are available in the rulemaking docket (A-90-45). Emission
source test reports for these data are generally not included
with the public comments and, as a result, these data have not
been reviewed to ensure EPA test methods and analytical
procedures were employed, nor have they been reviewed to ensure
quality control and quality assurance procedures were
incorporated into the testing and analysis. However, the use of
EPA test methods and analytical procedures, as well as some form
of quality control and quality assurance is commonplace with
regard to dioxin testing at MWCs.
Page 2 of 3
-------
Finally, it is possible that for some of the MWC units
listed in Attachment 1, earlier dioxin emission data may be
available within OAQPS. However, only the most recent data are
presented. To the extent that earlier data are available, they
may be found in the rulemaking dockets A-89-08 and A-90-45. The
principal docket items in these rulemaking dockets which might
contain such data are included as Attachment 3.
Attachment 2 reviews the 1994 survey of dioxin emissions
from MWCs. It outlines the steps followed in this survey and
briefly discusses the outcome and interim follow-up actions taken
to reduce dioxin emissions (in response to the survey). It also
includes a table with average dioxin emission levels from several
types of MWCs with various air pollution control systems
installed.
Ei/83-09 Page 3 of 3
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
to
COMPILATION OF MWC DIOXIN DATA
June 6, 1995
-------
ATTACHMENT 1. COMPILATION OF MOST RECENT DIOXIN DATA AVAILABLE WITHIN QAQPS AS OF 01/31/95.
Note: This table presents information about the concentration of dioxin in stack gases and does not present information about dioxin emissions.
. ::; . . : Region I • :
"j" : :
UJtiit Natnej. ; :
Bristol RRF
Mid-Connecticut Project (Hartford)
Wallingford RRF
Haverhill Lawrence RDF
North Andover RESCO
SEMASS RRF (Rochester)
Wheelabrator Millbury
Greater Portland Region RRF
Maine Energy Recovery (Biddeford - Saco)
Penobscot Energy Recovery Comp.
SES Claremont RRF
State
CT
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
NH
Plaht
Capacity
(tons /day)
650
2000
420
710
1500
1800
1500
500
600
700
200
NUrobet
of
Uni;t&
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
CombUe tot-
Type
MB/WW
RDF
MOD/EA
RDF
MB/WW
RDF
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
RDF
MB/WH
APCD
FF SD
FF 3D
FF SD
ESP FSI
ESP FSI
ESP SD
ESP SD
ESP SD
FF SD
FF SD
FF DSI
Unit #
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
North
1
2
1
1
2
Onit
Capacity
325
325
667
140
140
140
710
750
900
900
750
250
300
300
350
100
100
Dioxin/Futan
. . .Data " '
(ng/dsc» «: 7% O2> \
75
8
1
178
50
47
136
53
9
12
59
173
4
4
2
38
32
Yeat
Tested
1990
1990
1988
1991
1991
1991
1992
1989
1989
1989
1988
1987
1987
1987
1988
1987
1987
. • .".'•'' ';:" '•"" .. ' ' ' .; ;. ' '.'."" -Region IX' ::-. • . '-'•..•'•_ -.-• ."'•. •'.- .' : •.'?•"': ' •• .
Unit Name;
Camden RRF
Warren Energy RRF
Adirondack RRF
Babylon RRF
Dutchess Co. RRF
Hemps tead
Huntington RRF
Long Beach RRF
MacArthur WTE (Islip)
Niagara Falls RDF WTE (a)
Oneida Co. ERF
Oswego Co. WTE
Westchester RESCO
State
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Plant
Capacity.
(tons/day) .
1050
400
432
750
400
2505
750
200
518
2200
200
200
2250
: Number
.": of". .
.. Units
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
4
4
3
Combustor
•' -.Typer: ;•;
MB/WW
MB/WH
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/RC
MB/WW
MB
MB/WW
MB/RC
RDF
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MB/WW
APCD
ESP SD
FF SD
ESP SD
FF SD
FF DSI
FF SD
FF SD SNCR
ESP
FF DSI
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
yriifc; #.
i
i
i
2
i
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
unit
Capacity
(tons/day)
350
200
216
216
375
375
200
200
835
250
250
250
200
259
259
1100
50
50
750
.;:' pioxin/Furan • .
"•//"•: 'iiti-'^. •;..-; •
: (ng/d8cm 4 •', 7* .62ji.
75
8
28
40
1
1
5
18
1
12
7
7
709
4
1
1217
462
386
183
Year-'
..Tested .
1992
1988
1992
1992
1991
1993
,1989
1989
1993
1993
1993
1993
1992
1993
1993
1989
1985
1986
1993
-------
ATTACHMENT 1. COMPILATION OF MOST RECENT DIOXBV DATA AVAILABLE WITHIN QAQPS AS OF 01/31/95. (continued)
: " .. •,. l::?---i - .-,-.•: : . . :
Unit Name :''•"" . . ;
Harford Co. WTE Fac.
Pulaski (*)
Southwest RRF (RESCO)
Delware Co. RRF
Harrisburg WTE
Lancaster Co. RRF
York Co. RR Center
Alexandria/Arlington RRF
Harrisonburg (*)
Fairfax (1-95 Energy) RRF
Hampton (NASA)
Norfolk Navy Yard (*)
'.. .'.':••• .. -' .- : ....... Region III ..•••.... . . • .- :;.-. '• .", .•• ' ' .• "•; •. .....:.,-..•.••
State
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
• Piant :
Capacity-.
(tons/day) ;
360
1500
2250
2688
720
1200
1344
975
100
3000
200
2000
Number
.:'•• "• of . .
Units
4
5
3
6
2
3
3
3
2
4
2
4
Corobustor
..Type
MOD/SA
MB/REF
MB/WW
MB/RC/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/RC/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
RDF
APCD
none
ESP
ESP
FF SD
ESP
FF SD
FF SD
ESP DSI CI
ESP
FF SD
ESP
ESP
Unit >
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
Unit
. Capacity.
(tons./day)
90
90
90
90
300
300
300
300
300
750
750
750
448
448
448
448
448
448
360
400
400
400
448
448
448
325
325
50
750
750
750
750
100
500
500
500
500
• • .Dioxio/Furan' ;
'• Data.!' -_'.! .'•!';
(ng/dscm;4 ?*'"<&)!
300
300
300
300
771
771
1490
1490
37
142
102
199
2
4
10
11
4
10
1156
114
61
49
5
8
8
55
72
8459
9
6
8
7
102
1640
4210
2115
26360
Year
! Tested
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1993
1993
1993
1992
1992
1991
1992
1991
1991
1994
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1987
1993
1994
1993
1993
1993
'1993
1992
1994
1994
1994
1993
-------
ATTACHMENT 1. COMPILATION OF MOST RECENT DIOXIN DATA AVAILABLE WITHIN QAQPS AS OF 01/31/95. (continued)
'. ?:' ••'.:• •-.-''
Unit Narte: i ; .= . .
Huntsville Refuse-Fired Steam Fac.
Dade Co. RRF
Hillsborough Co. RRF (Tampa)
McKay Bay RRF (*)
Pasco Co. Solid Waste RRF
Wheelabrator Pinellas RRF (*)
University City RRF
Foster Wheeler Charleston RRF
Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp
State
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
NC
SC
TN
Plant
Capacity
(tons/day)
690
3000
1200
1000
1050
3000
235
600
1050
.-• ••:.,:, Reg
•Numbers
°f
• .Units
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
Lbn XV . " •
Coitjbystoir
. : Type •:
MB/WW
RDF
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
APC0 <;
FF SD
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF SD
ESP
ESP
ESP SD
ESP
unit r
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
3
2
2
3
:"*>.** " •
Capacity
< tons/day}
345
750
400
250
250
250
350
1000
118
300
350
Dioxin/Fwan
••;•;•.•• pata ;;•:".;.:•.;. ;
aelty
(tons/day)
400
787
787
250
300
1100
1100
313
131
600
600
100
57
40
36
360
36
130
360
400
300
300
200
38
38
38
Data
(ng/dacm * 7% O2)
65
12
1
383
3254
2851
10
5
12
1
2
219
35
269
446
31
489
16
27
3500
85
8100
63
8
8
8
Tested
1993
1989
1989
1994
1994
1993
1993
1992
1992
1992
1992
1994
1994
•1988
1989
1988
1990
1992
1988
1994
1994
1994
1993
1988
1988
1988
-------
ATTACHMENT 1. COMPILATION OF MOST RECENT DIOXIN DATA AVAILABLE WITHIN QAQPS AS OF 01/31/95. (concluded)
-.. . :.•• .;••.::• .-. .-.-•..; . . . . . ..' .... -Region VI- :.'.-•-". = . . ... V- '. . • • • ,
bnit Nan**....!. '.-, •. - : ' :• :! " • • .•
Walter B. Hall RRF (Tulsa)
state
OK
Plant
Capacity
(tons/day)
1125
Nuwtoeir,:.
. '. ofr'i-
Units
3
CotnbUstor
Typfe
MB/WW
: .APCD
ESP
Unit. #
1
2
Unit...;:;
Capacity
{tons/day}
375
375
.: :.pioxift/Futan .
1 "••: '•patsi:' ' ;v-'; •.
(ng/dSCtti B ; 12% 02) '•
34
49
'Year,
Seated.
1986
1987
: ' ...-:• Region IX ....
Unit Mama
Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Fao.
Long Beach (SERRF)
Stanislaus (Modesto)
State
CA
CA
CA
Plant
Capacity :.
(feons/dayjU
380
1380
800
Number
of
:unlt*
1
3
2
Combustor
Type
MB/WW
MOD/WW
MB/WW
APCD
FF SD SNCR
FF SD SNCR
FF SD SNCR
Unit #
1
1
1
2
Unit
Capacity
{tons/day)
380
460
400
400
Dioxin/Furan
Data
(ng/dscia $ 7% O2>
10
4
32
9
Year
Tested
1988
1988
1993
1993
-i .! . : . 'I •••:.: A>. ::'•'•'•:: . • -. • •-• .'•.:•;,:. ..--.•.. •'•: :
.{: • • •:• ; : x---|.:-- '••]" • •• \ -:':\ ]• .'.. " • •..:;/•- :; - ••'••'•' ;:••';.. '.". \ ''•'•••
'--'• .' . '• :;.": '"•:.'• ...:'. •-.:• '•' '• -' v -: •. .•••'..?-' ' ''''. '.'''" '"'.' x":'-
Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture
Waipahu Incinerator (*)
Marion Co. WTE
Estate
HI
HI
OR
Plant
: Capacity
(tons /day)
2160
600
550
: .,:,;R«S
Number
of
Units
2
2
3
rion;X
.'Combustor
Type
RDF
MB/REF
MB/WH
APCD
ESP SD
ESP
FF SD
Unit #
i
2
1
1
2
.Unit
Capacity
(tons/day)
1080
1080
300
275
275
Dioxin/Furan
Data
(ng/dscm t 7% O&J
10
3
5690
1
4
Year
Tested
1990
1990
1994
1991
1991
{*) - See MWC Survey (Attachment 2) for more details FF -
(a) The two Niagara Falls RDF/ESP units will be FSI •
replaced by the end of 1996 with MB/WH combustor technology, MB -
and will be equipped with SD/FF/SNCR controls. MOD •
OAQPS - EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. RC -
Dioxin - Tetra through octa polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins RDF •
and polychlorinated dibenzofurans REF •
APCD - Air Pollution Control Device RRF •
CI - Carbon Injection SA =
DSI - Duct Sorbent Injection SD -
EA - Excess Air SNCR
EGB - Electrified Gravel Bed VS -
ERF - Energy Recovery Facility WTE •
ESP - Electrostatic Precipitator WW -
Fabric Filter
• Flue Sorbent Injection
Mass Burn
= Modular
Rotary Combustor
• Refuse Derived Fuel
• Refractory Wall
• Refuse Recovery Facility
Starved Air
Spray Dryer
- Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
Venturi Scrubber
• Waste-to-energy
Water Wall
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
to
COMPILATION OF MWC DIOXIN DATA
June 6, 1995
pj/8349
-------
MWC SURVEY
Introduction
In February, 1994, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) initiated a survey of municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) to identify those MWCs which might be operating
with elevated dioxin1 emission levels. This survey was designed
to make maximum use of readily available information to "screen"
MWCs and quickly identify those which might be operating with
elevated dioxin emission levels.
Dioxin emissions from MWCs are the result of primary and/or
secondary formation of dioxin. Primary formation refers to the
formation of dioxin in the combustion process. Secondary
formation refers to the formation of dioxin following the
combustor. Primary formation depends on the presence or absence
of "good combustion" and is influenced by combustor design and
operation. Some MWC designs, such as modular combustors which
provide long residence times for complete combustion, are
conducive to low levels of primary dioxin formation.
Secondary formation depends on the presence of precursors to
dioxin formation and the length of time the combustion gases
exiting the combustor remain above 440 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).
Above this temperature, secondary formation of dioxin occurs much
more rapidly than below this temperature. Some ESPs are designed
to be operated at such temperatures. Other types of air
pollution control systems, such as scrubbing systems, quickly
lower the temperature of the combustion gases exiting the
combustor to well below 440 °F, and are conducive to low levels
of secondary dioxin formation.
Based on this information and using MWC dioxin emission data
available within OAQPS, the population of MWCs was screened to
identify those MWCs which might be operating at elevated dioxin
emission levels. The steps outlined below and shown in Figure 1
illustrate this screening process. Compiled in Table 1 are
"Dioxin" means tetra through octa polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
pj/83-09 Attachment 2: Page 1 of 10
-------
Figure 1. Steps Followed in the MWC Survey
IS typical values.
No follow-up
action.
Step 1)
Step 2)
Step 3)
MWC
Facilities
166
In Operation
136
Yes
Modular
Units
95
No
Step 4)
Step5)
Step 6)
Step?)
No
Dioxin/Furan
Test Available
26 9
Yes No
Typical
Dioxin/Furan
Emission Level
11
Step
8a)
Step
8b)
Step 9)
Follow-up
Actions
Initiated
12
No
Yes
30 no longer operating
41 modular MWCs
Acic
Co
i
IGas
ntrol
11
No
Wet
Scrubbing
37
Co-
ll
f
No
Fired
nits
J5
Yes
Yes
Yes
54 with acid gas control
4 with wet scrubbing
2 co-fired facilities
ESP
Temperature
1
8 with cold ESP.
No follow-up
action
pj/8349
Attachment 2: Page 2 of 10
-------
TABLE 1
AVERAGE DIOXIN/FURAN EMISSION LEVELS FROM
MWC CONFIGURATIONS*
Combustor Type
MB/WW
RDF (all except FB)
RDF/FB
MB/RC/WW
MB/REF
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
APCD Type
ESP*
DSI/ESP
DSI/FF
SD/ESP
SD/FF
ESP*
DSI/FF
SD/ESP
SD/FF
DSI/EGB
ESP*
DSI/ESP
DSI/FF
SD/ESP
SD/FF
ESP*
DSI/ESP
DSI/FF
SD/ESP
SD/FF
Uncontrolled
ESP*
DSI/ESP
DSI/FF
SD/ESP
SD/FF
Uncontrol led
ESP*
DSI/ESP
DSI/FF
:Typlcal Btoxia Valaft
(ng/dscffi € 7% DS* total mass)
222
60
35
70
16
240
17
9
8
63
400
100
7
40
5
500
57
17
40
5
300
288
98
8
40
5
200
468
50
8
aValues presented in this table are averages of available data for various
combustor type/APCD type combinations. Values were estimated based on a
compilation of the MWC survey data, background information for the 1991 and
1994 MWC rulemakings, public comments received on the 1994 MWC rulemaking,
and AP-42 (4th edition).
* ESP operated at less than 440 °F.
APCD = air pollution control device
DSI = duct sorbent injection
EA = excess air
E6B = electrified gravel bed
ESP = electrostatic precipitator
FB = fluidized bed
FF = fabric filter
MB = mass burn
MOD = modular
RC = rotary combustor
RDF = refuse derived fuel
REF = refractory wall
SA = starved air
SD = spray dryer
WW = water wall
PJ/KWJ9
Attachment 2: Page 3 of 10
-------
average dioxin emission levels from several types of MWCs with
various air pollution control systems installed.
Screening Process (see Figure 1)
Step l; The starting point was a 1992 inventory identifying 166
MWCs operating in the U.S.
Step 2; Thirty MWCs were found to be no longer operating.
These MWCs were dismissed from further consideration.
Step 3; Forty-one MWCs were found to be of modular design.
Modular design incorporates two combustion chambers,
providing long residence times to complete combustion,
and results in low dioxin emission concentrations.
Available emission data indicate dioxin emission
concentrations from modular MWCs are less than 500
ng/dscm. These MWCs were dismissed from further
consideration.
Step 4; Fifty-four MWCs were found to operate with acid gas
control systems. Acid gas control systems reduce
dioxin emissions and the proposed new source
performance standards and emission guidelines for MWCs
are based on the use of these systems. Depending on
the type of acid gas control system employed, emission
data indicate dioxin emission concentrations are less
than 150 ng/dscm. These MWCs were dismissed from
further consideration.
Step 5; Four MWCs were found to be operating with wet scrubbing
particulate matter control systems. Wet scrubbing
quickly reduces the temperature of the MWC combustion
gases to 200 - 300 °F. Such low temperatures minimize
secondary dioxin formation, and data indicate that
dioxin emission concentrations are less than 300
ng/dscm from MWCs where the combustion gases are
quickly cooled to less than 440 °F. These MWCs were
dismissed from further consideration.
pj/83-09 Attachment 2: Page 4 of 10
-------
Step 6; Two facilities were found to be burning a mixture of
coal and municipal waste, with the municipal waste
contributing less than 30 percent of the fuel heat
content. Emission data indicate that dioxin emissions
are non-detectable from facilities burning mixtures of
coal and municipal waste where coal contributes most of
the fuel heat content. These units were dismissed from
further consideration.
Step 7; The results of recent dioxin testing (i.e., within the
past five years) were solicited from the remaining
thirty-five MWCs.
Step 8a; Dioxin test results were reported by twenty-six MWCs.
Fifteen MWCs were found to be operating with typical
dioxin emission levels and were dismissed from further
consideration. Eleven were found to have elevated
dioxin emission concentrations and corrective actions
(discussed below) were initiated at these MWCs to
reduce emissions.
Step 8b; Dioxin emission test results were not available from
nine MWCs. These MWCs were found to operate
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and ESP operating
temperature was solicited. Operation above 440 °F may
lead to significant secondary formation of dioxin and
result in elevated dioxin emission levels. Operation
below 440 °F leads to dioxin emission concentrations
less than 300 ng/dscm.
Eight MWCs were found to be operating ESPs below 440 °F
and were dismissed from further consideration. One MWC
was found to be operating ESPs above 440 °F and
corrective action (discussed below) was initiated at
this MWC.
Step 9: Corrective actions have been taken or are being
negotiated to reduce dioxin emissions at the eleven
MWCs described in Step 8a and on MWC described in
Step 8b. The following section provides more detail
about each of these MWCs.
Pj/83-09 Attachment 2: Page 5 of 10
-------
Corrective Actions
EPA Region III (Northeast)
Pulaski. MD (1.500 tons/day - 5 units1
Tests conducted in 1993 at this facility reported dioxin
levels of 3,313 ng/dscm from units 1 and 2, and 5,984 ng/dscm
from units 3 and 4. Unit 5 was tested for dioxins in 1993 and
reported a level of 9,045 ng/dscm. All units used water sprays
to lower ESP temperatures.
After discussions between Region III, Maryland, and the
facility, in May 1994, Maryland amended a Pulaski consent order
directing the facility to implement various interim measures
(e.g., increased water spray rates and good combustion practices)
to reduce dioxin levels from those determined during earlier
stack tests. Current Maryland MWC regulations require the
facility to reduce dioxin emissions for all five units to
60 ng/dscm or less by February 1996.
After adjustment of water sprays on all five units and
combustion conditions on unit 5, tests on all units were
conducted with reported dioxin levels as shown in Attachment 1.
However, Pulaski operating data have shown, when Units 1 through
4 exceed combustor temperatures of 1600°F (i.e., minimum for good
combustion practice), corresponding ESP flue gas inlet
temperatures are higher than most recent stack test results.
Higher ESP temperatures correlate to higher dioxin emissions.
Thus, actual dioxin emissions may be higher than indicated in
Attachment 1. Unit 5 does not appear to be susceptible to this
problem.
Harrisonbura. VA (100 tons/day - 2 units)
A June 1994 test at this facility reported a dioxin level of
8,459 ng/dscm from unit 1 (unit 2 is assumed to be operating at
the same level).
Following discussions between Region III, Virginia, and the
MWC facility, Virginia issued a consent order directing the MWC
facility to develop a plan by November 1994 to achieve a
95 percent reduction in dioxin emissions by July 1995 on unit 1
and January 1996 on unit 2. Additionally, the order directed
pj/83-09 Attachment 2: Page 6 of 10
-------
the MWC facility to develop a plan by December 1995 for complying
with the proposed standard of 60 ng/dscm. The MWC facility has
committed to installing economizers for both units by the end of
1995. The economizers will be designed to reduce ESP
temperatures from 528 °F to 350 °F. Data indicate that ESP
temperatures lower than 440 °F generally correlate to low dioxin
emissions.
Norfolk. VA (2.000 tons/day - 4 units)
Tests at this facility, before water sprays were installed,
reported dioxin levels of 21,129 ng/dscm from unit 1 (1993),
32,237 ng/dscm from unit 2 (1993), 37,468 ng/dscm from unit 3
(1992), 42,995 ng/dscm from unit 3 (1994), and 26,360 ng/dscm
from unit 4 (1993).
Following discussions between Region III, Virginia, and the
MWC facility, Region III issued a 7003 Order under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directing the MWC facility
to reduce temperatures (thereby reducing dioxin emissions) by 95
percent by December 31, 1995. Water sprays were installed on
unit 3 by June 1994 and on all other units by the end of 1994 to
reduce temperature (thereby reducing dioxin emissions) until
SD/FF retrofits could be completed. After the water sprays were
installed, tests on units 1, 2, and 3 reported dioxin levels of
1,640 ng/dscm, 4,210 ng/dscm, and 2,115 ng/dscm, respectively.
Unit 4 was shut down in September 1994 and became operational
again in March 1995 with a SD/FF retrofit. Unit 2 is scheduled
for a SD/FF retrofit beginning August 1995. All remaining units
are expected to have SD/FF retrofits by February 1996.
EPA Region IV (Southeast)
McKay Bay fTampa1. FL f1.000 tons/day - 4 units)
Dioxin tests on three units (units 1, 3, and 4) were
performed during 1994 with each unit operating at a different ESP
temperature. The reported dioxin levels and corresponding ESP
outlet temperatures were 893 ng/dscm at 468 °F, 2,160 ng/dscm at
540 °F, and 8,533 ng/dscm at 656 °F.
Discussions are underway to investigate the installation of
water sprays and other flue gas cooling methods on all four units
Pj/8349 Attachment 2: Page 7 of 10
-------
to reduce the ESP temperatures in order to reduce dioxin
emissions.
Pinellas Co.. FL (3.000 tons/day - 3 units)
Three consecutive dioxin tests conducted on unit 3 at this
facility in 1994 reported dioxin levels of 1,964 ng/dscm,
3,840 ng/dscm, and 4,400 ng/dscm. Because of similar ESP
temperatures, units 1 and 2 are estimated to be operating at the
same level as unit 3.
The facility has performed dioxin tests using temporary
water spray cooling to reduce ESP temperature. Results from
testing with a temporary water spray system became available
February 1995. Dioxin levels were reported to be 1,500 ng/dscm
at an ESP temperature of 543 °F (the previous test of 4,400 ng/
dscm without water spray cooling was at an ESP temperature of
621 °F). Negotiations are currently underway regarding permanent
retrofit of water sprays and other flue gas cooling methods to
reduce ESP temperatures in order to reduce dioxin emissions.
EPA Region V (Midwest)
Clinton Township. MI (600 tons/day - 2 units)
Tests conducted at this facility in 1994 reported dioxin
levels of 3,254 ng/dscm from unit 1. Because of similar ESP
temperatures, unit 2 is estimated to be operating at the same
level.
Discussions are underway between EPA and this facility
regarding actions for reduction of ESP temperatures in order to
reduce dioxin emissions.
pj/83-09 Attachment 2: Page 8 of 10
-------
Detroit. MI r3.300 tons/dav - 3 units)
Initially, all three units at this facility were equipped
with ESPs. In 1987, a SD/FF retrofit program was initiated. By
the end of 1993, one unit (unit 12) had completed retrofit and
tests on the retrofitted unit showed a dioxin level of
10 ng/dscm. By the end of 1994, a second unit (unit 13) had
completed retrofit. Test data on the two retrofitted units in
1994 became available in May 1995 and showed dioxin levels of
2 ng/dscm (unit 12) and 6 ng/dscm (unit 13).
One unit (unit 11) remains to be retrofitted. In 1993,
tests of this unit reported dioxin levels of 2,851 ng/dscm. This
unit was shut down in November 1994 for retrofit with SD/FF and
is expected to be back on-line in 1996. After the SD/FF
retrofit, EPA estimates that this unit will have dioxin emissions
similar to units 12 and 13.
Akronf OH (1.000 tons/day - 2 units)
This facility was investigated due to its reportedly high
ESP temperatures.
The facility has not tested for dioxin emissions, but was
scheduled to be closed in April 1995.
Columbus. OH (2.000 tons/day - 6 units)
A stack test conducted on unit 6 at this facility in 1992
reported a dioxin level of 12,998 ng/dscm.
Following discussions with Region V, the facility initiated
good combustion practices and performed a general "tune up" of
unit 6. This resulted in a reduction of dioxin levels to
3,500 ng/dscm. These "tune ups" were subsequently performed on
the five other units. Following further discussions, Region V
issued a section 7003 Imminent Endangerment Order under RCRA
directing the MWC facility to retrofit with water sprays on all
six units by March 31, 1995, and to retrofit air pollution
control equipment (SD/FF) by the end of 1996. A decision was
made by the facility to close all six units at the end of
December 1994 instead of proceeding with the retrofits.
Attachment 2: Page 9 of 10
-------
Montgomery Co. (North). OH (900 tons/day - 3 units)
A stack test on unit 3 in 1994, at an ESP temperature of
550 °F, showed a dioxin emission level of 8,100 ng/dscm. A stack
test on unit 2 in 1994, at an ESP temperature of 395 °F, showed a
dioxin emission level of 85 ng/dscm.
The MWC facility undertook action to reduce dioxin emissions
by installing water sprays on unit 3. Units 1 and 2 already had
water sprays. The EPA expects that units 1 and 3 are now
operating at the same level as unit 2.
Montgomery Co. (South) . OH (900 tons/day - 3 units)
In 1989, the EPA conducted a series of tests at this
facility over a range of operating conditions. Seventeen tests
for dioxins were performed at ESP inlet temperatures ranging from
300 °F to 600 °F, with results ranging from less than 14 ng/dscm
to over 22,000 ng/dscm. Based on these data and past ESP
temperatures for the facility provided by Region V, the EPA
estimated that dioxin emission levels from all three units at the
time of this survey may have been higher than the typical values
described in Table 1.
The MWC facility undertook corrective action to reduce
dioxin emissions by increasing the water sprays on all three
units. After the corrective actions, the three units are
operating at approximately 400 °F and emissions are expected to
be comparable to Montgomery County North unit 2 (85 ng/dscm).
The facility is planning to close. Projected closure for unit 3
is March 1996 and units 1 and 2 will close in November 1997.
EPA Region IX (West)
Honolulu (Waipahu). HI (600 tons/day - 2 units)
Tests at this facility reported dioxin levels of
5,690 ng/dscm from one of the units.
The facility permanently closed in October 1994.
Attachment 2: Page 10 of 10
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
to
COMPILATION OF MWC DIOXIN DATA
June 6, 1995
pj/KM»
-------
Attachment 3
The information found in the documents listed below was used to evaluate
control technologies, MACT floors, and achievable emission limits during
the MWC rulemaking. These documents are publicly available at the EPA
Docket in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation Docket and Info Center (MC-6102)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7548
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A-89-08
H-A-035
A-90-45
H-B-8
A-90-45
H-B-34
A-89-08
H-F-OOln
A-89-08
H-A-044
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION STUDY
FLUE GAS CLEANING TECHNOLOGY
MWC DATABASE
LARGE AND SMALL PLANT PERFORMANCE
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS-BACKGROUND
INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR
EXISTING FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS-BACKGROUND
INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS: POST-
COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
pj/&M»
-------
ADDENDUM TO THE MWC SURVEY
The EPA MWC survey presented the status of a selected number of MWCs as of
June 1995. Presented below is an update on the status of these MWCs as of May 1996:
Pulaski. MD
Since the last report the MWC has closed. Closure occurred Fall 1995, and the
owner of the MWC is considering a number of options including dismantlement of the
MWC. Also under consideration is the construction of a new MWC plant on the same
site. A new MWC plant would be subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb (NSPS).
Harrisonburg. VA
The economizer has been installed on Unit 1. The economizer reduced the
temperature of the flue gas entering the ESP and thereby reduced dioxin emissions.
Installation of the economizer reduced dioxin levels from 8,459 ng/dscm to
1,490 ng/dscm. The economizer for Unit 2 has been delivered and is being installed.
Norfolk. VA
The retrofit of the SD/FF scrubbing systems has been completed on all four
MWC units at the plant. The dioxin test results before retrofit were 1,640, 4,210,
2,115 ng/dscm (one unit was not tested at that time). Following retrofit of the SD/FF
Units 1, 2, and 3 have been tested for dioxin. All tested at less than 20 ng/dscm. Unit 4
just completed SD/FF retrofit and will be tested soon.
McKav Bav. FL
This facility has increased the frequency of boiler tube washing to increase heat
transfer efficiency and thereby reduce the temperature of the flue gas entering the ESP.
The MWC owner has secured the service of an engineering firm to design an SD/FF
scrubbing system for retrofit. The owner of the MWC is evaluating closing the MWC,
retrofitting SD/FF control, or replacing the MWC.
Pinellas Co.. FL
This facility has increased the frequency of boiler tube washing to increase heat
transfer efficiency and thereby reduce the temperature of the flue gas entering the ESP.
The MWC owner has secured the service of an engineering firm to design a SD/FF
scrubbing system for retrofit. Also, alterations have been made to the combustion
system to reduce primary dioxin formation.
pj/83-09 H-15
-------
Clinton Township. MI
The water spray cooling system has been adjusted to reduce the temperature of
the flue gas entering the ESP. Discussions are underway with the owner of the MWC to
decide whether to close the MWC or retrofit controls.
Detroit. MI
The retrofit of the SD/FF scrubbing system has been completed at all three units
at the plant. The dioxin level has been reduced from 2,800 to less than 20 ng/dscm.
Montgomery Co (North and South). OH
Both the Montgomery County North plant and Montgomery County South plant
have announced that they will close in early 1997.
pj/83-09 H-16
-------
Appendix H2
Health Effects
-------
APPENDIX H2-REFERENCES ON HEALTH EFFECTS
Note: A Health Risk Assessment is not a required element
of a valid State Plan submittal nor is it required for EPA
approval of a State Plan. Because of general interest, the
following is provided as background information only.
References
1. Air Risk Information Support Center (Air RISC), (Hotline at 919 541-0888.)
Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. December 1994, Review
Draft.
2. M. Sittig. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens. 2nd
ed. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ. 1985.
5. EJ. Calabrese and E.M. Kenyon. Air Toxics and Risk Assessment. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 1991.
6. The Merck Index. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals. Drugs, and Biologicals. llth
ed. ED. S. Budavari. Merck and Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ. 1989.
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hazardous Substances Data
Bank (HSDB, online database). National Toxicology Information Program,
National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. 1993.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances (RTECS, online database). National Toxicology Information
Program, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. 1993.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
1993.
10. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man: Cadmium. Nickel.
Some Epoxides. Miscellaneous Industrial Chemicals and General Considerations
on Volatile Anaesthetics. Volume 11. World Health Organization, Lyon. 1976.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Background Document to
Support Rulemaking Pursuant to the Clean Air Act-Section 112(gX Ranking of
Pollutants with Respect to Hazard to Human Health. EPA-450/3-92-010.
pj/83-09 H-19
-------
Emissions Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 1994.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Assessment Document for
2.3.7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin and Related Compounds. External Review
Draft, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. 1994.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide; Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information. EPA-452/R-95-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1995.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Paniculate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information. External Review Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1996.
16: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter. EPA/600/AP-95/001c. Office of Research and Development,
Washington DC. 1995.
pj/83-09 H-20
-------
Appendix I
Operator Certification and Training Requirements
-------
APPENDIX I-OPERATOR CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
MWC OPERATOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Certification requirements are applicable to chief MWC facility operators and
shift supervisors. Facility operators and shift supervisors must be certified as MWC
operators through ASME or an equivalent State program. The States can choose to
develop or approve alternatives to the ASME training described below. Copies of
ASME's Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility
Operators (ASME QRO-1-1994) may be obtained from the air docket A-90-45 (item
number IV-J-18) or from ASME at 800-843-2763.
The ASME certification process has two steps:
Step 1: Provisional certification
To obtain the ASME provisional certification, the affected persons must meet
certain requirements for education and experience and must pass the written
examination on the basics of municipal waste generation, collection, and combustion.
Each affected person must have provisional certification at small plants within
18 months after State plan approval, or 6 months after startup, whichever is later, and at
large plants within 12 months after State plan approval, or 6 months after startup,
whichever is later.
ASME currently requires that provisional certifications be renewed every five
years.
Step 2: Full operator certification
To obtain the full ASME operator certification, the affected person must have a
current provisional certificate, must have 6 months of documented satisfactory
employment at the level of chief facility operator or shift supervisor at that particular
facility, and must demonstrate adequate knowledge of that facility's operation in a site-
specific oral examination.
Each affected person must have full operator certification or at least have
scheduled with ASME to be certified for small plants within 18 months after State plan
approval, or 6 months after startup, whichever is later, and for large plants within
12 months after State plan approval, or 6 months after startup, whichever is later.
ASME currently requires that full operator certifications be renewed every five
years. Because the full certifications are site-specific, they are not valid at another
facility except under certain conditions at a facility of similar technology.
pj/83-09 1-1
-------
MWC OPERATOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
The regulation requires two separate kinds of training for MWC operators:
Requirement 1: The EPA municipal waste combustor operator training program or
equivalent State training course.
Chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control room operators are required
to take the EPA training course or the equivalent State course.
Copies of the training program manuals are available through National Technical
Information Services (NTIS) 703-487-4660 or the Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI)
at 919-541-xxxx and are in the air docket A-90-45. There is a course manual
(EPA-453/B-93-020, docket item IV-A-2) and an instructor's guide (EPA-453/B-93-021,
docket item IV-A-3).
States must determine how to administer this training, either by arranging training
classes themselves and/or by approving third party training courses. It is up to each
State to determine whether any alternative training program is "equivalent" to the EPA
training program.
Each affected person must be trained within 12 months after State plan approval
or 6 months after startup, whichever is later.
Requirement 2: On-site training established by each facility to review the site-
specific operating manual.
Chief facility operators, shift supervisors, control room operators, ash handlers,
maintenance personnel, crane/load handlers, and other personnel if warranted are
required to take the site-specific MWC operator training.
Each facility must develop a site-specific operating manual which addresses, at a
minimum, the eleven items listed under 40 CFR 60.54b(e).
Each facility must keep records documenting that appropriate personnel have
been trained.
Each affected person must be trained within 12 months after State plan approval,
by the day before the day when the person assumes responsibilities affecting the MWC
unit operation, or by 6 months after startup, whichever is later. Training must be
repeated annually thereafter.
pj/83-09 1-2
-------
Appendix J
Title V Permit Requirements for MWCs
Jl Title V Requirements
J2 April 12 Letter -- Requirements for MWCs to Obtain a
Title V Permit
J3 White Paper H
-------
Appendix Jl
Title V Requirements
-------
APPENDIX J-PERMTT REQUIREMENTS FOR MWCs
APPENDIX Jl-TTTLE V REQUIREMENTS
Note: A Title V operating permit is not a required element
of a valid State Plan submittal nor is it required for EPA
approval of a State Plan. Because of general interest, the
following is provided as background information only.
Title V of the Clean Air Act provides for a nationwide operating permit program
applying to all major sources and to certain other sources. These permits provide for
implementing all Clean Air Act requirements applying to the source. Title V permit
applications clarify which requirements apply to each source, describe how compliance
with those requirements is to be maintained and demonstrated, and provide an
administrative mechanism for reconciling conflicting or duplicated requirements. The
permitting program is funded by fees paid by the permitted facilities. The State Plan for
MWC units is a requirement under the Clean Air Act and the MWC regulation in the
State Plan, as well as all other regulations applicable to each MWC unit, will ultimately
be incorporated into the Title V permit for the MWC plant.
State air quality agencies implement the operating permit program pursuant to
criteria in 40 CFR Part 70. The EPA will implement the Title V program in those
jurisdictions that do not have an approved program of their own. EPA's regulations will
be promulgated in 40 CFR Part 71. Promulgation of the Part 71 regulations is expected
in July 1996.
Section 129 of the CAA expressly defines certain responsibilities for the Title V
program in implementing the MWC program. In particular, Section 129(e) provides that
all MWC plants subject to program requirements are also required to obtain Title V
permits and sets forth a schedule by which these permits must be obtained. These MWC
plants must have a Title V permit within three years after the promulgation of the
Section 129 requirements, (i.e., December 19, 1998) or one year after the state's Title V
program is approved, whichever is later. The specific schedule and requirements for
permit applications for the individual MWC plants will be spelled out in the relevant
state Title V program. The date for submission of applications will, in most states, be
twelve months or less after the effective date of the state's Title V program. Title V
permits for MWC plants may be issued for up to 12 years, to be reviewed every 5 years.
All provisions of a Title V permit are federally enforceable after the permit is
approved by EPA (except those provisions in a permit specifically identified as based
solely on state requirements that are not federally approved). Even if a state has the
authority under its state law to incorporate Subpart Cb (Emission Guidelines) directly
into its Title V permit application, this would satisfy only the enforceable mechanism
pj/83-09 J-l
-------
requirement of a State Plan. It would not be a substitute for the requirement to prepare
and submit a State Plan, unless the Title V permit contained all the elements of a State
Plan listed in Section 3.0 of this document and the Title V permit had been approved by
EPA on or before December 19, 1996.
Whether a state can use Title V as its enforceable mechanism is a question of
state law. However, few states, if any, are expected to have the authority under their
state law to incorporate the Emission Guidelines directly into their Title V permit
applications as their enforceable mechanism because, unlike federal standards such as
the NSPS, the Emission Guidelines are only guidelines and are not federal regulations.
pj/83-09 J-2
-------
Appendix J2
April 12 Letter:
Requirements for MWCs to Obtain a Title V Permit
-------
Reply To
Attn Of: OAQ-107
Annie Naismith
Northwest Air Pollution Authority
302 Pine Street, #207
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273-3852
Dear Ms. Naismith:
This is a followup to our telephone conversation on April 3,
1996, regarding the municipal waste combustor (MWC) guidelines
promulgated on December 19, 1995, pursuant to Section 129 and
Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, you asked
about EPA requirements with respect to the schedule for submittal
of Title V permit applications and issuance of permits for the
existing MWCs in your jurisdiction. The sources in question are
those MWCs with a potential to emit that is below Title V major
source thresholds and were not previously subject to the Title V
permit program requirements.
As we discussed, the requirement that these sources are
subject to the Title V permit is clear. Section 129(e) requires
that all such sources be issued a Title V permit within 36 months
of promulgation of a performance standard (i.e., December 19,
1998) OR the effective date of the state's Title V program,
whichever is later. Since Washington's program was approved
November 8, 1994 with an effective date 30 days later on December
8, 1994, the 36 months after promulgation of the guideline
determines this schedule. Thus, Title V permits must be issued
to the MWCs in your jurisdiction by December 19, 1998.
The Part 70 rules (70.5(a)(l)) and Chapter 173-401-500(3)(b)
WAC require an existing source, newly subject to the requirement
to obtain a Title V permit, to submit a permit application within
12 months from the time the source becomes subject. Thus, the
determination of the scheduling of permit applications turns on
when the existing MWCs in your jurisdiction become subject to the
Title V program. For example, in the case of a new NESHAP, the
source becomes subject to Title V upon promulgation of that
standard and must submit a permit application within twelve
months of the date the NESHAP is published.
The term "performance standard" applies to both the new
source performance standards (NSPS) established through Section
lll(b) of the Act and the existing source guidelines established
through Section lll(d) of the Act.
pj/8349
-------
J-6
However, the section lll(d) performance standards provide
criteria for determining the emissions limitations for these
sources but do not specify what this will be for the individual
sources. The MWC guidelines establish requirements for
state/local air agency action and do not directly create
requirements for the MWCs. For this reason, the date of
promulgation of the guideline should not be considered as
mandating the starting of the twelve month clock for submittal of
a permit application. Further, it's not reasonable to require
sources to submit permit applications before the state has
established and EPA has approved the emissions limits that will
be required in the Title V permit.
The EPA approval of the state plan, therefore, initiates the
twelve month clock for submittal of the permit application. This
appears to be reasonable from a program management standpoint, as
well as the most most reasonable reading of the statute.
However, this schedule does mean that these permits must be
issued more expeditiously than the standard 18 months for Title V
permit issuance:
Assuming State Plan Submitted -
Emission Guidelines promulgated
State plan submitted to EPA w/in 1 yr
EPA approval of plan w/in 6 mo
MWCs submit permit applications
Section 129 requires MWC to have T5 permit
State issues T5 permit
MWCs in compliance with section 129
w/in 3 yrs of plan approval
but no later than 5 yrs after promulgation
12/95
by 12/96
by 06/97
by 06/98
by 12/98
by 12/99
by 06/00
by 12/00
Assuming Federal Plan Required -
Federal plan, if no state plan submitted by 12/97
MWCs submit permit applications to EPA by 12/98
Section 129 requires MWC to have T5 permit by 12/98
EPA issues T5 permit by 06/00
MWCs in compliance with requirements of section 129
no later than 5 yrs after promulgation
by 12/00
This tighter timeframe is not unprecedented, though, since the
Act also requires that a full one third of the initial Title V
permits be issued within one year of Title V program approval.
Also, much of the work for preparing these permits can be done
prior to plan approval, thus reducing any timing concerns.
Further, 70.7(b) and Chapter 173-401-705(2) grant an "application
shield" that is relevant to this situation. MWCs which submit
pj/KM»
-------
J-7
«
timely and complete permit applications are in compliance with
the requirement to have a Title V permit by December 19, 1998
until the state acts on the permit.
I suggest that you work with Ecology, as appropriate, to
promulgate a regulation or issue regulatory orders creating the
enforceable emission limits required by the section lll(d)
guideline and proceed with the development of your section 129
plan. These steps will place your program in a good position for
timely and effective implementation of this program. Because
these program development activities do not, on their own, create
requirements that would be federally recognizable as applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act, you may proceed without
accelerating the schedule for implementing permitting
requirements.
I hope that this answers your questions. Thank you for
raising this issue. If you have any additional questions or
comments, please call me at (206) 553-4303.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Waddell
Environmental Scientist
Office of Air Quality
cc: Tom Todd, Ecology
Judy Geier, Ecology
Timely and complete, in this context, means within 12
months of plan approval or by December 19, 1998, whichever is
sooner.
pj/&N»
-------
Appendix J3
White Paper H
-------
March 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The
Part 70 Operating Permits Program
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director /s/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
Director, Environmental Planning and Protection
Division, Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
Region VI
Director, Air, RCRA and TSCA Division, Region VII
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution
Prevention, State and Tribal Assistance, Region VIII
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX
Director, Office of Air, Region X
Please find attached White Paper Number 2 for improved
implementation of part 70 operating permits programs. This
guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies to take
further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation costs of
part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits
themselves. It is intended to supplement, not obviate, the
guidance provided in EPA's "White Paper for Streamlined
Development of part 70 Permit Applications" (July 10, 1995).
This guidance is consistent with and furthers the goals of the
Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.
The attached guidance is divided into five sections as
follows:
II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements On The
Same Emissions Unit(s).
pj/83-09
J-l
-------
II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated
SIP Requirements.
II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement
stipulation.
II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70
Permit Applications And Permits.
Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in
permitting burdens and improved part 70 implementation by
allowing for the first time multiple applicable emissions limits
and work practices expressed in different forms and averaging
times to be reduced to a single set of requirements (which can be
an alternative to all those requirements being subsumed). It
will also allow various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with
the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the
permit. Any such streamlining must provide that compliance with
the streamlined limit would assure compliance with all applicable
requirements. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are
expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where
locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved State
implementation plan, the streamlined treatment of insignificant
emissions units, the use of stipulations by sources as to which
regulations apply, and the cross referencing rather than
repetition of certain existing information.
There is an immediate need for the implementation of this
guidance. A large number of sources have filed complete part 70
applications, and increasing numbers of these submittals are
being processed for permit issuance. I strongly encourage you to
work with your States to effect near-term use of this guidance.
Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come from
the California Title V Implementation Working Group. I want to
thank you and your staff for your support and Region IX in
particular for their leadership and considerable efforts in
developing and completing this paper. I invite your suggestions
on what additional guidance is needed to improve further the
initial implementation of title V. If you should have any
questions regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael
Trutna at (919) 541-5345, Ginger Vagenas of Region IX at (415)
744-1252, or Roger Powell at (919) 541-5331.
Attachment
cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)
G. Vagenas (Region IX)
R. Powell (MD-12)
A. Schwartz (2344)
PJ/8J09 J-2
-------
WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
March 5, 1996
Contacts: Michael A. Trutna (919) 541-5345
Ginger Vagenas (415) 744-1252
Roger Powell (919) 541-5331
-------
WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
March 5, 1996
I. OVERVIEW.
This guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies
to take further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation
costs of part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits
themselves and to remove unintended barriers and administrative
costs. It is also intended to build on and expand the guidance
provided in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "White
Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications"
(July 10, 1995). White Paper Number 2 supplements, not obviates,
the first White Paper. Both papers should be consulted for
guidance in improving the implementation of title V of the Clean
Air Act (Act) (i.e., part 70 operating permits programs). In
particular, White Paper Number 2 is designed to simplify the
treatment of overlapping regulatory requirements and
insignificant emissions units and to clarify the use of citations
and incorporation by reference in the part 70 permitting process.
This effort is consistent with and furthers the goals of the
Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.
Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come
from the California Title V Implementation Working Group (Working
Group). The California Air Resources Board and several
California air districts and industries which (together with EPA)
make up the Working Group have decades of experience with
operating permits. These operating permits programs are
generally just one component of air programs that, in many
districts, also include local emissions standards (often with
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements), monitoring
requirements, inspections, source testing, and new source review
(NSR). The EPA has found the insights and recommendations of the
Working Group extremely useful in integrating these various
requirements using the part 70 permitting process. While much of
the guidance contained herein addresses situations arising in
California, it is available for use nationwide.
This guidance is divided into five sections and two
attachments which are generally summarized as follows (the reader
is, however, referred to the applicable main sections of the
guidance for more detailed information):
Section II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable
Requirements On The Same Emissions Unit(s).
The EPA and States have developed different and often
overlapping applicable requirements governing the same
pj/8349
-------
emissions units to serve the purposes of different air
programs. As a result, emissions units at a stationary
source may be subject to several parallel sets of
requirements. This can result in some of the requirements
being redundant and unnecessary as a practical matter, even
though the requirements still legally apply to the source.
In cases where compliance with a single set of requirements
effectively assures compliance with all requirements,
compliance with all elements of each of the overlapping
requirements may be unnecessary and could needlessly consume
resources. For example, a source could be subject to
overlapping standards that result in two or more different
emissions limits for the same pollutant and two or more
source monitoring requirements for instrumentation,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
Today's guidance describes how a source may propose
streamlining to distill or "streamline" multiple overlapping
requirements into one set that will assure compliance with
all requirements. According to the guidance, multiple
emissions limits may be streamlined into one limit if that
limit is at least as stringent as the most stringent limit.
(Limitations that apply to the streamlining of acid rain
requirements are described in the main section of this
guidance.) If no one requirement is unambiguously more
stringent than the others, the applicant may synthesize the
conditions of all the applicable requirements into a single
new permit term that will assure compliance with all
requirements. The streamlined monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements would generally be those
associated with the most stringent emissions limit,
providing they would assure compliance to the same extent as
any subsumed monitoring. Thus, monitoring, recordkeeping,
or reporting to determine compliance with subsumed limits
would not be required where the source implements the
streamlined approach.
It is important to emphasize that while streamlining
may be initiated by either the applicant or the permitting
authority, it can only be implemented where the permit
applicant consents to its use.
Section II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For
Outdated SIP Requirements.
Historically, long periods of time have been required
to review and approve (or disapprove) SIP revisions. The
EPA has undertaken a number of reforms to its SIP approval
process and is continuing to make significant progress in
reducing the amount of time required for taking action on
SIP revisions. Despite the progress we have made to date,
there are many local rules now pending EPA review and
approval for inclusion in the SIP. The gap between the
PJ/KW9
-------
approved SIP and the State rules is of concern because
States and local agencies enforce their current rules (which
are usually more stringent than the approved SIP rules) and
often, as a practical matter, no longer enforce the
superseded and outdated rules in the SIP. On the other
hand, EPA only recognizes and can only enforce the SIP-
approved rules. This situation can cause confusion and
uncertainty because some sources are effectively subject to
two different versions of the same rules. Part 70's
application, certification, and permit content requirements
highlight this longstanding concern.
The most problematic situation arising from the gap
between the approved SIP and the State rules is where a
technology-forcing rule that has been approved into the SIP
is found by the State to be impossible to meet. Under these
circumstances, the State would generally adopt a relaxation
of this rule and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. Until
EPA is able to take action on the submitted relaxation,
sources remain subject to a rule that is impossible to meet.
This section of the guidance largely addresses the
problem by authorizing permitting authorities and their
sources to base permit applications on State and local rules
that have been submitted for SIP approval, rather than on
the potentially obsolete approved SIP provisions that they
would replace. Such reliance on pending State and local
rules is proper when the permitting authority has concluded
that the pending rule will probably be approved, or when the
source believes it can show that the pending rule is more
stringent than the rule it would replace. However, if the
pending rule is not more stringent than the rule it would
replace, the permit cannot be issued until the pending rule
is approved.
Section II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
This section provides for the streamlined treatment of
generally applicable requirements that apply to
"insignificant" emissions units (lEU's). It is intended to
address current concerns that resources will be
unnecessarily consumed by matters of trivial environmental
importance.
The guidance clarifies that the permitting authority
has broad discretion to tailor the permit application and
permit for small equipment and activities as long as
compliance with Federal requirements is assured. For both
the permit application and the permit, information on lEU's
may be generically grouped and listed without emissions
estimates, unless emissions estimates are needed for another
purpose such as determining the amount of permit fees that
are calculated using total source emissions. This approach
-------
would utilize standard permit conditions with minimal or no
reference to any specific emissions unit or activity,
provided that the scope of the requirement and its
enforcement are clear.
The EPA also believes that for lEU's, a responsible
official's initial compliance certification may be based on
available information and the latest cycle of required
information.
The guidance further provides that the permitting
authority can use broad discretion in determining the nature
of any required periodic monitoring. The EPA's policy on
lEU's is based on the belief that these emissions points are
typically associated with inconsequential environmental
impacts.
Section II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable
Requirement Stipulation.
There have been concerns expressed that extensive new
emissions data would be needed to verify major source status
or the applicability of Federal requirements. White Paper
Number 2 clarifies that for applicability purposes, a source
familiar to the permitting authority may simply stipulate in
its application that it is major or that Federal
requirements apply as specified in the application. The
paper clarifies that there is no need to prepare and submit
extensive information about the source that "proves" it is
subject to any requirements that it stipulates are
applicable. This does not affect the requirement to provide
information that is otherwise required by part 70.
Section II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In
Part 70 Permit Applications And Permits.
Concerns have been raised that a source must re-prepare
and resubmit information that is readily available, or that
the permitting authority already has, to complete part 70
permit applications. In addition, similar concerns have
been voiced regarding the large and potentially unnecessary
burden of developing permits which repeat rather than
reference certain types of regulatory requirements that
apply to the source (e.g., monitoring and testing
protocols). The guidance clarifies that, in general, the
permitting authority may allow information to be cited or
cross-referenced in both permits and applications if the
information is current and readily available to the
permitting agency and to the public. The citations and
references must be clear and unambiguous and be enforceable
from a practical standpoint. After permits specify which
emissions limits apply to identified emissions units, cross-
PJ/8M9
-------
referencing can be authorized for other requirements (e.g.,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting).
Attachment A provides guidance on using the part 70 permit
process to establish alternative test methods, while Attachment B
provides example SIP language that could be used by both part 70
and non-part 70 sources to establish alternative requirements
without the need for a prior source-specific SIP revision. This
guidance should be particularly useful to those seeking greater
certainty or to establish alternative test methods to those now
approved by EPA. [Note that Sections III. and beyond in
Attachment B are currently in draft form.]
Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in
permitting burdens by allowing for the first time multiple
applicable emissions limits and work practices expressed in
different forms and averaging times to be reduced to a single set
of requirements. It will also lower current burden levels by
allowing various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with
the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the
permit. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are
expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where
locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved SIP, the
streamlined treatment of insignificant emissions units, and the
use of stipulations and the cross-referencing rather than
repetition of certain existing information in part 70
applications and permits.
The EPA believes that the guidance contained herein may be
implemented by permitting authorities and sources without
revisions to part 70 programs, unless a provision is specifically
prohibited by State regulations. In some situations, EPA will be
proceeding in parallel to issue clarifying rules. The EPA
strongly encourages states to allow sources to take advantage of
the streamlining opportunities provided in this guidance. The
Agency also suggests the permitting authority develop information
about permits issued with successful streamlining and make it
available to other similar sources to help avoid repetitive
costs.
Sources are advised to consult with their permitting
authority to understand how the policies of this White Paper will
be implemented. In several situations (particularly those where
sources have already filed complete applications), permitting
authorities may choose to propose streamlining options and, if
mutually agreeable, work with the source to support a draft
permit containing a streamlined limit. Where EPA is the
permitting authority pursuant to part 71 regulations, the Agency
will implement both White Papers to the extent possible and
promote similar implementation where EPA delegates responsibility
for the part 71 program to a State.
-------
The policies set out in this paper are intended solely as
guidance, do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be
relied upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.
II. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OP PART 70
PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS.
A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements3 On The Same
Emissions Unit(s).
1. Issue.
Can multiple redundant or conflicting requirements
(emissions limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting
requirements) on the same emissions unit(s) be streamlined into a
single set of understandable and enforceable permit conditions?
May an applicant propose to minimize or consolidate applicable
requirements? May a permitting authority develop such a
proposal? How would a permit application with a streamlining
proposal satisfy compliance certification requirements?
2. Guidance.
A source, at its option, may propose in its application to
streamline multiple applicable requirements into a single set of
permit terms and conditions . The overall objective would be to
Title IV applicable requirements are an exception to this
general rule. As set out in § 72.70(b), to the extent that any
requirements of part 72 and part 78 are inconsistent with the
requirements of part 70, part 72 and part 78 will take precedence
and will govern the issuance, denial, revision, reopening, renewal,
and appeal of the acid rain portion of an operating permit. The
subsequent descriptions of streamlining therefore apply to
requirements under parts 72 and 78 only to the extent that such
requirements are, at the option of the applicant, used as
streamlining requirements because they are the most stringent
applicable requirements.
*Emissions unit(s) means any part or activity of a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit any regulated air
pollutant (as defined in section 70.2) or any pollutant listed
under section 112 (b) of the Act. It is used in this paper to
include specifically a grouping of emissions units at a stationary
source that shares the same applicable requirement and compliance
demonstration method for a given pollutant.
The EPA recognizes that the described streamlining process
may not be allowed by all State regulations or be warranted or
desired for all applicable requirements. Similarly, partial
streamlining (i.e., the streamlining of some, but not all,
PJ/KM» 6
-------
determine the set of permit terms and conditions that will assure
compliance with all applicable requirements for an emissions
point or group of emissions points so as to eliminate redundant
or conflicting requirements. Otherwise applicable requirements
that are subsumed in the streamlined requirements could then be
identified in a permit shield. The process would be carried out
in conjunction with the submittal and review of a part 70 permit
application, as an addendum to an application, or as an
application for a significant revision to the part 70 permit
(unless EPA in its revisions to part 70 authorizes permitting
authorities to use a less extensive permit revision process).
The EPA plans to revise part 70 to provide that the compliance
certification required with initial application submittals may be
based on the proposed streamlined applicable requirement where
there is sufficient source compliance information on which to
base such a certification.
The permitting authority, at its option, may evaluate
multiple applicable requirements for a source category and
predetermine an acceptable streamlining approach. Such
evaluations should be made readily available to applicants. It
is up to the applicant, however, to request in its application
that such streamlined requirements be contained in the part 70
permit. Where streamlining would be of mutual interest, the
permitting authority and the source could work together during
the permit development stage to establish a basis for a
streamlined limit prior to the issuance of a draft permit. This
cooperative activity must result in a record consistent with this
guidance which supports the draft permit containing the
streamlined requirement. The approach might be particularly
useful where a source has already submitted a complete part 70
permit application and the permitting authority does not want to
require the source to submit a formal amendment to its
application. Any streamlining demonstration must be promptly
submitted to EPA upon its availability and in advance of draft
permit issuance unless EPA has previously agreed with the
permitting authority not to require it (e.g., the proposed
streamlining is of a simple and/or familiar type with no new
concerns).
In addition, general permits could be useful to allow the
transfer of streamlined requirements from the first source to be
covered by them to other similar sources or emissions units. The
information development and review conducted as part of
streamlining for an individual source can be used by the
permitting authority to generate a general permit for similar
applicable requirements that apply to the same emissions units) may
be most cost effective where difficult comparisons or correlations
are needed for streamlining the other remaining applicable
requirements. In addition, there is no barrier to more extensive
streamlining occurring in the future.
-------
sources or portions of sources. If a general permit were used,
EPA and public review beyond that needed to issue the general
permit would not be necessary when sources subsequently applied
for the streamlined permit conditions established under the
general permit. Even where a general permit is not issued, the
availability of information obtained from the streamlining of one
source may be useful as a model for future streamlining actions
involving other similar sources.
Streamlined permit terms should be covered by a permit
shield. The permit shield will result in an essential degree of
certainty by providing that when the source complies with the
streamlined requirement, the source will be considered to be in
compliance with all of the applicable requirements subsumed under
the streamlined requirement. Where the program does not now
provide for a permit shield, the permit containing streamlined
requirements should clarify this understanding (See section
II.A.3. discussion). Permitting authorities without provisions
for permit shields are encouraged to add a permit shield
provision at the first opportunity, if they wish to realize fully
the benefits of streamlining.
Sources that opt for the streamlining of applicable
requirements must demonstrate the adequacy of their proposed
streamlined requirements. The following principles should govern
their streamlining demonstrations:
a. The most stringent of multiple applicable emissions
limitations for a specific regulated air pollutant on a
particular emissions unit must be determined taking into
account ' :
o Emissions limitation formats (emissions limits in
different forms must be converted to a common format
and/or units of measure or a correlation established
among different formats prior to comparisons);
Applicable requirements mean those requirements recognized by
EPA, as defined in § 70.2. state and local permitting authorities
may modify, eliminate, or streamline "State-only" requirements
based on existing State or local law and procedures.
Sources may, in the interest of greater uniformity, opt to
expand the scope of an applicable requirement to more emissions
units so that the same requirements would apply over a larger
section of the plant or its entirety, provided compliance with all
applicable requirements is assured. Though a permit may through
streamlining expand the scope of applicable requirements to include
new emissions units, it may not change the basis on which
compliance is determined (e.g., emissions unit by emissions unit,
if that is the intent of the applicable requirement).
PJ/KW9 8
-------
o Effective dates of compliance (to the extent
different);
o Transfer or collection efficiencies (to the extent
relevant);
o Averaging times8; and
o Test methods prescribed in the applicable
requirements .
Limitations for specific pollutants can be subsumed by
limitations on classes of pollutants providing the applicant can
show that the streamlined limit will regulate the same set of
pollutants to the same extent as the underlying applicable
requirements. For example, a volatile organic compound (VOC)
limitation could effectively subsume an organic hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) limitation for a constituent such as hexane,
provided the VOC limit is at least as stringent as the hexane
limitation. Where a single VOC limit subsumes multiple HAP
limits, the permit must be written to assure that each of the
subsumed limits will not be exceeded. However, a limit for a
single or limited number of compounds cannot be used to subsume a
limit for a broader class (e.g., a hexane limit for a VOC limit)
because this would effectively deregulate any of the class that
are not covered by the more limited group.
b. Work practice requirements must be treated as follows:
"while the streamlining of requirements with varying averaging
times is viable under this policy, in no event can requirements
which are specifically designed to address a particular health
concern (including those with short term averaging times) be
subsumed into a requirement which is any less protective.
9The predominant case is expected to involve test methods
which have been EPA approved either as part of the SIP or as part
of a Federal section 111 or 112 standard. If a permitting
authority is seeking to base a streamlined limit on an alternative
or new test method relative to the ones already approved by EPA for
the SIP or a section 111, or section 112 standard, some additional
steps are needed to complete the proposed streamlining. As
described in more detail in Attachment A, permitting authorities
may only implement streamlining which involves alternative or new
test methods within the flexibility granted by the SIP and any
delegation of authority from EPA (where section 111/112 standards
are involved). With respect to SIP requirements, the ability for
a permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method
depends on the governing language contained in the SIP. Attachment
B contains example SIP language which provides a mechanism that can
establish an alternative applicable requirement in such cases
without the need for source specific SIP revisions.
pj/83-09 9
-------
o Supporting An Emissions Limit. A work practice
requirement directly supporting an emissions limit
(i.e., applying to the same emissions point(s) covered
by the emissions limit) is considered inseparable from
the emissions limit for the purposes of streamlining
emissions limits. The proposed streamlined emissions
limit must include its directly supporting work
practices, but need not include any work practice
standards that are associated with and directly support
the subsumed limit(s);
o Not Supporting An Emissions Limit. Similar work
practice requirements which apply to the same emissions
or emissions point but which do not directly support an
emissions limit may be streamlined (e.g., different
leak detection and repair (LDAR ) programs). The
streamlined work practice requirement may be composed
of provisions/elements (e.g., frequency of inspection,
recordkeeping) from one or more of the similar work
practice requirements, provided that the resulting
composite work practice requirement has the same base
elements/provisions as the subsumed work practice
requirements (e.g. has a frequency of inspection or has
recordkeeping if the subsumed work practice
requirements have these elements/provisions).
Multiple work practice requirements which apply to
different emissions or emissions points cannot be
streamlined.
c. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
should not be used to determine the relative stringency of
the applicable requirements to which they are applicable.
10For LDAR programs, stringency comparisons likely will be
based on the aggregate requirements of each LDAR program (screening
levels, frequency of inspection, repair periods, etc,) and the
resultant overall actual emissions reduction expected from the
affected equipment. In cases where a convincing demonstration
cannot be made based on existing information or the regulations
themselves have not clearly defined the expected emissions
reduction, verifying test data may be required. Alternatively, the
applicant, the permitting authority, and EPA can work together to
devise a method consistent with the principles of EPA's "Protocol
For Equipment Leak Emissions Estimation" (EPA-453/R-95-017,
November 1995) for determining relative stringency. Where a
demonstration of the relative stringency of LDAR programs as
applied to the affected equipment is not feasible, sources may
modify elements of a particular LDAR program to produce a program
that clearly (i.e., without further analysis) assures compliance
with the other applicable LDAR programs.
PJ/83-09 10
-------
d. Where the preceding guidance does not allow sufficient
streamlining or where it is difficult to determine a single
most stringent applicable emissions limit by comparing all
the applicable emissions limits with each other, sources may
perform any or all the following activities to justify
additional or different streamlining:
o Construct an alternative or hybrid emissions
limit that is at least as stringent as any
applicable requirement;
o Use a previously "State-only" requirement as the
streamlined requirement when it is at least as
stringent as any applicable Federal requirement it
would subsume (this requirement would then become a
federally-enforceable condition in the part 70 permit);
o Use a more accurate and precise test method than the
one applicable (see footnote number 7) to eliminate
doubt in the stringency determination; or
o Conduct detailed correlations to prove the relative
stringency of each applicable requirement.
e. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements associated with the most stringent emissions
requirement are presumed appropriate for use with the
streamlined emissions limit, unless reliance on that
monitoring would diminish the ability to assure compliance
with the streamlined requirements. 2 To evaluate this
presumption, compare whether the monitoring proposed would
assure compliance with the streamlined limit to the same
extent as would the monitoring applicable to each subsumed
limit. If not, and if the monitoring associated with the
subsumed limit is also relevant to and technically feasible
for the streamlined limit, then monitoring associated with a
Title V allows for the establishment of a streamlined
requirement, provided that it assures compliance with all
applicable requirements it subsumes. However, EPA recognizes that
construction of such hybrid or alternative limits can be more
complicated than the situation where the streamlined limit is one
of the applicable emissions limits. Accordingly, sources and
States may need more time to agree on acceptable demonstrations and
may wish to defer such streamlining until after issuance of the
initial part 70 permit.
"Quality assurance requirements pertaining to continuous
monitoring systems should be evaluated using the same approach.
-------
subsumed limit (or other qualifying monitoring13) would be
included in the permit. The recordkeeping and reporting
associated with the selected monitoring approach may be
presumed to be appropriate for use with the streamlined
limit15'16ll?.
f. Permitting authorities must include citations to any
subsumed requirements in the permit's specification of the
origin and authority of permit conditions. In addition, the
part 70 permit must include any additional terms and
conditions as necessary to assure compliance with the
streamlined requirement. In all instances, the proposed
The applicant may propose alternative monitoring of equal
rigor. Permitting authorities may only implement streamlining
which involves alternative or new monitoring methods within the
flexibility granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority from
EPA (where section 111/112 standards are involved).
"Permitting authorities and sources should presume that
existing monitoring equipment [such as continuous emissions
monitors (CEMs)] required and/or currently employed at the source
should be retained. A permitting authority or applicant would have
the opportunity to demonstrate that retention of such monitoring
equipment is inappropriate, such as when the monitoring equipment
is no longer relevant or is technically infeasible (e.g., the
source has switched to a closed loop process without emissions or
the streamlined limit corresponds to levels too low for a monitor
to measure, such as SO2 emissions from a boiler firing pipeline
quality natural gas.)
15Where recordkeeping is the means of determining compliance
(e.g., in the miscellaneous metal parts and products coating rules,
the typical role of monitoring is fulfilled by recordkeeping), the
appropriate recordkeeping would be determined in the same manner
described for monitoring.
16Where a standard includes recordkeeping associated with a
limit in addition to recordkeeping linked to a monitoring device
(e.g., a coating facility that has recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to coating usage, as well as recordkeeping for
monitoring associated with an add-on control), both types of
recordkeeping must be incorporated into the permit.
17The result offers considerable potential to reduce the
different reporting burdens associated with different applicable
requirements well beyond what was previously available (e.g.,
synchronizing the required reporting cycles from different
applicable requirements to coincide with the most stringent one
beginning at the earliest required date). (See also Final General
Provisions, § 63.10(a)(5), March 16, 1994.)
PJ/83-W 12
-------
permit terms and conditions must be enforceable as a
practical matter.
3. Process.
Streamlining may be accomplished through an applicant
proposing to streamline multiple requirements applicable to a
source, the permitting authority developing streamlining options
for sources or source categories that would be subsequently
accepted at the election of permittees, or the applicant working
in agreement with the permitting authority after filing an
initial complete application. The first six of the following
actions wuld be taken by the source or, as appropriate, by the
permitting authority. The level of effort to complete these
actions will depend on the relative complexity of the
streamlining situation. The permitting authority would then
perform steps seven and eight.
Step One - Provide a side-by-side comparison of all
requirements included in the streamlining proposal that are
currently applicable and effective for the specific
emissions units of a source . Distinguish between
requirements which are emissions and/or work practice
standards, and monitoring and compliance demonstration
provisions.
Step Two - Determine the most stringent emissions and/or
performance standard (or any hybrid or alternative limits as
appropriate) consistent with the above streamlining
principles and provide the documentation relied upon to make
this determination. This process should be repeated for
each emissions unit pollutant combination for which the
applicant is proposing a streamlined requirement.
Step Three - Propose one set of permit terms and conditions
(i.e., the streamlined requirements) to include the most
18A future applicable requirement (e.g., MACT standard newly
promulgated under section 112 with a compliance date 3 years in the
future) may be determined to be the most stringent applicable
requirement if compliance with it would assure compliance with less
stringent but currently applicable requirements. In such a case,
the source may propose either a streamlined requirement based on
immediate compliance with the future applicable requirement or it
may opt for a phased approach where the permit would contain two
separate time-sensitive requirements. Under the latter approach,
one streamlined requirement addressing all currently applicable
requirements would be defined to be effective until the future
applicable requirement became effective. The permit would also
contain a second streamlined requirement which also addressed the
future applicable requirement and would become the new streamlined
requirement after expiration of the first streamlined requirement.
pj/83-09 13
-------
stringent emissions limitations and/or standards,
appropriate monitoring and its associated recordkeeping and
reporting (see section II.A.2.e.)/ and such other conditions
as are necessary to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements.
Step Four - Certify compliance (applicant only) with
applicable requirements. The EPA is planning to revise its
part 70 regulations to provide that a source may certify
compliance with only the proposed streamlined limit. Until
this is accomplished, EPA recommends that a source
certifying compliance only with the streamlined limit
indicate this in an attachment to the certification, so that
it is clear that the certification is being made with
respect to a set of terms and conditions that the source
believes "assure compliance" with all applicable
requirements. In any event, a source may only certify
compliance with a streamlined limit if there is source
compliance data on which to base such a certification.
(Such data should be available where the streamlined
requirement is itself an applicable requirement and may be
available if the streamlined limit is an alternative limit,
e.g., a previously State-only emissions limitation). If
there is not, then certifications must instead be made
relative to each of the applicable requirements judged to be
less stringent and must be based on data otherwise required
under them to make this point clear.
Step Five - Develop a compliance schedule to implement any
new monitoring/compliance approach relevant to the
streamlined limit if the source is unable to comply with it
upon permit issuance. The recordkeeping, monitoring, and
reporting requirements of the applicable requirements being
subsumed would continue to apply in the permit (as would the
requirement for the source to operate in compliance with
each of its emissions limits) until the new streamlined
compliance approach becomes operative.
Step Six - Indicate in the application submittal that
streamlining of the listed applicable requirements under a
permit shield (where available) is being proposed and
propose the establishment of a permit shield which would
state that compliance with the streamlined limit assures
compliance with the listed applicable requirements. All
emission and/or performance standards not subsumed by the
streamlined requirements must be separately addressed in the
part 70 permit application.
Step Seven - Evaluate the adequacy of the proposal and its
supporting documentation. The EPA recommends that the
permitting authority communicate its findings to the
applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for the
applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of
14
-------
the differences before issuance of a draft permit for public
review. Where the permitting authority determines that the
streamlining proposal is inadequate, the source, to retain
its application shield, must expeditiously resolve any
problems identified by the permitting authority or update
its prior application based on the individual applicable
requirements previously proposed for streamlining.
Step Eight - Note the use of this process in any required
transmittal of a part 70 application, application summary,
or revised application to EPA and include the streamlining
demonstration and supporting documentation in the public
record. When the source is required to provide a copy of
the application (or summary) directly to EPA, it must note
the proposed use of streamlining. A copy of the
streamlining demonstration must be submitted promptly to EPA
along with the required copy of the application or
application summary (where a summary may be submitted to EPA
in lieu of the entire part 70 permit application) unless EPA
has previously agreed with the permitting authority not to
require it (e.g., the proposed streamlining is of a simple
and/or familiar type with no new concerns).
4. Enforcement.
All terms and conditions of a part 70 permit are enforceable
by EPA and citizens, unless certain terms are designated as being
only State (or locally) enforceable. In addition, a source
violating a streamlined emissions limitation in the part 70
permit may be subject to enforcement action for violation of one
(or more) of the subsumed applicable emissions limits to the
extent that a violation of the subsumed emissions limit(s) is
documented.
Upon receiving a part 70 permit, a source implementing the
streamlined approach would not be subject to an EPA enforcement
action for any failure to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that are subsumed within the streamlined
requirement and specified under the permit shield. These
requirements would no longer be independently enforceable once
the permit has been issued, provided that the source attempts in
good faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in the permit.
If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines
that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable
requirements, the permit will be reopened and revised.
5. Discussion.
As sources subject to title V identify all applicable
requirements for inclusion in part 70 permit applications, they
may find that multiple applicable requirements affect the same
pj/83-09 15
-------
pollutant or performance parameter for a particular emissions
unit. Likewise, the requirements of federally-enforceable terms
and conditions in preconstruction or operating permits may
overlap with the requirements of other federally-enforceable
rules and regulations.
In these instances, a source may be in compliance with the
overall emissions limit of each of the applicable requirements,
but be required to comply with a multitude of redundant or
conflicting monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
For example, a source owner faced with two emissions limits for
the same pollutant at a specific emissions point may be required
to install separate monitoring instrumentation and submit
separate monitoring reports for each, even though one monitor can
effectively assure compliance with both emissions limits.
Furthermore, the recordkeeping and reporting associated with the
unnecessary instrumentation may create an administrative burden
for both the facility and the implementing agency without an
associated gain in compliance assurance. Prior to title V there
has been no federally-enforceable means to resolve this
situation.
The EPA encourages permitting authorities to allow use by
the permit applicant of the part 70 permit issuance process to
streamline multiple applicable requirements to the extent the
conditions of this policy can be met. In this way, the part 70
process with its procedural safeguards can be used to focus all
concerned parties on providing for compliance with a single set
of permit terms that assure compliance with multiple applicable
requirements instead of maintaining the costs of multiple sets of
controls, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting approaches.
The legal basis for streamlining multiple applicable
requirements relies on section 504(a), which requires that
title V permits contain emissions limits/standards and other
terms as needed to assure compliance with applicable
requirements. This section notably does not require repetition
of all terms and conditions of an applicable requirement when
another applicable requirement or part 70 permit condition (i.e.,
streamlined requirement) could be fashioned to otherwise assure
compliance with that applicable requirement.
Section 504(f) lends additional certainty to permit
streamlining. It specifically provides that the permitting
authority may authorize that compliance with the permit may be
deemed to be compliance with the Act provided that the permit
includes all applicable requirements. Thus, this section allows
the permitting authority to issue a permit containing a shield
which protects a source against a claim that it is violating any
applicable requirements listed in the permit shield as being
subsumed under the streamlined requirement, provided that the
source meets the permit terms and conditions that implement the
streamlined requirement.
PJ/83-09 16
-------
Part 70 is also receptive to the issuance of streamlined
permits. It contains parallel language to the statute for
emissions limits and for permit shields in §§ 70.6(a)(l) and (f).
Although language in § 70.6(a)(3) may appear to restrict
streamlining by requiring that all "applicable" monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements be placed in the
permit, EPA did not intend for these provisions to preclude
streamlining. Instead, the Agency believes that the provisions
should be consistent with the flexibility for streamlining
provided in section 504(a) of the Act and in § 70.6(a)(1). To
require otherwise would be anomalous and could frustrate
legitimate streamlining efforts. The EPA intends to revise
part 70 to reflect this understanding in a future rulemaking.
Streamlining may be limited in cases where an applicable
requirement defines specific monitoring requirements as the
exclusive means of compliance with an applicable emissions limit.
Some interpret these cases to require that only one set of
monitoring requirements may be used to determine compliance and
that only these requirements may appear in the part 70 permit.
The EPA believes instead that section 504(a) supersedes any need
for such exclusive monitoring, but nonetheless recommends that
States address any potential concerns by adopting certain SIP
language in the future. States that choose to revise their
existing SIP's to contain authorizing language to overcome any
SIP exclusivity problems may use the example language in
Attachment B. The EPA believes that similar flexibility should
be provided to non-part 70 sources as well. To that end,
Attachment B also provides a SIP process (currently in draft
form) which would allow similar flexibility for non-part 70
sources.
With respect to NSR, States can process, in parallel with
the part 70 permit issuance process, a revision to an existing
NSR permit as necessary to resolve any exclusivity concerns
within existing NSR permits (See first White Paper).
Currently the implementing regulations for section 112(1) at
40 CFR part 63, subpart E represent an additional constraint on
the streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits
but only where a State or local agency has accepted a delegation
of authority for a particular maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standard by virtue of its commitment to replace
the Federal section 112 emissions standard with the State's own
standard or program during the part 70 permit issuance process
and using the procedures established in the Subpart E rule at
§ 63.94.. In § 63.94, EPA has specified the criteria for
approving such alternative limits and controls to meet an
otherwise applicable section 112 requirement. These criteria
must be satisfied to ensure that, after a State accepts
delegation under § 63.94, any change to the Federal rule results
in permit requirements that, among other things:
pj/8^09 17
-------
o Reflect applicability criteria no less stringent than
those in the otherwise applicable Federal standards or
requirements;
o Require levels of emissions control for each affected
source and emissions point no less stringent than those
contained in the Federal standards or requirements;
o Require compliance and enforcement measures for each
affected source and emissions point no less stringent than
those in the Federal standards or requirements;
o Express levels of control and compliance and enforcement
measures in the same form and units of measure as the
Federal standard or requirement for § 63.94 program
substitutions;
o Assure compliance by each affected source no later than
would be required by the Federal standard or requirement.
Thus, when a State or local agency, after receiving § 63.94
delegation, seeks to replace a Federal section 112 emissions
standard with requirements arising from its own air toxics
standard or program (such as a toxics NSR program) during the
part 70 permit issuance process, streamlining must take place by
meeting both the criteria of § 63.94 and, except where
contradictory, the criteria of this guidance. However, because
most States are planning to take straight delegation of Federal
emissions standards through subpart E procedures that do not rely
on the part 70 permit issuance process, the EPA believes that the
subpart E criteria for streamlining applicable requirements will
be necessary only in a minority of instances. In the majority of
cases, where a State takes delegation of a Federal standard
(e.g., through straight delegation), the applicable section 112
requirements could be streamlined by following only the criteria
outlined in section A.2., above. Where there are a large number
of sources in the same category subject to a MACT standard for
which the State has a regulation with equivalent requirements,
EPA recommends that the State explore delegation options under
§ 63.93 to best utilize available resources.
It should be noted that the current subpart E rule may be
subject to change as a result of pending litigation. Currently,
EPA intends to revise the rule within the parameters of the
Court's decision to allow greater flexibility for approving State
air toxics standards and programs and to minimize or remove (as
appropriate) any constraint that subpart E might impose on the
streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits.
Finally, States are strongly encouraged to adopt regulatory
provisions allowing permitting authorities to grant the permit
shield where they cannot now do so. The permit shield is an
effective means to clarify that for applicable requirements
18
-------
listed as subsumed under the streamlined requirements, compliance
with the streamlined requirements is deemed to also be compliance
with the subsumed requirements. Such an understanding is
essential to support and defend the issuance of any permit which
provides for the streamlined treatment of multiple applicable
requirements.
If a permit shield is not available, a permittee can still
be afforded significant enforcement protection by an explicit
agency finding that in its judgment the streamlined permit term
indeed provides for full compliance with all the permit limits
that is subsumes. In such a case, it is imperative that the
permit contain language that lists the applicable requirements
being subsumed into the streamlined requirement and states that
compliance with the streamlined requirement will be deemed
compliance with the listed requirements.
B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated SIP
Requirements.
1. Issue.
Can sources file part 70 permit applications on the basis of
locally adopted rules pending EPA SIP approval rather than the
current SIP requirements? Can sources certify their compliance
status on the same basis? Under what circumstances can
permitting authorities issue and/or later revise part 70 permits
based on such locally adopted rules?
2. Guidance.
a. General. In the first White Paper (section II.B.6.),
EPA described a mechanism for simplifying permits where a source
is subject to both a State adopted rule that is pending SIP
approval and the approved SIP version of that rule. Under that
approach, the pending SIP requirements would be incorporated into
the State-only portion of the permit and would become federally
enforceable upon EPA approval of the SIP. The EPA believes that
in most instances, the approach described in the first White
Paper adequately addresses the described problem. In some areas
(most notably California), however, a sizable backlog of pending
SIP revisions exists, and a more far-reaching solution is needed.
In today's guidance, therefore, another approach that may be used
by EPA and permitting authorities to address this situation is
described.
Under this new alternative, the permitting authority may
allow that application completeness initially be based on locally
adopted rules including those which would relax current (i.e.,
federally-approved) SIP requirements, provided that (1) the local
rule has been submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, and (2) the
permitting authority reasonably believes that the local rule (not
the current SIP rule) will be the basis for the part 70 permit.
pj/83-09 19
-------
Where the permitting authority or the source has
demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that the local rule is more
stringent and therefore assures compliance with the current SIP
for all subject sources, a permit application relying on the
local rule may be deemed to be complete and a permit containing
the requirements of the local rule rather than the current SIP
could be issued for part 70 purposes. That is, consistent with
section 504(a) of the Act, the part 70 permit need only contain
emissions limits and other terms and conditions (i.e., the more
stringent local rule) as needed to assure compliance with the
applicable requirement (i.e., the current SIP regulation).
An EPA finding that a submitted rule assures compliance with
the approved SIP rule would be a preliminary indication of EPA's
belief that a part 70 permit incorporating the terms of the
submitted rule would also assure compliance with the approved
SIP. Such a finding would not equate to rulemaking, and so would
not constitute a revision of the SIP. Therefore, a preliminary
finding would not necessarily ensure that the proposed revision
would ultimately be approved by EPA, nor would it protect a
source from enforcement of the approved SIP.20 Further, such a
finding would not predetermine the outcome of the part 70 permit
proceeding. Reviewers would have the ability to evaluate any
proposed permit terms or conditions based on pending SIP
revisions to determine whether the permit assures compliance with
applicable requirements, i.e., the approved SIP. However, EPA
believes that a finding of this nature should provide the source
and the permitting authority sufficient assurance to proceed with
the issuance of a permit that reflects the terms of the submitted
local rule rather than the approved SIP. Note that a part 70
permit can be based on a local rule even if the local rule is
subsequently disapproved by EPA for SIP purposes (e.g., measure
is more stringent than the current SIP but fails to meet SIP
requirements for reasonably available control technology and/or
to make reasonable further progress), provided: (1) a permit
based on the local rule would assure compliance with all
applicable requirements (including the approved SIP); and (2) the
permit meets all part 70 requirements.
19Where resources allow and the situation calls for it, EPA
will go on record with a letter to the permitting authority with a
list of rules that it has preliminarily determined will assure
compliance with the corresponding SIP approved rule.
20If a part 70 permit is issued based upon a pending SIP
revision and a permit shield is incorporated in the permit,
compliance with the permit would be deemed to be compliance with
all applicable requirements. If EPA or the permitting authority
later discovers that the permit terms do not assure compliance with
all applicable requirements, including the applicable SIP, the
permit would have to be reopened and revised.
PJ/8J09 20
-------
Where the local rule submitted to EPA as a SIP revision
represents a relaxation of the current SIP requirement (e.g., the
local rule would replace an existing technology forcing rule that
has been determined to be unachievable in practice), a part 70
source may propose in its permit application to base its permit
on the local rule in anticipation of EPA approval. However, a
permit based on the local rule could not be issued prior to EPA
approval of the rule. This is because a permit based on the
relaxed requirements of the local rule could not assure
compliance with the more stringent applicable requirement (the
approved SIP), as required by section 504 of the Act. Similarly,
a part 70 source may be subject to pending SIP revisions that may
tighten certain current SIP obligations and relax others for
sources in that source category. Here again the permitting
authority could allow initial application completeness to be
determined relying on the locally adopted rule, but the permit
could not be issued without the current SIP requirements unless a
source opted to demonstrate that the submitted rule represents,
for that specific source, a more stringent requirement than the
current SIP. In such a case, the part 70 permit could
subsequently be issued for that source on the basis of the local
rule, since the permit terms would assure compliance with the
approved SIP.
b. Initial actions by EPA and permitting authorities. The
EPA is committed to working with States within available
resources to assure that the timetable for overall permit
issuance is not adversely affected by pending SIP revisions that
are not straightforward tightenings. The extent of the problem,
however, will vary greatly and, in some cases, may require a
specific plan of action between EPA and certain States to
expedite SIP processing where the problem is substantial.
In California, where this problem is believed to be most
extensive, EPA, the districts, and the California Air Resources
Board are in the process of identifying rules in the SIP backlog
that are not straightforward tightenings or are relaxations of
the currently approved SIP, and will target them for expeditious
processing. These rules will be identified within a specified
timeframe, generally within 1 year of the effective date of a
district's part 70 program. The EPA's Region IX will enter into
formal agreements with affected districts and will commit to take
action on this "targeted" portion of the SIP backlog before
comprehensive permit issuance for sources affected by the backlog
would be required, provided this is consistent with the
transition plan (as it may be revised). Other EPA Regional
Offices will determine the need and resources available for this
type of exercise on a case-by-case basis. Region IX will also
commit to process expeditiously any similar rules submitted or
"Transition plan refers to the 3-year transition strategy for
initial part 70 permit issuance described in § 70.4(b)(11).
PJ/KW9 21
-------
identified after the period of the formal agreement, although
such processing would not necessarily occur before permits must
be issued to sources affected by these rules.
Under Region IX's formal agreements, permitting authorities
in the districts need not issue the portion of the part 70 permit
covering emissions units affected by the targeted backlog until
the rule adoption or change identified in the formal agreement
has been acted on by EPA, consistent with the flexibility allowed
in the permit issuance transition plan in the permitting
authority's program. This should in most cases allow permitting
authorities to delay issuing permits to sources to the extent
they are affected by the targeted SIP backlog until EPA completes
its review action on the pending SIP revisions. Where a
transition plan contains a permit issuance schedule that would
not allow postponing permit issuance until EPA has acted on the
proposed SIP revisions, appropriate changes to the plan can still
be made to defer permit issuance until EPA action on the targeted
SIP backlog. Such changes would be made following the same
approach described for changing application forms in EPA's first
White Paper. Within these constraints, a permitting authority
may allow for issuance of part 70 permits to the facility in
phases such that permits covering those emissions units of the
facility affected by the targeted SIP revision are issued later.
This result is also consistent with the flexibility contained in
§ 70.2 (see definition of "Part 70 permit") for the permitting
authority to issue multiple permits to one part 70 source if it
makes sense to do so. Alternatively, the permitting authority
could issue the permit in its entirety based on the current SIP.
The EPA agrees that delays in permit issuance described
above will not be cause for an EPA finding of failure by the
permitting authority to adequately administer or enforce its
part 70 program. Any initial permit issued under a phased
approach (i.e., the first phase involves all emissions units
unaffected by the SIP backlog targeted by EPA), however, does not
shield the source from the enforceability of the requirements
excluded in the first phase permit and the obligation to obtain
permit conditions covering the excluded emissions units after EPA
has acted on the relevant SIP rule backlog.
c. Ongoing actions. The preceding guidance should address
the most significant problems associated with the development of
part 70 permit applications and the subsequent issuance of
part 70 permits that result from the existence of a SIP backlog.
The EPA recognizes, however, that areas experiencing the most
significant start-up problems with respect to pending SIP rules
may well require an ongoing program to manage the potential SIP
backlog so as to prevent significant problems of this nature from
occurring in the future. In some situations it may be
appropriate on a continuing basis for EPA to determine
preliminarily whether a submitted rule can be listed as one which
would assure compliance with the SIP rule it seeks to replace.
pj/83-09 22
-------
This would enable the permitting authority to adjust its
priorities for requiring application updates and for
accomplishing permit issuance and revision.
For post application submittal, a source that has filed a
complete application may opt to, or be required to, update its
current application as a result of changes or pending changes to
the SIP. The likelihood of these changes occurring will vary
from area to area, and are most likely to affect sources
scheduled later in the transition period for initial permit
issuance. For example:
o A local rule previously relied upon may be amended by the
State or district.
o Where a local rule that was previously listed in the
formal agreement for expeditious SIP processing (because the
rule is not a straightforward strengthening) is disapproved
by EPA and the source has relied on that rule in preparing
its application, the applicant must file an application
update that either demonstrates that compliance with the
local rule would assure compliance with the current SIP or
demonstrates direct compliance with the current SIP.
o The adoption and submission to EPA of a more stringent
local rule after an applicant has filed its application may
present a new and desired opportunity for streamlining. If
so, the applicant could opt to file an application update to
shift the compliance focus of its current application to the
newly adopted local rule, which is pending SIP approval,
provided it meets the streamlining criteria described in
section II.A. above.
For post permit issuance, sources may also encounter changes
to rule situations after initial permit issuance that could lead
them to request a permit revision. For example, sources may
propose a revision to an issued part 70 permit where a newly
adopted local rule would present a desirable streamlining
opportunity. The significant permit revision process would be
required under the current part 70 to accomplish this change.
Note that EPA in its revisions to part 70 may authorize
permitting authorities to use a less extensive permit revision
process.
To initiate the permit revision, the source must file an
application to revise the permit to contain the requirements of
local rule instead of the current SIP. This application must
meet the previously defined and applicable streamlining criteria.
In response, the permitting authority may subsequently
revise the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current
SIP where (1) the rule is listed by the EPA as one where
compliance with it would assure compliance with the relevant
pj/83-09 23
-------
portions of the current SIP, or (2) the applicant has provided a
source specific demonstration consistent with the streamlining
criteria in section II.A.2. that assures this result. A permit
shield or similar permit condition should be issued for purposes
of certainty. In the absence of a shield or similar permit
condition, all aspects of the approved SIP remain enforceable,
regardless of the source's compliance status with respect to the
permit. The EPA encourages permitting authorities currently
without provisions for incorporating permit shields to add them
at their first opportunity.
3. Process.
a. Initial Applications. An applicant proposing to submit
its part 70 permit application based on a local rule that has
been submitted for EPA approval rather than the current SIP would
take one of two courses of actions depending on the status of the
local rule with EPA and/or the permitting authority:
The first course of action would be appropriate for local
rules that (1) have been previously demonstrated to EPA's
satisfaction to be at least as stringent as the approved SIP rule
so as to assure compliance with it for all subject sources, (2)
are otherwise authorized by the permitting authority based on its
judgement that such rules will likely be the basis for the
part 70 permit (e.g. EPA approval of the rule is imminent), or
(3) have been specifically identified in a formal agreement
between the permitting authority and EPA for expeditious SIP
processing, i.e., the "targeted backlog." Rules listed in a
formal agreement will typically involve local rules pending SIP
approval which do or could represent full or partial relaxations
of the current SIP. Where they choose to use this approach, the
permitting authority and EPA will maintain an up-to-date list of
local rules which meet any of these criteria.
In preparing initial part 70 permit applications with
respect to such local rules the applicant:
Step One - Will indicate in its application that it has
opted for this approach, list or cross-reference all
requirements from applicable local rules that are eligible
for this approach, and refer to the list maintained for this
purpose by the permitting authority.
Step Two - Will identify in the permit application the
current SIP requirements that the pending SIP revision would
replace.
Step Three - May choose to certify compliance with the
requirement(s) of the pending local rule in lieu of the
current SIP if there is sufficient source compliance data on
which to base such a certification. (The EPA is proposing
PJ/8349 24
-------
to revise its part 70 regulations to provide that such a
certification would meet the requirements of § 70.5(c)(10).)
Step Pour - May propose that a permit shield would be in
effect upon permit issuance. For those listed local rules
which are recognized by EPA as being able to assure
compliance with the current SIP rule, the applicant would
indicate in the application that a permit shield (or
alternatively, other similar language where authority for a
permit shield is not available) is being proposed to be
incorporated into the permit to confirm this understanding.
The second course of action would be appropriate where the
criteria specified above have not been met for a particular rule
and an applicant still wants to base its initial part 70
application on such local rules pending SIP approval. In this
instance, the process would be essentially the same but the
source would have to demonstrate that compliance with the local
rule would assure compliance with the current SIP (i.e., make an
adequate demonstration consistent with the streamlining criteria
described in section II.A.2. above.) and submit it with the
permit application in step one. Again, if a part 70 permit
application has already been submitted without streamlining but
the source agrees to subsequently pursue this option, the
permitting authority may work with the source to support
streamlining requirements during the permit development process.
b. Initial Permit Issuance Process. After receiving a
complete application, the permitting authority must note where
the applicant has proposed use of the approaches described above
in section II.B.3.a. The note would be placed in the application
summary, the application, or the revised application. Copies of
the application summary, the application, or the revised
application containing such proposals must be submitted promptly
to EPA (unless EPA has agreed that the demonstration is of a type
not required for advance submittal to EPA) .
Where the rule is listed by EPA as one where compliance with
it would assure compliance with the relevant portions of the
current SIP, or the applicant has provided a source specific
demonstration consistent with the streamlining outlined in
section II.A.2., the permitting authority may proceed to issue
the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current SIP. A
permit shield or similar permit condition which confirms this
understanding should be issued for purposes of certainty.
If an applicant chooses to demonstrate that a local rule
assures compliance with the applicable SIP for all affected
emissions units, the permitting authority will evaluate this
proposal and any supporting documentation. Upon completion of
this evaluation and prior to releasing a draft permit public
notice, the permitting authority is advised to communicate any
concerns to the applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for
pj/83-09 25
-------
the applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of
the differences. This may cause some revisions to the
application as originally filed.
If the permitting authority or EPA are not satisfied that
the local rule (as it applies to the applicant's facility)
assures compliance with the applicable SIP rule, the applicant
must revise its application to rely on the SIP rule. All
required application updates must be submitted on or before the
reasonable deadline required by the permitting authority for the
source to maintain its application shield.
Consistent with the flexibility allowed in the permit
issuance transition plan (as it may be revised), the permitting
authority may delay issuance of those portions of a source's
permit that are covered by a rule identified in a Region IX type
formal agreement, which targets certain SIP rules for expeditious
processing, until EPA has acted on the relevant rule(s).
Alternatively, comprehensive permits may be issued to such a
source prior to the time that EPA has acted on the rule provided
that they are based on the current SIP (unless the source has
provided an adequate streamlining demonstration).
4. Enforcement.
All terms and conditions of the part 70 permit are
enforceable by EPA and by citizens. In addition, a source
violating the emissions limitation in the part 70 permit is also
subject to enforcement action for violation of the current SIP
emissions limits if a violation of this limit can be documented.
Upon issuance of a part 70 permit based on the local rule,
the permit terms and conditions implementing the local rule would
become federally enforceable. A source would not be subject to
an EPA enforcement action for any failure to meet monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are required under
the currently approved SIP, if such an understanding has been
specified in the permit. These requirements would no longer be
independently enforceable, provided the source attempts in good
faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
approach required under the local rule.
If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines
that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable
requirements, the permit must be reopened and revised.
5. Discussion.
Sources in California districts currently are subject to
several locally adopted rules which are pending before EPA as
proposed SIP revisions. The majority of these local rules have
been determined by the districts to be more stringent than the
SIP rules that they seek to replace, although some of these rules
26
-------
would relax the current SIP requirements for certain affected
sources. In some cases, technology-forcing SIP rules have been
found to be infeasible to achieve and, instead of seeking to
enforce them, districts have adopted achievable local rules.
Until the local rules are approved into the SIP, sources are
subject to both the local rule and the federally-approved version
of the rule.
The resulting "outdated SIP" presents special problems to
sources which must file a part 70 permit application. In
particular, questions arise as to whether sources must complete
their applications and certify compliance based on SIP rules
which have been superseded by more stringent local rules or by
rules that have been relaxed where, for example, the permitting
authority has found the current SIP rules to be unachievable.
Those problems, while most apparent in their effect on the start-
up of a part 70 program, are also ongoing in nature and may
create a need to update initially complete permit applications
and to revise issued permits. The EPA believes that these
problems with outdated SIP rules are most extensive in California
but are not unique to that State.
The EPA strongly believes that implementation of title V to
the extent possible should complement, not complicate, the
implementation of other titles, including title I, the purpose of
which is to assure adoption of programs that will attain and22
maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Accordingly, the Agency is providing this guidance which will
allow sources and permitting authorities to rely on more
stringent local rules for permit issuance. The overall strategy
for sensitizing the SIP revision process to part 70 concerns
presented in this guidance will allow sources to focus more on
current air quality requirements in all aspects of part 70 permit
application development and update, permit issuance, and permit
revision.
The legal basis for recognizing a local rule pending SIP
approval in lieu of the current, but less stringent, SIP
requirement or for streamlining multiple applicable requirements
is identical to the basis for adopting a streamlined emissions
limit to replace multiple applicable requirements (see discussion
in section II.A.5.). The opportunities for shifting to the more
stringent local rule are correspondingly affected by the
limitations previously described for the streamlining of
applicable requirements.
guidance is designed primarily to alleviate situations
where the SIP backlog is both large and longstanding. It is not to
be used as a means of anticipating the outcome of pending
attainment status redesignations.
PJ/8M9 27
-------
C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
1. Issue.
How must sources address insignificant emissions units
(lEU's) subject to at least one applicable requirement? 3
(Insignificant emissions units are in most cases not directly
regulated, and therefore could be left off the permit entirely,
were it not for the presence of certain generic or facility-wide
requirements that apply to all emissions units.) Must the
application and the subsequent permit address each IEU
individually and require periodic monitoring where it is not
otherwise provided by a generically applicable requirement? On
what basis can the initial and future compliance certifications
be made for lEU's with generally applicable requirements?
2. Guidance.
The EPA interprets part 70 to allow considerable discretion
to the permitting authority in tailoring the amount and quality
of information required in permit applications and permits as
they relate to lEU's. In general, permit applications must
contain sufficient information to support the drafting of the
part 70 permit (including certain information for lEU's subject
to only generally applicable requirements) and to determine
compliance status with all applicable requirements. The EPA,
however, interprets part 70 to allow permitting authorities
considerable discretion as to the format and content of permits,
provided that compliance with all applicable requirements,
including those for lEU's, is assured. The Agency believes that
the clarifications contained herein afford permitting authorities
sufficient flexibility to treat lEU's in a manner commensurate
with the environmental benefits that may be gained from their
inclusion in the permit.
a. Permit Applications - Information. With regard to
part 70 requirements to describe and list lEU's in applications
and permits, the permitting authority can use the generic
grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed
in the first White Paper. In addition, the requirement to
identify all applicable requirements, as it related to lEU's
subject to generally applicable requirements, can normally be
addressed by standard or generic permit conditions with minimal
23An emissions unit can be an IEU for one applicable
requirement and not for another. However, such a unit may be
eligible for treatment as an IEU only with respect to those
pollutants not emitted in significant amounts. The term
"significant" as used in this policy statement does not have the
meaning as used in § 52.21 (e.g., 15 tpy PM-10, 40 tpy VOC) but
rather means that the emissions unit does not qualify for treatment
in the application as an insignificant emissions unit.
pj/83-09 28
-------
or no reference to any specific emissions unit or activity. The
EPA has reviewed and acquiesced in the issuance of permits
wherein generally applicable requirements are incorporated
through the use of tables describing a tiered compliance regime
for these requirements as they affect different sizes of
emissions units, including a distinct and more streamlined
compliance regime for lEU's. Different generic permit tables may
be necessary to cover the situation for a particular type of IEU
which is governed by different applicable requirements.
Similarly, the first White Paper provides that no emissions
estimates need be provided for even regulated emissions streams
where it would serve no useful purpose to do so. This should be
the case for lEU's where the amount of emissions from a unit is
not relevant to determining applicability of, or compliance with,
the requirement. Except where the contributions of lEU's would
need to be more precisely known to resolve issues of
applicability or major source status would the permitting
authority need to request emissions estimates for part 70
purposes.
b. Permit Applications - Initial Compliance Certifications.
Section 70.5(c)(9) requires complete part 70 applications to
contain a certification of compliance with all applicable
requirements by a responsible official and a statement of the
methods used for determining compliance. This certification must
be based on a "reasonable inquiry" by the responsible official.
The EPA believes that, for the generally applicable or facility-
wide requirements applying to an IEU, reasonable inquiry for
initial certifications need only be based on available
information, which would include any information required to be
generated by the applicable requirement. Regarding the latter,
and as is true for any applicable requirement, the initial
certification can be based on only the latest cycle of required
information (e.g., a source could generally rely on a
demonstration of compliance resulting from the most recent
required monitoring, notwithstanding the existence of prior
monitoring indicating non-compliance at a previous point in
time). Where an applicable requirement (generally applicable or
otherwise) does not require monitoring, the § 70.5(c)(9)
requirement to certify compliance does not itself require that
monitoring be done to support a certification. Similarly, there
is no need to perform an emissions test to support this
compliance certification if none is required by the applicable
requirement itself. The EPA interprets § 70.5(c) (9) to allow for
a certification of compliance where there is no required
monitoring and, despite a "reasonable inquiry" to uncover other
existing information, the responsible official has no information
to the contrary.
c. Permit Content - Applicable Requirements. With regard
to part 70 obligations to include all applicable requirements in
the permit, the permitting authority can also use the generic
grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed
PJ/83-09 29
-------
in the first White Paper. That is, generally applicable
requirements can normally be adequately addressed in the part 70
permit by standard permit conditions with minimal or no reference
to any specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the
scope of the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are
clear. As noted above, different generic permit provisions may
be necessary to cover the situation for which different types of
lEU's are governed by different applicable requirements.
d. Permit Content - Monitoring. Recordkeeping. and
Reporting. Section 70.6(a)(3)(i) requires all applicable
requirements for monitoring and analysis procedures or test
methods to be contained in part 70 permits. In addition, where
the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or
monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve
as monitoring), the permitting authority must prescribe periodic
monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant
time period that are representative of the source's compliance
with the permit. Many of the generically applicable requirements
for lEU's have a related test method, but relatively few have a
specific regimen of required periodic testing or monitoring.
The EPA believes that the permitting authority in general
has broad discretion in determining the nature of any required
periodic monitoring. The need for this discretion is
particularly evident in the case of generally applicable
requirements, which tend to cover lEU's as well as significant
emissions units. The requirement to include in a permit testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance
certification sufficient to assure compliance does not require
the permit to impose the same level of rigor with respect to all
emissions units and applicable requirement situations. It does
not require extensive testing or monitoring to assure compliance
with the applicable requirements for emissions units that do not
have significant potential to violate emissions limitations or
other requirements under normal operating conditions. In
particular, where the establishment of a regular program of
monitoring would not significantly enhance the ability of the
permit to assure compliance with the applicable requirement, the
permitting authority can provide that the status quo (i.e., no
monitoring) will meet § 70.6(a)(3)(i). For lEU's subject to a
generally applicable requirement for which the permitting
authority believes monitoring is needed, a streamlined approach
to periodic monitoring, such as an inspection program to assure
the proper operation and maintenance of emissions activities
(e.g., valves and flanges), should presumptively be appropriate.
The EPA's policy on IEU monitoring needs is based on its
belief that lEU's typically are associated with inconsequential
environmental impacts and present little potential for violations
of generically applicable requirements, and so may be good
candidates for a very streamlined approach to periodic
monitoring. As EPA noted in the first White Paper, generally
30
-------
applicable requirements typically reside in the SIP. Permitting
authorities therefore not only have the best sense of which
requirements qualify as generally applicable, but also where it
is appropriate to conclude that periodic monitoring is not
necessary for lEU's subject to these requirements. Where the
source ascertains that the permitting authority will not require
periodic monitoring for lEU's, it can of course omit a periodic
monitoring proposal from the application.
e. Permit Content - Compliance Certifications. Section
70.6(c)(5) requires in part that each permitted source submit no
less frequently than annually a certification of its compliance
status with all the terms and conditions of the permit. This
certification will be based on available information, including
monitoring and/or other compliance terms required in the permit.
Where a particular emissions unit presents little or no potential
for violation of a certain applicable requirement, the
"reasonable inquiry" required by title V can be abbreviated.
Since it can be determined in the abstract that violation of the
requirement by these emissions units is highly improbable, it is
reasonable in that instance to limit the search for information
to what is readily available. As noted above, EPA believes that
an IEU subject to a generally applicable requirement typically
presents little or no potential for violation of those
requirements. It follows that where, for instance, a permit does
not require monitoring for lEU's subject to a generally
applicable requirement, and there were no observed, documented,
or known instances of non-compliance, an annual certification of
compliance is presumptively appropriate. Similarly, where
monitoring is required, an annual certification of compliance is
also appropriate when no violations are monitored and there were
no observed, documented, or known instances of non-compliance.
3. Discussion.
Many of the concerns expressed to EPA regarding the
treatment of lEU's in the application and permit arise because
lEU's are in most cases not directly regulated, and therefore
could be left off the permit entirely, were it not for the
presence of certain generic requirements that apply to all
emissions units. Though the focus of concern is the
applicability of the generic requirements to lEU's, response to
these concerns derive primarily from the flexibility that exists
in part 70 for dealing with generically applicable requirements.
In implementing this flexibility, it may be appropriate for the
permitting authority to further distinguish between units that
have been designated as insignificant and those that have not.
This is so because the relative size of a unit can be an
important factor in deciding how to fashion permit terms even for
a generically applicable requirement, and State-established lEU's
normally define the smallest emissions points. However, EPA
notes that, as a matter of part 70 interpretation, whether a unit
pj/83-09 31
-------
has been designated as insignificant is not necessarily critical
to its treatment in the part 70 permit.
Concerns have been expressed that addressing in part 70
permits the relatively trivial portion of emissions attributable
to lEU's will consume a disproportionate share of the total
resources available to issue part 70 permits. That is, according
to their understanding of part 70, applicants and permitting
authorities will expend greater resources than warranted to
determine the specific applicability of requirements to lEU's,
how compliance with them will be assured, and the basis on which
the certification of compliance status of the source with respect
to these lEU's would be made.
The EPA believes that the policy described for addressing
generically applicable requirements in applications and permits
as they apply to lEU's allows permitting authorities sufficient
flexibility to streamline the required administrative effort
commensurate to the environmental significance of the varying
types of IEU situations. This should prevent the potentially
high but unintended level of costs identified by certain sources
and permitting authorities from occurring in the future with
respect to lEU's.
D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement Stipulation.
1. Issue.
When an applicant stipulates that it is a major source and
subject to specific applicable requirements, how much, if any,
additional information related to applicability is necessary in
the part 70 permit application?
2. Guidance.
O A
If an applicant stipulates that it is a major source and
subject to specific applicable requirements, it need not provide
additional information in its application to demonstrate
applicability with respect to those requirements, provided that
(1) the permitting authority has had previous review experience
with a particular source (e.g., issued it a permit), or (2)
otherwise has an adequate level of familiarity with the source's
operation (e.g., current emissions inventory information). This
does not affect the requirement to provide information for other
purposes under part 70, such as to support a compliance
certification or a request for a permit shield or to describe the
emissions activities of its site (see first White Paper).
2AIf an applicant stipulates it is a major source, it must list
all pollutants for which it is major.
32
-------
Accordingly, permitting authorities may allow the applicant
to stipulate that:
o Its facility is a major source and subject to part 70
permitting, without providing any additional information for
the applicability determination;
o It is subject to specific applicable requirements, to be
included in its part 70 permit, without providing additional
information to establish applicability for stipulated
requirements; or
o It is subject to only portions of an applicable
requirement and state that it is not subject to other
portions. Such a stipulation must explicitly state which
portion of the rule applies and which does not and an
explanation must be provided for this conclusion.
Stipulation by a source to major source status or specific
applicable requirements in a part 70 application does not
preclude the permitting authority from requesting additional
information from the applicant for establishing the applicability
of non-stipulated requirements or for verifying a stipulation
that certain requirements are not applicable.
3. Discussion.
In general, part 70 requires that applications contain
information to the extent needed to determine major source
status, to verify the applicability of part 70 or applicable
requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as necessary).
Section 70.5(c) requires the application to describe emissions of
all regulated air pollutants for each emissions unit.
In the first White Paper, EPA indicated a substantial degree
of discretion for permitting authorities in this area. It
indicates that States may adopt different approaches to meet the
minimum program requirements established by the part 70
regulations depending on local needs. In many instances, a
qualitative description of emissions will satisfy this standard.
However, the applicant may need to provide more detailed
information for purposes other than determining applicability and
to foster efficiency in the permitting program.
For the purpose of determining the applicability of part 70
or other specific requirements, the information required in an
application should be streamlined for the mutual benefit of the
applicant and the permitting authority. An applicant that
stipulates it is a major source subject to part 70 and to other
applicable requirements should not be required to provide any
additional information to verify those facts in its part 70
application. However, the applicant must provide sufficient
information to allow the permitting authority to impose the
33
-------
applicable requirement. In addition, the resulting application
streamlining would not relieve the applicant from submitting, or
the permitting authority from reviewing, emissions or other data
for part 70 purposes other than determining applicability.
In the case where there is no dispute that a stationary
source is subject to part 70, and the applicant stipulates that
the source is a part 70 source in the application, no further
information would be required for applicability determination.
An example would be a source which is currently operating under a
prevention of significant deterioration permit because it is
major for PM-10. Both the source and the permitting authority
agree that the source is subject to the State's part 70 program.
A source may also streamline the part 70 permit process by
stipulating that specific applicable requirements apply. This
does not relieve the source of its obligation to identify all
applicable requirements or preclude the permitting authority from
requesting additional information, including information
pertaining to the applicability of requirements not covered in
the stipulation. For example, a stationary source may stipulate
it is subject to a SIP rule. However, the permitting authority
may suspect that the source is also subject to a New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS), but may need more information for
confirmation. In this case, the permitting authority would
request additional information related to the applicability of
the NSPS.
Similarly, an applicant may stipulate that it is subject to
only portions of an applicable requirement and state that it is
not subject to other portions. In such case, the permitting
authority may request the applicant to provide additional
information to demonstrate that it is not subject to requirements
in question. However, if a source requests a permit shield,
additional information to demonstrate the non-applicability of
these requirements must be submitted.
E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70 Permit
Applications And Permits.
1. Issue.
Can an applicant in its permit application, and can the
permit itself, reference existing information that is available
at the permitting authority? Also, can the permit application
and the permit reference applicable requirements through citation
rather than by a complete reprinting of the requirements
themselves in the part 70 permit application or permit?
2. Guidance.
a. General. Information that would be cited or cross
referenced in the permit application and incorporated by
PJ/83-09 34
-------
reference into the issued permit must first be currently
applicable and available to the permitting authority and
public . The information need not be restated in the part 70
application. Standardized citation formats should be established
by the permitting authority to facilitate appropriate use of this
mechanism.
Referenced documents must also be specifically identified.
Descriptive information such as the title or number of the
document and the date of the document must be included so that
there is no ambiguity as to which version of which document is
being referenced. Citations, cross references, and
incorporations by reference must be detailed enough that the
manner in which any referenced material applies to a facility is
clear and is not reasonably subject to misinterpretation. Where
only a portion of the referenced document applies, applications
and permits must specify the relevant section of the document.
Any information cited, cross referenced, or incorporated by
reference must be accompanied by a description or identification
of the current activities, requirements, or equipment for which
the information is referenced.
b. Permit Applications. The applicant and the permitting
authority should work together to determine the extent to which
part 70 permit applications may cross reference agency-issued
rules, regulations, permits, and published protocols, and
existing information generated by the applicant. To facilitate
referencing existing information, permitting authorities should
identify the general types of information available for this
purpose. To the extent that such information exists and is
readily available to the public, the following types of
information may be cited or cross referenced (as allowed by the
permitting authority) :
o Rules, regulations, and published protocols.
o Criteria pollutant and HAP emission inventories and
supporting calculations.
o Emission monitoring reports, compliance reports, and
source tests.
"Referenced documents must be made available (1) as part of
the public docket on the permit action or (2) as information
available in publicly accessible files located at the permitting
authority, unless they are published or are readily available
(e.g., regulations printed in the Code of Federal Regulations or
its State equivalent).
26Use of cross-referencing does not shift any burden of
reproducing or otherwise acquiring information to the permitting
authority.
35
-------
o Annual emissions statements.
o Process and abatement equipment lists and descriptions.
o Current operating and preconstruction permit terms.
o Permit application materials previously submitted.
o Other materials with the approval of the permitting
authority.
Applicants are obligated to correct and supplement
inaccurate or incomplete permitting authority records relied upon
for the purposes of part 70 permit applications. The responsible
official must certify, consistent with § 70.5(d), to the truth,
accuracy, and completeness of all information referenced.
c. Permits. Incorporation by reference in permits may be
appropriate and useful under several circumstances. Appropriate
use of incorporation by reference in permits includes referencing
of test method procedures, inspection and maintenance plans, and
calculation methods for determining compliance. One of the key
objectives Congress hoped to achieve in creating title V,
however, was the issuance of comprehensive permits that clarify
how sources must comply with applicable requirements. Permitting
authorities should therefore balance the streamlining benefits
achieved through use of incorporation by reference with the need
to issue comprehensive, unambiguous permits useful to all
affected parties, including those engaged in field inspections.
Permitting authorities may, after listing all applicable
emissions limits for all applicable emissions units in the
part 70 permit, provide for referencing the details of those
limits, rather than reprinting them in permits to the extent that
(1) applicability issues and compliance obligations are clear,
and (2) the permit includes any additional terms and conditions
sufficient to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements2 .
Where the cited applicable requirement provides for
different and independent compliance options (e.g., boilers
subject to an NSPS promulgated under section 111 may comply by
use of low sulfur fuel or through add-on of a control device),
the permitting authority generally should require that the
part 70 permit contain (or incorporate by reference) the specific
27In the case of a merged permit program, i.e., where a State
has merged its NSR and operating permits programs, previous NSR
permits expire. This leaves the part 70 permit as the sole
repository of the relevant prior terms and conditions of the NSR
permit. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to
incorporate by reference the expired NSR permits.
pj/83^9 36
-------
option(s) selected by the source. Alternatively, the permit
could incorporate by reference the entire applicable requirement
provided that (1) such reference is unambiguous in its
applicability and requirements, (2) the permit contains
obligations to certify compliance and report compliance
monitoring data reflecting the chosen control approach, and (3)
the permitting authority determines that the relevant purposes of
title V would be met through such referencing. The alternative
approach would not be allowable if changing from one compliance
option to another would trigger the need for a prior review by
the permitting authority or EPA (e.g. NSR), unless prior approval
is incorporated into the part 70 permit (i.e., advance NSR).
The EPA does not recommend that permitting authorities
incorporate into part 70 permits certain other types of
information such as the part 70 permit application (see first
White Paper).
3. Discussion.
Title V and part 70 do not define when citation or cross-
referencing in permit applications would be appropriate, although
it obviously would not be allowed where such citations or cross-
references would not support subsequent development of the
part 70 permit. The EPA's first White Paper states that a
permitting authority may streamline part 70 applications by
allowing the applicant to cross-reference a variety of documents
including permits and Federal, State, and local rules. This
guidance further provides that where an emissions estimate is
needed for part 70 purposes but is otherwise available (e.g.,
recent submittal of emissions inventory) the permitting authority
can allow the source to cross-reference this information for
part 70 purposes.
Permitting authorities' files and databases often include
information submitted by the applicant which can also be required
by part 70. Development and review of part 70 permit
applications could be streamlined if information already held by
the permitting authority and the public is referenced or cited in
part 70 permit applications rather than restated in its entirety.
Similarly, specific citations to regulations that are unambiguous
in their applicability and requirements as they apply to a
particular source will reduce the burden associated with
application development.
Incorporation by reference can be similarly effective in
streamlining the content of part 70 permits. The potential
benefits of permit development based on an incorporation by
reference approach include reduced cost and administrative
complexity, and continued compliance flexibility as enforceably
allowed by the underlying applicable requirements.
pj/83-09 37
-------
Expectations for referencing with respect to permit content
are somewhat better defined than for permit applications.
Section 504(a) states that each permit "shall include enforceable
emissions limitations and standards" and "such other conditions
as are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable
requirements." In addition, section 504(c) requires each permit
to "set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance
certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance
with the permit terms and conditions." Analogous provisions are
contained in §§ 70.6(a)(l) and (3). The EPA interprets these
provisions to place limits on the type of information that may be
referenced in permits. Although this material may be
incorporated into the permit by reference, that may only be done
to the extent that its manner of application is clear.
Accordingly, after all applicable emissions limits are
placed in the part 70 permit and attached to the emissions unit
to which they apply, the permitting authority may allow
referencing where it is specific enough to define how the
applicable requirement applies and where using this approach
assures compliance with all applicable requirements. This
approach is a desirable option where the referenced material is
unambiguous in how it applies to the permitted facility, and it
provides for enforceability from a practical standpoint. On the
other hand, it is generally not acceptable to use a combination
of referencing certain provisions of an applicable requirement
while paraphrasing other provisions of that same applicable
requirement. Such a practice, particularly if coupled with a
permit shield, could create dual requirements and potential
confusion.
Even where the referenced requirement allows for compliance
options, the permitting authority may issue the permit with
incorporation of the applicable requirement provided that the
compliance options of the source are enforceably defined under
available control options, appropriate records are kept and
reports made, and any required revisions to update the permit
with respect to specific performance levels are made. This
treatment would be analogous to the flexibility provided to
sources through the use of alternative scenarios.
PJ/83-09 38
-------
Attachment A
Approval of Alternative Test Methods
The part 63 general provisions, as well as other EPA air
regulations implementing sections 111 and 112 of the Act, allow
only EPA-approved test methods to implement emissions standards
that are established by States to meet Federal requirements.
Accordingly, streamlining cannot result in any requirement
relying on a State-only test method unless and until EPA, or the
permitting authority acting as EPA's delegated agency, approves
it as an appropriate method for purposes of complying with that
streamlined standard. Currently, all States may be delegated
authority to make decisions regarding minor revisions to EPA
approved test methods (i.e., minor changes are those that have
isolated consequences, affect a single source, and do not affect
the stringency of the emissions limitation or standard). The EPA
is exploring options for defining where delegation to States is
appropriate for reviewing major revisions or new test methods,
and for expediting the approval process where the Agency retains
final sign-off authority. The EPA recognizes that its approval
must generally occur in a timeframe consistent with the time
constraints of the part 70 permit issuance process. Until
further guidance on this subject is issued, States must obtain
EPA approval for all State-only test methods which represent
major changes or alternatives to EPA-approved test methods prior
to or within the 45-day EPA review period of the proposed permit
seeking to streamline requirements.
With respect to SIP requirements, the ability for a
permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method
depends on the governing language contained in the SIP. For
example, some SIP's expressly connect a test method with a
particular emissions limit but allow for the use of an equally
stringent method. Other SIP's contain a more exclusive linkage
between an emissions limit and its required test method (i.e.,
limit A as measured by test method B). The SIP-approved test
method can be changed only through a SIP revision unless the SIP
contains provisions for establishing alternative test methods.
Attachment B contains example SIP language which provides a
mechanism that can establish an alternative applicable
requirement in such cases without the need for a source-specific
SIP revision.
Permitting authorities may implement streamlining which
involves alternative or new test methods within the flexibility
granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority granted by EPA
(where section 111/112 standards are involved). Permit
applications containing a request for a streamlined requirement
based on an alternative or new test method must, to be complete,
demonstrate that the alternative or new test method would
determine compliance at the same or higher stringency as the
otherwise applicable method. The EPA expects to receive
-------
expeditiously (i.e., well in advance of any draft permit
issuance) those portions of an application dealing with a
proposal for streamlining, including any demonstration of test
method adequacy. Any required EPA approval of an alternative or
new test method need not be obtained as a precondition for filing
a complete application, but it must be secured before the final
part 70 permit can be issued. As mentioned previously, EPA
intends to structure its approval process to comport reasonably
with the timelines for part 70 permit issuance.
PJ/KW9
-------
Attachment B
SIP Provisions For Establishing
Alternative Requirements
I. Overview.
States may revise their SIP's to provide for establishing
equally stringent alternatives to specific requirements set forth
in the SIP without the need for additional source-specific SIP
revisions. To allow alternatives to the otherwise-applicable SIP
requirements (i.e., emissions limitations, test methods,
monitoring, and recordkeeping) the State would include language
in SIP's to provide substantive criteria governing the State's
exercise of the alternative requirement authority.
II. Example Language For Part 70 Sources To Establish
Alternative SIP Requirements.
The following is an example of enabling language that could
be used to provide flexibility in the SIP for allowing
alternative requirements to be established for part 70 sources.
In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant to
(reference specific applicable sections(s) or range of
sections to be covered), a facility owner may comply with
alternative requirements, provided the requirements are
established pursuant to the part 70 permit issuance,
renewal, or significant permit revision process and are
consistent with the streamlining procedures and guidelines
set forth in section II.A. of White Paper Number 2.
For sources subject to an approved part 70 program, an
alternative requirement is approved for the source by EPA if
it is incorporated in an issued part 70 permit to which EPA
has not objected. Where the public comment period precedes
the EPA review period, any public comments concerning the
alternative shall be transmitted to EPA with the proposed
permit. If the EPA and public comment periods run
concurrently, public comments shall be transmitted to EPA no
later than 5 working days after the end of the public
comment period. The Director's [permitting authority's]
determination of approval is not binding on EPA.
Noncompliance with any provision established by this
rule constitutes a violation of this rule.
III. Example Language For Non-Part 70 Sources To Establish
Alternative SIP Requirements.
[NOTE: This section is a draft that EPA expects to finalize
after appropriate revisions in the near future.]
pj/8349
-------
For sources not subject to an approved part 70 program, the
following is an example of enabling language that States may use
to revise/submit SIP rules which would provide flexibility in the
SIP for allowing alternative requirements to be established.
A. Procedures.
1. General. In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant
to [reference applicable sections] of this plan, a source
owner may comply with an alternative requirement, provided
that the Director approves it consistent with the procedures
of this paragraph and the criteria of paragraph B.
2. State Review Procedure. The Director may establish an
alternative requirement in [a review process defined by the
State], provided that the requirements of this paragraph are
met for EPA and public review and for notification and
access are met. The Director's determination of approval is
not binding on EPA.
3. Public Review. The Director shall subject any proposed
alternative to adequate public review but may vary the
procedures for, and the timing of, public review in light of
the environmental significance of the action. For the
following types of changes [add list of de minimis actions
subject to EPA review], no public review shall be necessary
for the approval of the alternative.
4. EPA Review. The Director shall submit any proposed
alternative to the Administrator through the appropriate
Regional Office, except for the following types of changes
[add list of de minimis actions subject to EPA review] no
EPA review shall be necessary for the approval of the
alternative. Until the specific alternative SIP requirement
has completed EPA review, the otherwise applicable SIP
provisions will continue to apply.
5. Periodic Notification And Public Access. For all
actions taken by the State to establish an alternative
requirement, the Director shall provide in a general manner
for periodic notification to the public on at least a
quarterly basis and for public access to the records
regarding established alternatives and relevant supporting
documentation.
6. Enforcement. Noncompliance with any alternative
established by this provision constitutes a violation of
this rule. The EPA and the public may challenge such an
alternative limit on the basis that it does not meet the
criteria contained in the SIP for establishing such an
alternative. In addition, EPA and the public can take
enforcement action against a source that fails to comply
with an applicable alternative requirement.
PJ/83-09 2
-------
B. General Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives.
1. Applicability. The unit(s) to which the requirements
apply must be specified in the underlying SIP and in the
permit/alternative. If percentage reductions are required
from the source, the baseline must be clearly set. The SIP
must require the submission of all the information necessary
to establish the baseline, and the alternative requirement
must achieve the reduction called for in the SIP.
2. Time. The alternative must specify the effective date
of the alternative requirement. The underlying requirement
of the SIP shall remain in effect until the effective date
of the alternative. The alternative must clearly specify
any future-effective dates or any compliance schedules that
apply to the source under regulations in effect at the time
of issuance. For instance, a source may be due to comply
with requirements promulgated before the permit/alternative
was issued, but which are effective prior to the expiration
of the permit/alternative.
3. Effect of changed conditions. If alternative emissions
limitations or other requirements are allowed in the
underlying SIP, the associated documentation with the
changed conditions must clearly demonstrate the alternative
requirement is no less stringent than the original SIP
requirement.
4. Standard of conduct. The alternative proposal must
clearly state what requirements the source must meet. For
example, the SIP must specify the emissions limit and what
alternatives are acceptable. The alternative proposal must
contain limits, averaging times, test methods, etc., that
are no less stringent and must address how they are no less
stringent than the underlying SIP requirements. The
alternative proposal must also show whether it applies on a
per-source or per-line basis or is facility-wide.
5. Transfer Efficiency. Any SIP allowing alternative
emissions limits and using transfer efficiency in
determining compliance must explicitly state the
circumstances under which a source may use improved transfer
efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit. The
improvement should be demonstrated through testing and anx
appropriate baseline and test method should be specified.
See draft "Guidelines for determining capture efficiencies"
for criteria for evaluating alternative capture efficiency
requirements.
1Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating transfer
efficiency table cannot be accepted at face value.
PJ/KMJ9 3
-------
6. Averaging Time. Both the SIP and the alternative
proposal must explicitly contain the averaging time
associated with each emissions limit (e.g., instantaneous,
three hour average, daily, monthly, or longer). The time
must be sufficient to protect the applicable NAAQS. The
alternative proposal must demonstrate that the averaging
time and the emissions limit in the alternative are as
stringent as those in the original SIP requirements.
7. Monitoring and Recordkeeping. The alternative proposal
must state how the source will monitor compliance with the
emissions requirement, and detail how the proposed method
compares in accuracy, precision, and timeliness to the SIP-
approved method. Records and monitoring data must be
retained for at least the same period of time as required by
the SIP. The method must enable compliance determinations
consistent with the averaging time of the emissions
standard.
8. Test Methods. The alternative proposal must detail how
the proposed test method in association with its particular
emissions requirement (or rule) is at least as stringent as
the approved method in association with its emissions limit
(or rule) considering the accuracy, reliability,
reproducibility, and timeliness of each test method taken in
combination with its emissions limit. The application or
proposal must also address how the change affects
measurement sensitivity and representativeness, describe the
need for the change, and indicate if the change is needed
for unique conditions related only to the source in
question. The method must enable a compliance determination
consistent with the averaging time of the emissions standard
associated with it.
9. Act Requirements. The alternative must meet the all
applicable Act requirements (e.g., for reasonably available
control technology, 15% VOC reduction, etc.) and must not
interfere with any requirements of the Act, including any
regarding the SIP's attainment demonstration and
requirements for reasonable further progress.
10. Production Level. The emissions are no greater than
the SIP allowable emissions at the same production level.
Pre-1990 production/operation scenarios cannot be used as
part of any demonstration that the alternative requirements
are as stringent as those in the SIP. Also, the
demonstration must be performed using an EPA-approved test
methods.
pj/83-09
-------
Appendix K
NSR Permit Requirements for MWCs
Kl NSR Requirements
K2 Memo: Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review
Applicability
-------
Appendix Kl
NSR Requirements
-------
APPENDIX K-NSR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MWCS
APPENDIX Kl-NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) PERMITS
Note: A New Source Review (NSR) permit is not a required
element of a valid State Plan submittal nor is it required for
EPA approval of a State Plan. Because of general interest,
the following is provided as background information only.
NSR - General Background
Owners of existing major emission sources that are altered in certain ways are
subject to preconstruction permitting and other requirements of Parts C and D of Title I
of the CAA. These permitting and review requirements are collectively called major
New Source Review (NSR). Major NSR review includes both air quality impact analysis
and emission control analysis.1
In 1994, EPA issued a policy memorandum which allowed, on a case-by-case
basis, exclusion of pollution control projects at existing major sources from major NSR
permit requirements. Under this policy the state performs a review and determines
whether major NSR applies. Projects excluded from major NSR by states may still be
subject to state minor NSR requirements and other state regulations.
NSR and Retrofits at MWC Units
Under the Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines many existing MWC units will have to
retrofit air pollution control systems to reduce emissions of various pollutants. In most
cases the MWC units undergoing retrofit are expected to install the types of air pollution
control described in the MWC Background Information Documents, December 19, 1995
Federal Register, and in the NSR policy memorandum for air pollution control
projects.2"* For major NSR applicability, the EPA has concluded that MWC units that
retrofit the types of control projects mentioned above and that maintain similar annual
utilization rates (tons municipal solid waste fired per year), meet the criteria for a
pollution control project and meet the criteria for environmental safeguards as described
in the NSR policy memo for air pollution control projects. EPA has concluded that
retrofit of these types of emissions control projects at MWC units can, therefore, be
exempt from major NSR by states. EPA will rely on the state programs to ensure that
the procedural and other safeguards in the NSR policy memo are satisfied.2
Nothing in this guidance precludes a state from conducting a major NSR of a
MWC retrofit. EPA encourages states to make NSR applicability determinations as
early as possible so they can be incorporated into the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan
submittal (plans are due December 19,1996).
pj/83-09 K-l
-------
Notes:
1. See EPA's New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Non Attainment Area Permitting October 1990 DRAFT for
definition of key NSR terms.
2. See memorandum "Pollution Control Project and New Source Review (NSR)
Applicability" July 1, 1994, from John Seitz, Director of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.
3. Background Information Documents for proposed and promulgated MWC NSPS
and Emission Guidelines:
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Standards:
lll(b) Model Plant Description and Cost Report," EPA-450/3-89-27b, August
1989;
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Standards:
Post-Combustion Technology Performance," EPA-450/3-89-27c, August 1989;
"Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment: Combustion Control at Existing
Facilities," EPA-600/8-89-057, August 1989;
"Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment, Technical Basis for Good Combustion
Practices," EPA-600/8-89-063, August 1989;
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Standards:
Control of NOX Emissions," EPA-450/3-89-27d, August 1989;
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Standards:
Cost Procedures," EPA-450/3-89-27a, August 1989;
"Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for
Municipal Waste Combustors," EPA-450/3-91-029, March 1994;
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Guidelines
for Existing Facilities," EPA-450/3-89-27e, August 1989; and
"Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information for Promulgated
Standards and Guidelines - Summary of Public Comments and Responses,"
EPA-453/R-95-0136, 1995.
4. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines
for Existing Sources, FR 65387-65436, December 19, 1995.
pj/83-09 K-2
-------
Appendix K2
Memo: Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review Applicability
-------
July 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review (NSR)
Applicability
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX and X
This memorandum and attachment address issues involving the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) NSR rules and guidance
concerning the exclusion from major NSR of pollution control
projects at existing sources. The attachment provides a full
discussion of the issues and this policy, including illustrative
examples.
For several years, EPA has had a policy of excluding certain
pollution control projects from the NSR requirements of parts C
and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) on a case-by-case
basis. In 1992, EPA adopted an explicit pollution control
project exclusion for electric utility generating units [see
57 FR 32314 (the "WEPCO rule" or the "WEPCO rulemaking11)]. At
the time, EPA indicated that it would, in a subsequent
rulemaking, consider adopting a formal pollution control project
exclusion for other source categories [see 57 FR 32332]. In the
interim, EPA stated that individual pollution control projects
-------
K-2
involving source categories other than utilities could continue
to be excluded from NSR by permitting authorities on a case-by-
case basis [see 57 FR at 32320]. At this time, EPA expects to
complete a rulemaking on a pollution control project exclusion
for other source categories in early 1996. This memorandum and
attachment provide interim guidance for permitting authorities on
the approvability of these projects pending EPA's final action on
a formal regulatory exclusion.
The attachment to this memorandum outlines in greater detail
the type of projects that may qualify for a conditional exclusion
from NSR as a pollution control project, the safeguards that are
to be met, and the procedural steps that permitting authorities
should follow in issuing an exclusion. Projects that do not meet
these safeguards and procedural steps do not qualify for an
exclusion from NSR under this policy. Pollution control projects
potentially eligible for an exclusion (provided all applicable
safeguards are met) include the installation of conventional or
innovative emissions control equipment and projects undertaken to
accommodate switching to an inherently less-polluting fuel, such
as natural gas. Under this guidance, States may also exclude as
pollution control projects some material and process changes
(e.g., the switch to a less polluting coating, solvent, or
refrigerant) and some other types of pollution prevention
projects undertaken to reduce emissions of air pollutants subject
to regulation under the Act.
The replacement of an existing emissions unit with a newer
or different one (albeit more efficient and less polluting) or
the reconstruction of an existing emissions unit does not qualify
as a pollution control project. Furthermore, this guidance only
applies to physical or operational changes whose primary function
is the reduction of air pollutants subject to regulation under
the Act at existing major sources. This policy does not apply to
air pollution controls and emissions associated with a proposed
new source. Similarly, the fabrication, manufacture or
production of pollution control/prevention equipment and
inherently less-polluting fuels or raw materials are not
pollution control projects under this policy (e.g., a physical or
operational change for the purpose of producing reformulated
gasoline at a refinery is not a pollution control project).
It is EPA's experience that many bona fide pollution control
projects are not subject to major NSR requirements for the simple
reason that they result in a reduction in annual emissions at the
source. In this way, these pollution control projects are
outside major NSR coverage in accordance with the general rules
for determining applicability of NSR to modifications at existing
sources. However, some pollution control projects could result
in significant potential or actual increases of some pollutants.
pj/83-09
-------
K-3
These latter projects comprise the subcategory of pollution
control projects that can benefit from this guidance.
A pollution control project must be/ on balance/
"environmentally beneficial" to be eligible for an exclusion.
Further, an environmentally-beneficial pollution control project
may be excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements
only under conditions that ensure that the project will not cause
or contribute to a violation of a national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS)/ prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
increment/ or adversely affect visibility or other air quality
related value (AQRV). In order to assure that air quality
concerns with these projects are adequately addressed/ there are
two substantive and two procedural safeguards which are to be
followed by permitting authorities reviewing projects proposed
for exclusion.
First/ the permitting authority must determine that the
proposed pollution control project, after consideration of the
reduction in the targeted pollutant and any collateral effects/
will be environmentally beneficial. Second, nothing in this
guidance authorizes any pollution control project which would
cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, or PSD increment,
or adversely impact an AQRV in a class I area. Consequently, in
addition to this "environmentally-beneficial" standard, the
permitting authority must ensure that adverse collateral
environmental impacts from the project are identified, minimized,
and, where appropriate, mitigated. For example, the source or
the state must secure offsetting reductions in the case of a
project which will result in a significant increase in a
nonattainment pollutant. Where a significant collateral increase
in actual emissions is expected to result from a pollution
control project, the permitting authority must also assess
whether the increase could adversely affect any national ambient
air quality standard, PSD increment, or class I AQRV.
In addition to these substantive safeguards, EPA is
specifying two procedural safeguards which are to be followed.
First, since the exclusion under this interim guidance is only
available on a case-by-case basis, sources seeking exclusion from
major NSR requirements prior to the forthcoming EPA rulemaking on
a pollution control project exclusion must, before beginning
construction, obtain a determination by the permitting authority
that a proposed project qualifies for an exclusion from major NSR
requirements as a pollution control project. Second, in
considering this request, the permitting authority must afford
the public an opportunity to review and comment on the source's
application for this exclusion. It is also important to note
that any project excluded from major new source review as a
pollution control project must still comply with all otherwise
pj/8349
-------
K-4
applicable requirements under the Act and the State
implementation plan (SIP), including minor source permitting.
This guidance document does not supersede existing Federal
or State regulations or approved SIP's. The policies set out in
this memorandum and attachment are intended as guidance to be
applied only prospectively (including those projects currently
under evaluation for an exclusion) during the interim period
until EPA takes action to revise its NSR rules, and do not
represent final Agency action. This policy statement is not ripe
for judicial review. Moreover, it is not intended, nor can it be
relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. Agency officials may decide
to follow the guidance provided in this memorandum, or to act at
variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific
circumstances. The EPA also may change this guidance at any time
without public notice. The EPA presently intends to address the
matters discussed in this document in a forthcoming NSR
rulemaking regarding proposed changes to the program resulting
from the NSR Reform process and will take comment on these
matters as part of that rulemaking.
As noted above, a detailed discussion of the types of
projects potentially eligible for an exclusion from major NSR as
a pollution control project, as well as the safeguards such
projects must meet to qualify for the exclusion, is contained in
the attachment to this memorandum. The Regional Offices should
send this memorandum with the attachment to States within their
jurisdiction. Questions concerning specific issues and cases
should be directed to the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Regional Office staff may contact David Solomon, Chief, New
Source Review Section, at (919) 541-5375, if they have any
questions.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
NSR Reform Subcommittee Members
pj/KM»
-------
Attachment
GUIDANCE ON EXCLUDING POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
FROM MAJOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR)
I. Purpose
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presently expects
to complete a rulemaking on an exclusion from major NSR for
pollution control projects by early 1996. In the interim,
certain types of projects (involving source categories other than
utilities) may qualify on a case-by-case basis for an exclusion
from major NSR as pollution control projects. Prior to EPA's
final action on a regulatory exclusion, this attachment provides
interim guidance for permitting authorities on the types of
projects that may qualify on a case-by-case basis from major NSR
as pollution control projects, including the substantive and
procedural safeguards which apply.
II. Background
The NSR provisions of part C [prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD)] and part D (nonattainment requirements) of
title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) apply to both the construction
of major new sources and the modification of existing major
sources. The modification provisions of the NSR programs in
parts C and D are based on the broad definition of modification
in section 111(a)(4) of the Act. That section contemplates a
two-step test for determining whether activities at an existing
major facility constitute a modification subject to new source
requirements. In the first step, the reviewing authority
determines whether a physical or operational change will occur.
In the second step, the question is whether the physical or
operational change will result in any increase in emissions of
any regulated pollutant.
The definition of physical or operational change in
section 111(a)(4) could, standing alone, encompass the most
mundane activities at an industrial facility (even the repair or
replacement of a single leaky pipe, or a insignificant change in
the way that pipe is utilized) . However, EPA has recognized that
Congress did not intend to make every activity at a source
subject to new source requirements under parts C and D. As a
result, EPA has by regulation limited the reach of the
modification provisions of parts C and D to only major
modifications. Under NSR, a "major modification" is generally a
physical change or change in the method of operation of a major
stationary source which would result in a significant net
xThe EPA's NSR regulations for nonattainment areas are set
forth at 40 CFR 51.165, 52.24 and part 51, Appendix S. The PSD
program is set forth in 40 CFR 52.21 and 51.166.
-------
K-6
emissions increase in the emissions of any regulated pollutant
[see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i)]. A "net emissions increase"
is defined as the increase in "actual emissions" from the
particular physical or operational change together with any other
contemporaneous increases or decreases in actual emissions [see,
e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(i)]. In order to trigger major new
source review, the net emissions increase must exceed specified
"significance" levels [see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i) and 40
CFR 52.21(b)(23)]. The EPA has also adopted common-sense
exclusions from the "physical or operational change" component of
the definition of "major modification." For example, EPA's
regulations contain exclusions for routine maintenance, repair,
and replacement; for certain increases in the hours of operation
or in the production rate; and for certain types of fuel switches
[see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)].
In the 1992 "WEPCO" rulemaking [57 FR 32314], EPA amended
its PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations as they pertain to
utilities by adding certain pollution control projects to the
list of activities excluded from the definition of physical or
operational changes. In taking that action, EPA stated it was
largely formalizing an existing policy under which it had been
excluding individual pollution control projects where it was
found that the project "would be environmentally beneficial,
taking into account ambient air quality" [57 FR at 32320; see
also id., n. 15].
The EPA has provided exclusions for pollution control
projects in the form of "no action assurances" prior to
November 15, 1990 and nonapplicability determinations based on
Act changes as of November 15, 1990 (1990 Amendments).
Generally, these exclusions addressed clean coal technology
projects and fuel switches at electric utilities.
Because the WEPCO rulemaking was directed at the utility
industry which faced "massive industry-wide undertakings of
pollution control projects" to comply with the acid rain
provisions of the Act [57 FR 32314], EPA limited the types of
projects eligible for the exclusion to add-on controls and fuel
switches at utilities. Thus, pollution control projects under
the WEPCO rule are defined as:
any activity or project undertaken at an
existing electric utility steam generating
unit for purposes of reducing emissions from
2This guidance pertains only to source categories other than
electric utilities, and EPA does not intend for this guidance to
affect the WEPCO rulemaking in any way.
-------
K-7
such unit. Such activities or projects are
limited to;
(A) The installation of conventional or
innovative pollution control technology,
including but not limited to advanced flue
gas desulfurization, sorbent injection for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) controls and electrostatic
precipitators;
(B) An activity or project to accommodate
switching to a fuel which is less polluting
than the fuel in use prior to the activity or
project . . .
[40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxv) (emphasis added)].
The definition also includes certain clean coal technology
demonstration projects. Id.
The EPA built two safeguards into the exclusion in the
rulemaking. First, a project that meets the definition of
pollution control project will not qualify for the exclusion
where the "reviewing authority determines that (the proposed
project) renders the unit less environmentally beneficial ..."
[see, e.g., 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8)]. In the WEPCO rule, EPA did
not provide any specific definition of the environmentally-
beneficial standard, although it did indicate that the pollution
control project provision "provides for a case-by-case assessment
of the pollution control project's net emissions and overall
impact on the environment" [57 FR 32321]. This provision is
buttressed by a second safeguard that directs permitting
authorities to evaluate the air quality impacts of pollution
control projects that could—through collateral emissions
increases or changes in utilization patterns—adversely impact
local air quality [see 57 FR 32322]. This provision generally
authorizes, as appropriate, a permitting authority to require
modelling of emissions increases associated with a pollution
control project. Id. More fundamentally, it explicitly states
that no pollution control project under any circumstances may
cause or contribute to violation of a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS), PSD increment, or air quality related
value (AQRV) in a class I area. Id.
3The WEPCO rule refers specifically to "visibility
limitation" rather than "air quality related values." However,
EPA clearly stated in the preamble to the final rule that
permitting agencies have the authority to "solicit the views of
others in taking any other appropriate remedial steps deemed
necessary to protect class I areas. . .. The EPA emphasizes that
-------
K-8
As noted, the WEPCO rulemaking was expressly limited to
existing electric utility steam generating units [see, e.g., 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8) and 51.165(a)(1)(xx)]. The EPA limited
the rulemaking to utilities because of the impending acid rain
requirements under title IV of the Act, EPA's extensive
experience with new source applicability issues for electric
utilities, the general similarity of equipment, and the public
availability of utility operating projections. The EPA indicated
it would consider adopting a formal NSR pollution control project
exclusion for other source categories as part of a separate NSR
rulemaking. The rulemaking in question is now expected to be
finalized by early 1996. On the other hand, the WEPCO rulemaking
also noted that EPA's existing policy was, and would continue to
be, to allow permitting authorities to exclude pollution control
projects in other source categories on a case-by-case basis.
III. Case-By-Case Pollution Control Project Determinations
The following sections describe the type of projects that
may be considered by permitting authorities for exclusion from
major NSR as pollution control projects and two safeguards that
permitting authorities are to use in evaluating such projects—
the environmentally-beneficial test and an air quality impact
assessment. To a large extent, these requirements are drawn from
the WEPCO rulemaking. However, because the WEPCO rule was
designed for a single source category, electric utilities, it
cannot and does not serve as a complete template for this
guidance. Therefore, the following descriptions expand upon the
WEPCO rule in the scope of qualifying projects and in the
specific elements inherent in the safeguards. These changes
reflect the far more complicated task of evaluating pollution
control projects at a wide variety of sources facing a myriad of
Federal, State, and local clean air requirements.
Since the safeguards are an integral component of the
exclusion, States must have the authority to impose the
safeguards in approving an exclusion from major NSR under this
policy. Thus, State or local permitting authorities in order to
all environmental impacts, including those on class I areas, can
be considered. . .." [57 FR 32322]. Further, the statutory
protections in section 165(d) plainly are intended to protect
against any "adverse impact on the AQRV of such [class I] lands
(including visibility)." Based on this statutory provision, EPA
believes that the proper focus of any air quality assessment for
a pollution control project should be on visibility and any other
relevant AQRV's for any class I areas that may be affected by the
proposed project. Permitting authorities should notify Federal
Land Managers where appropriate concerning pollution control
projects which may adversely affect AQRV's in class I areas.
-------
K-9
use this policy should provide statements to EPA describing and
affirming the basis for its authority to impose these safeguards
absent major NSR. Sources that obtain exclusions from permitting
authorities that have not provided this affirmation of authority
are at risk in seeking to rely on the exclusion issued by the
permitting agency, because EPA may subsequently determine that
the project does not qualify as a pollution control project under
this policy.
A. Types of Projects Covered
1. Add-On Controls and Fuel Switches
In the WEPCO rulemaking, EPA found that both add-on
emissions control projects and fuel switches to less-polluting
fuels could be considered to be pollution control projects. For
the purposes of today's guidance, EPA affirms that these types of
projects are appropriate candidates for a case-by-case exclusion
as well. These types of projects include:
the installation of conventional and advanced flue gas
desulfurization and sorbent injection for SO2;
- electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, high efficiency
multiclones, and scrubbers for particulate or other
pollutants;
flue gas recirculation, low-NOx burners, selective non-
catalytic reduction and selective catalytic reduction for
NOX; and
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO), catalytic
oxidizers, condensers, thermal incinerators, flares and
carbon adsorbers for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and toxic air pollutants.
Projects undertaken to accommodate switching to an
inherently less-polluting fuel such as natural gas can also
qualify for the exclusion. Any activity that is necessary to
accommodate switching to a inherently less-polluting fuel is
considered to be part of the pollution control project. In some
instances, where the emissions unit's capability would otherwise
be impaired as a result of the fuel switch, this may involve
certain necessary changes to the pollution generating equipment
(e.g., boiler) in order to maintain the normal operating
capability of the unit at the time of the project.
2. Pollution Prevention Projects
It is EPA's policy to promote pollution prevention
approaches and to remove regulatory barriers to sources seeking
pj/8349
-------
K-10
to develop and implement pollution prevention solutions to the
extent allowed under the Act. For this reason, permitting
authorities may also apply this exclusion to switches to
inherently less-polluting raw materials and processes and certain
other types of "pollution prevention" projects. For instance,
many VOC users will be making switches to water-based or powder-
paint application systems as a strategy for meeting reasonably
available control technology (RACT) or switching to a non-toxic
VOC to comply with maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
requirements.
Accordingly, under today's guidance, permitting authorities
may consider excluding raw material substitutions, process
changes and other pollution prevention strategies where the
pollution control aspects of the project are clearly evident and
will result in substantial emissions reductions per unit of
output for one or more pollutants. In judging whether a
pollution prevention project can be considered for exclusion as a
pollution control project, permitting authorities may also
consider as a relevant factor whether a project is being
undertaken to bring a source into compliance with a MACT, RACT,
or other Act requirement.
Although EPA is supportive of pollution control and
prevention projects and strategies, special care must be taken in
classifying a project as a pollution control project and in
evaluating a project under a pollution control project exclusion.
Virtually every modernization or upgrade project at an existing
industrial facility which reduces inputs and lowers unit costs
has the concurrent effect of lowering an emissions rate per unit
of fuel, raw material or output. Nevertheless, it is clear that
these major capital investments in industrial equipment are the
very types of projects that Congress intended to address in the
new source modification provisions [see Wisconsin Electric Power
Co. v. Reillv. 893 F.2d 901, 907-10 (7th Cir. 1990) (rejecting
contention that utility life extension project was not a physical
or operational change); Puerto Rican Cement Co.. Inc. v. EPA. 889
F.2d 292, 296-98 (1st Cir. 1989) (NSR applies to modernization
For purposes of this guidance, pollution prevention means
any activity that through process changes, product reformulation
or redesign, or substitution of less polluting raw materials,
eliminates or reduces the release of air pollutants and other
pollutants to the environment (including fugitive emissions)
prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; it does not mean
recycling (other than certain "in-process recycling" practices),
energy recovery, treatment, or disposal [see Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 section 6602(b) and section 6603(5)(A) and (B); see
also "EPA Definition of 'Pollution Prevention,'" memorandum from
F. Henry Habicht II, May 28, 1992].
pj/KHD
-------
K-ll
project that decreases emissions per unit of output, but
increases economic efficiency such that utilization may increase
and result in net increase in actual emissions)]. Likewise, the
replacement of an existing emissions unit with a newer or
different one (albeit more efficient and less polluting) or the
reconstruction of an existing emissions unit would not qualify as
a pollution control project. Adopting a policy that
automatically excludes from NSR any project that, while lowering
operating costs or improving performance, coincidentally lowers a
unit's emissions rate, would improperly exclude almost all
modifications to existing emissions units, including those that
are likely to increase utilization and therefore result in
overall higher levels of emissions.
In order to limit this exclusion to the subset of pollution
prevention projects that will in fact lower annual emissions at a
source, permitting authorities should not exclude as pollution
control projects any pollution prevention project that can be
reasonably expected to result in an increase in the utilization
of the affected emissions unit(s). For example, projects which
significantly increase capacity, decrease production costs, or
improve product marketability can be expected to affect
utilization patterns. With these changes, the environment may or
may not see a reduction in overall source emissions; it depends
on the source's operations after the change, which cannot be
predicted with any certainty. This is not to say that these
types of projects are necessarily subject to major NSR
requirements, only that they should not be excluded as pollution
control projects under this guidance. The EPA may consider
different approaches to excluding pollution prevention projects
from major NSR requirements in the upcoming NSR rulemaking.
Under this guidance, however, permitting authorities should
carefully review proposed pollution prevention projects to
evaluate whether utilization of the source will increase as a
result of the project.
Furthermore, permitting authorities should have the
authority to monitor utilization of an affected emissions unit or
source for a reasonable period of time subsequent to the project
to verify what effect, if any, the project has on utilization.
In cases where the project has clearly caused an increase in
utilization, the permitting authority may need to reevaluate the
5This is in marked contrast to the addition of pollution
control equipment which typically does not, in EPA's experience,
result in any increase in the source's utilization of the
emission unit in question. In the few instances where this
presumption is not true, the safeguards discussed in the next
section should provide adequate environmental protections for
these additions of pollution control equipment.
-------
K-12
basis for the original exclusion to verify that an exclusion is
still appropriate and to ensure that all applicable safeguards
are being net.
B. Safeguards
The following safeguards are necessary to assure that
projects being considered for an exclusion qualify as
environmentally beneficial pollution control projects and do not
have air quality impacts which would preclude the exclusion.
Consequently, a project that does not meet these safeguards does
not qualify for an exclusion under this policy.
1. Environmentally-Beneficial Test
Projects that meet the definition of a pollution control
project outlined above may nonetheless cause collateral emissions
increases or have other adverse impacts. For instance, a large
VbC incinerator, while substantially eliminating VOC emissions,
may generate sizeable NOZ emissions well in excess of
significance levels. To protect against these sorts of problems,
EPA in the WEPCO rule provided for an assessment of the overall
environmental impact of a project and the specific impact, if
any, on air quality. The EPA believes that this safeguard is
appropriate in this policy as well.
Unless information regarding a specific case indicates
otherwise, the types of pollution control projects listed in
III. A. 1. above can be presumed, by their nature, to be
environmentally beneficial. This presumption arises from EPA's
experience that historically these are the very types of
pollution controls applied to new and modified emissions units.
The presumption does not apply, however, where there is reason to
believe that 1) the controls will not be designed, operated or
maintained in a manner consistent with standard and reasonable
practices; or 2) collateral emissions increases have not been
adequately addressed as discussed below.
In making a determination as to whether a project is
environmentally beneficial, the permitting authority must
consider the types and quantity of air pollutants emitted before
and after the project, as well as other relevant environmental
factors. While because of the case-by-case nature of projects
it is not possible to list all factors which should be considered
in any particular case, several concerns can be noted.
First, pollution control projects which result in an
increase in non-targeted pollutants should be reviewed to
determine that the collateral increase has been minimized and
will not result in environmental harm. Minimization here does
-------
K-13
not mean that the permitting agency should conduct a BACT-type
review or necessarily prescribe add-on control equipment to
treat the collateral increase. Rather, minimization means that,
within the physical configuration and operational standards
usually associated with such a control device or strategy, the
source has taken reasonable measures to keep any collateral
increase to a minimum. For instance, the permitting authority
could require that a low-NOx burner project be subject to
temperature and other appropriate combustion standards so that
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are kept to a minimum, but would
not review the project for a CO catalyst or other add-on type
options. In addition, a State's RACT or MACT rule may have
explicitly considered measures for minimizing a collateral
increase for a class or category of pollution control projects
and requires a standard of best practices to minimize such
collateral increases. In such cases, the need to minimize
collateral increase from the covered class or category of
pollution control projects can be presumed to have been
adequately addressed in the rule.
In addition, a project which would result in an unacceptable
increased risk due to the release of air toxics should not be
considered environmentally beneficial. It is EPA's experience,
however, that most projects undertaken to reduce emissions,
especially add-on controls and fuel switches, result in
concurrent reductions in air toxics. The EPA expects that many
pollution control projects seeking an exclusion under this
guidance will be for the purpose of complying with MACT
requirements for reductions in air toxics. Consequently, unless
there is reason to believe otherwise, permitting agencies may
presume that such projects by their nature will result in reduced
risks from air toxics.
2. Additional Air Quality Impacts Assessments
(a) General
Nothing in the Act or EPA's implementing regulations would
allow a permitting authority to approve a pollution control
project resulting in an emissions increase that would cause or
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or PSD increment, or
adversely impact visibility or other AQRV in a class I area [see,
e.g., Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), 165, 169A(b), 173].
Accordingly, this guidance is not intended to allow any project
to violate any of these air quality standards.
As discussed above, it is possible that a pollution control
project—either through an increase in an emissions rate of a
collateral pollutant or through a change in utilization—will
cause an increase in actual emissions, which in turn could cause
or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or increment or
-------
K-14
adversely impact AQRV's. For this reason, in the WEPCO rule the
EPA required sources to address whenever 1) the proposed change
would result in a significant net increase in actual emissions of
any criteria pollutant over levels used for that source in the
most recent air quality impact analysis; and 2) the permitting
authority has reason to believe that such an increase would cause
or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, increment or visibility
limitation. If an air quality impact analysis indicates that the
increase in emissions will cause or contribute to a violation of
any ambient standard, PSD increment, or AQRV, the pollution
control exclusion does not apply.
The EPA believes that this safeguard needs to be applied
here as well. Thus, where a pollution control project will
result in a significant increase in emissions and that increased
level has not been previously analyzed for its air quality impact
and raises the possibility of a NAAQS, increment, or AQRV
violation, the permitting authority is to require the source to
provide an air quality analysis sufficient to demonstrate the
impact of the project. The EPA will not necessarily require that
the increase be modeled, but the source must provide sufficient
data to satisfy the permitting authority that the new levels of
emissions will not cause a NAAQS or increment violation and will
not adversely impact the AQRV's of nearby potentially affected
class I areas.
In the case of nonattainment areas, the State or the source
must provide offsetting emissions reductions for any significant
increase in a nonattainment pollutant from the pollution control
project. In other words, if a significant collateral increase of
a nonattainment pollutant resulting from a pollution control
project is not offset on at least a one-to-one ratio then the
pollution control project would not qualify as environmentally
beneficial. However, rather than having to apply offsets on a
case-by-case basis, States may consider adopting (as part of
their attainment plans) specific control measures or strategies
for the purpose of generating offsets to mitigate the projected
collateral emissions increases from a class or category of
pollution control projects.
(b) Determination of Increase in Emissions
The question of whether a proposed project will result in an
emissions increase over pre-modification levels of actual
Regardless of the severity of the classification of the
nonattainment area, a one-to-one offset ratio will be considered
sufficient under this policy to mitigate a collateral increase
from a pollution control project. States may, however, require
offset ratios that are greater than one-to-one.
-------
K-15
emissions is both complicated and contentious. It is a question
that has been debated by the New Source Review Reform
Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and is
expected to be revisited by EPA in the same upcoming rulemaking
that will consider adopting a pollution control project
exclusion. In the interim, EPA is adopting a simplified approach
to determining whether a pollution control project will result in
increased emissions.
The approach in this policy is premised on the fact that EPA
does not expect the vast majority of these pollution control
projects to change established utilization patterns at the
source. As discussed in the previous section, it is EPA's
experience that add-on controls do not impact utilization, and
pollution prevention projects that could increase utilization may
not be excluded under this guidance. Therefore, in most cases it
will be very easy to calculate the emissions after the change:
the product of the new emissions rate times the existing
utilization rate. In the case of a pollution control project
that collaterally increases a non-targeted pollutant, the actual
increase (calculated using the new emissions rate and current
utilization pattern) would need to be analyzed to determine its
air quality impact.
The permitting authority may presume that projects meeting
the definition outlined in section III(A)i (1) will not change
utilization patterns. However, the permitting authority is to
reject this presumption where there is reason to believe that the
project will result in debottlenecking, loadshifting to take
advantage of the control equipment, or other meaningful increase
in the use of the unit above current levels. Where the project
will increase utilization and emissions, the associated emissions
increases are calculated based on the post-modification potential
to emit of the unit considering the application of the proposed
controls. In such cases the permitting agency should consider
the projected increase in emissions as collateral to the project
and determine whether, notwithstanding the emissions increases,
the project is still environmentally beneficial and meets all
applicable safeguards.
In certain limited circumstances, a permitting agency may
take action to impose federally-enforceable limits on the
magnitude of a projected collateral emissions increase to ensure
that all safeguards are met. For example, where the data used to
assess a projected collateral emissions increase is questionable
and there is reason to believe that emissions in excess of the
projected increase would violate an applicable air quality
standard or significantly exceed the quantity of offsets
provided, restrictions on the magnitude of the collateral
increase may be necessary to ensure compliance with the
applicable safeguards.
pj/£M»
-------
K-16
IV. Procedural Safeguards
Because EPA has not yet promulgated regulations governing a
generally applicable pollution control project exclusion from
major NSR (other than for electric utilities), permitting
authorities must consider and approve requests for an exclusion
on a case-by-case basis, and the exclusion is not self-executing.
Instead, sources must receive case-by-case approval from the
permitting authority pursuant to a minor NSR permitting process,
State nonapplicability determination or similar process.
[Nothing in this guidance voids or creates an exclusion from any
applicable minor source preconstruction review requirement in any
SIP that has been approved pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) and
40 CFR 51.160-164.] This process should also provide that the
application for the exclusion and the permitting agency's
proposed decision thereon be subject to public notice and the
opportunity for public and EPA written comment. In those limited
cases where the applicable SIP already exempts a class or
category of pollution controls project from the minor source
permitting public notice and comment requirements, and where no
collateral increases are expected (e.g., the installation of a
baghouse) and all otherwise applicable environmental safeguards
are complied with, public notice and comment need not be provided
for such projects. However, even in such circumstances, the
permitting agency should provide advance notice to EPA when it
applies this policy to provide an exclusion. For standard-wide
applications to groups of sources (e.g., RACT or MACT), the
notice may be provided to EPA at the time the permitting
authority intends to issue a pollution control exclusion for the
class or category of sources and thereafter notice need not be
given to EPA on an individual basis for sources within the
noticed group.
V. Emission Reduction Credits
In general, certain pollution control projects which have
been approved for an exclusion from major NSR may result in
emission reductions which can serve as NSR offsets or netting
credits. All or part of the emission reductions equal to the
difference between the pre-modification actual and post-
modification potential emissions for the decreased pollutant may
serve as credits provided that 1) the project will not result in
a significant collateral increase in actual emissions of any
criteria pollutant, 2) the project is still considered
environmentally beneficial, and 3) all otherwise applicable
criteria for the crediting of such reductions are met (e.g.,
quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and enforceable). Where an
excluded pollution control project results in a significant
collateral increase of a criteria pollutant, emissions reduction
credits from the pollution control project for the controlled
pollutant may still be granted provided, in addition to 2) and 3)
-------
K-17
above, the actual collateral increase is reduced below the
applicable significance level, either through contemporaneous
reductions at the source or external offsets. However, neither
the exclusion from major NSR nor any credit (full or partial) for
emission reductions should be granted by the permitting authority
where the type or amount of the emissions increase which would
result from the use of such credits would lessen the
environmental benefit associated with the pollution control
project to the point where the project would not have initially
qualified for an exclusion.
IV. Illustrative Examples
The following examples illustrate some of the guiding
principles and safeguards discussed above in reviewing proposed
pollution control projects for an exclusion from major NSR.
Example 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A chemical manufacturing facility in
an attainment area for all pollutants is proposing to install a
RTO to reduce VOC emissions (including emissions of some
hazardous pollutants) at the plant by about 3000 tons per year
(tpy). The emissions reductions from the RTO are currently
voluntary, but may be necessary in the future for title III MACT
compliance. Although the RTO has been designed to minimize NOX
emissions, it will produce 200 tpy of new NOX emissions due to
the unique composition of the emissions stream. There is no
information about the project to rebut a presumption that the
project will not change utilization of the source. Aside from
the NOZ increase there are no other environmental impacts known
to be associated with the project.
EVALUATION: As a qualifying add-on control device, the
project may be considered a pollution control project and may be
considered for an exclusion. The permitting agency should:
1) verify that the NOX increase has been minimized to the extent
practicable, 2) confirm (through modeling or other appropriate
means) that the actual significant increase in NOX emissions does
not violate the applicable NAAQS,7 PSD increment, or adversely
impact any Class I area AQRV, and 3) apply all otherwise
applicable SIP and minor source permitting requirements,
including opportunity for public notice and comment.
7If the source were located in an area in which
nonattainment NSR applied to NOX emissions increases, 200
tons of NOX offset credits would be required for the project
to be eligible for an exclusion.
pj/KWW
-------
K-18
Example 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A source proposes to replace an
existing coal-fired boiler with a gas-fired turbine as part of a
cogeneration project. The new turbine is an exact replacement
for the energy needs supplied by the existing boiler and will
emit less of each pollutant on an hourly basis than the boiler
did.
EVALUATION: The replacement of an existing emissions unit
with a new unit (albeit more efficient and less polluting) does
not qualify for an exclusion as a pollution control project. The
company can, however, use any otherwise applicable netting
credits from the removal of the existing boiler to seek to net
the new unit out of major NSR.
Example 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A source plans to physically renovate
and upgrade an existing process line by making certain changes to
the existing process, including extensive modifications to
emissions units. Following the changes, the source will expand
production and manufacture and market a new product line. The
project will cause an increase in the economic efficiency of the
line. The renovated line will also be less polluting on a per-
product basis than the original configuration.
EVALUATION: The change is not eligible for an exclusion as
a pollution control project. On balance, the project does not
have clearly evident pollution control aspects, and the resultant
decrease in the per-product emissions rate (or factor) is
incidental to the project. The project is a physical change or
change in the method of operation that will increase efficiency
and productivity.
Example 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In response to the phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) under title VI of the Act, a major
source is proposing to substitute a less ozone-depleting
substance (e.g., HCFC-141b) for one it currently uses that has a
greater ozone depleting potential (e.g., CFC-11). A larger
amount of the less-ozone depleting substance will have to be
used. No other changes are proposed.
EVALUATION: The project may be considered a pollution
control project and may be considered for an exclusion. The
permitting agency should verify that 1) actual annual emissions
of HCFC-141b after the proposed switch will cause less
stratospheric ozone depletion than current annual emissions of
CFC-11; 2) the proposed switch will not change utilization
pj/83-09
-------
K-19
patterns or increase emissions of any other pollutant which would
impact a NAAQS, PSD increment, or AQRV and will not cause any
cross-media harm, including any unacceptable increased risk
associated with toxic air pollutants; and 3) apply all otherwise
applicable SIP and minor source permitting requirements,
including opportunity for public notice and comment.
Example 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An existing landfill proposes to
install either flares or energy recovery equipment [i.e.,
turbines or internal combustion (1C) engines]. The reductions
from the project are estimated at over 1000 tpy of VOC and are
currently not necessary to meet Act requirements, but may be
necessary some time in the future. In case A the project is the
replacement of an existing flare or energy system and no increase
in NO, emissions will occur. In case B, the equipment is a first
time installation and will result in a 100 tpy increase in NOT.
In case C, the equipment is an addition to existing equipment
which will accommodate additional landfill gas (resulting from
increased gas generation and/or capture consistent with the
current permitted limits for growth at the landfill) and will
result in a 50 tpy increase in NOX.
EVALUATION: Projects A, B, and C may be considered
pollution control projects and may be considered for an
exclusion; however, in cases B and C, if the landfill is located
in an area required to satisfy nonattainment NSR for NOX
emissions, the source would be required to obtain NOX offsets at
a ratio of at least 1:1 for the project to be considered for an
exclusion. [NOTE: VOC-NOX netting and trading for NSR purposes
may be discussed in the upcoming NSR rulemaking, but it is beyond
the scope of this guidance.] Although neither turbines or 1C
engines are listed in section III.A.I as add-on control devices
and would normally not be considered pollution control projects,
in this specific application they serve the same function as a
flare, namely to reduce VOC emissions at the landfill with the
added incidental benefit of producing useful energy in the
process.
8The production of energy here is incidental to the project
and is not a factor in qualifying the project for an exclusion as
a pollution control project. In addition, any supplemental or
co-firing of non-landfill gas fuels (e.g., natural gas, oil)
would disqualify the project from being considered a pollution
control project. The fuels would be used to maximize any
economic benefit from the project and not for the purpose of
pollution control at the landfill. However, the use of an
alternative fuel solely as a backup fuel to be used only during
pj/8349
-------
K-20
The permitting agency should: 1) verify that the NO*
increase has been minimized to the extent practicable; 2) confirm
(through modeling or other appropriate means) that the actual
significant increase in NOX emissions will not violate the
applicable NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely impact any AQRV;
and 3) apply all otherwise applicable SIP and minor source and,
as noted above, in cases B and C ensures that NOX offsets are
provided in an area in which nonattainment review applies to NOZ
emissions increases, permitting requirements, including
opportunity for public notice and comment.
brief and infrequent start-up or emergency situations would not
necessarily disqualify an energy recovery project from being
considered a pollution control project.
pj/83-09
-------
Appendix L
1987 NSR Guidance for MWCs
-------
APPENDIX 1^-1987 NSR GUIDANCE FOR MWCs
On June 26, 1987, EPA issued guidance for making best available control
technology (BACT) determinations for new source review/prevention of significant
deterioration permitting for MWC units. The guidance required new and modified
MWC units to have acid gas scrubbing (i.e., a spray dryer) and PM control. Therefore,
MWC units constructed since June 26, 1987 already have most of the control technology
required to meet the emission limits in the Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines and should
not require major retrofits. Additional controls (e.g., carbon injection) may be required
to meet the mercury and dioxin/furan limits in Subpart Cb, but the controls can be
installed in less than one year if the acid gas scrubbing system is already in place. This is
why the Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines require MWC units at large MWC plants that
commenced construction after June 26, 1987 to comply with the mercury and
dioxin/furan emission limits within one year.
pj/83-09 L-l
-------
This is a typed copy of a Memorandum signed by the Director of
OAQPS on June 26, 1987.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park/ North Carolina 27711
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Operational Guidance on Control for New and Modified
Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs)
FROM: Gerald A. Emission, Director-
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
As you know, numerous questions regarding the selection of
appropriate pollution control requirements for MWCs has arisen
during recent years in major source permitting proceedings under
the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of
Part C of the Clean Air Act and the nonattainment new source review
(NSR) provisions of Part D of the Act. Accordingly, the attached
operational guidance is being issued to promote consistency in
making best available control technology (BACT) determinations
under PSD and lowest achievable emission rate (LEAR) determinations
under nonattainment NSR, and to reduce delay and confusion in the
permitting process. This guidance requires reviewing authorities,
in considering the range of potential control options during the
BACT determination process for MWCs, to consider a dry scrubber and
a fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator as BACT for sulfur
dioxide (S02) and particulate matter (PM), and combustion controls
for BACT for carbon monoxide (CO).
The Administrator remanded to Region IX on June 22, 1987,
their previous concurrence on a PSD permit for the H-Power MWC to
be constructed in Honolulu, Hawaii. Petitioners had argued that,
(a) BACT for this facility did not adequately justify the failure
to require the use of an acid gas scrubber, and (b) the permitting
authority did not evaluate the effectiveness of acid gas scrubbers
in reducing emissions of unregulated pollutants, as required by the
June 1986 North County Resource Recovery Associates PSD Appeal
pj/8349 L-2
-------
decision (or North County remand) . In remanding the H-Power permit
application to Region IX for further proceedings, the Administrator
made it clear that the Agency considers acid gas scrubbers to be an
available technology for excess air MWCs that fire refuse-derived
fuel (RDF) such as the H-power facility. The attached operational
guidance states that this type of post-combustion control is one
component of available technology for modular, starved air MWCs and
massburn, excess air MWCs, in addition to RDF-fired, excess air
MWCs.
As stated above, the operational guidance includes a second
component of available technology, which is combustion control for
the criteria pollutant CO. Since the effectiveness of the two
components of available technology in controlling unregulated
pollutants is an important consideration in individual BACT
determinations (per the North County remand) , the attached guidance
states that (a) acid gas scrubbers followed by fabric filters or
electrostatic precipitators are effective in controlling
potentially toxic organic and metal pollutants, as well as acid
gases other than sulfur dioxide, and (b) combustion controls are
effective in controlling potentially toxic organic pollutants.
The technical basis for the operational guidance is documented
in five reports which is a part of the Agency's comprehensive study
of MWC. These volumes are listed in the References section of the
guidance. You will note that the guidance indicates "specified
values" should be selected on a site specific basis for several
design and operating parameters of the facility and for emissions
of criteria pollutants. A thorough discussion of the factors to be
considered in choosing the "selected values" is included in the
five reports from the comprehensive MWC study.
As noted under Section V, this guidance should be transmitted
to all State and local agencies to which PSD permitting authority
has been delegated under 40 CFR Section 52.21(u). The transmittal
letter should specify that the delegation agreement is amended to
include this guidance. States which have received SIP approval of
a PSD program under 40 CFR Section 51.166 (formerly Section 51.24)
should also be informed of this guidance and of EPA's expectation
that it be followed.
Attachment
cc: James DeMocker (ANR-43)
Gregory Foote (LE-132A)
Steve Greene (WH-565)
Joseph E. Lees (ANR-443)
J. Craig Porter (ANR-443)
John C. Ulfelder (A-101)
Marcia Williams (WH-562)
pj/8349 L-3
-------
6/26/87
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
I. The Need for Guidance
The combustion of municipal waste represents an increasingly
important element of the solid waste disposal problem in the U.S.
However, the operation of municipal waste combustors (MWCs)
releases potentially harmful pollutants to the air. Human
exposure can occur directly or indirectly, and there is also
concern that the environment could be vulnerable to long-term
accumulation of emitted pollutants. EPA is addressing these
issues in a comprehensive, integrated Municipal Waste Combustion
Study and with this operational guidance.
Numerous questions regarding the selection of appropriate
pollution control requirements have arisen during recent years in
major source permitting proceedings under the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of Part C of the Act
and the nonattainment new source review (NSR) provisions of
Part D of the Act. Uncertainty over these questions has led to
conflict over minimum legal requirements and consequent delay in
the permitting and construction of MWCs. Hence, there is a need
for guidance to resolve controversies which may arise as to
facilities seeking permits. Accordingly, EPA is issuing this
operational guidance for use in making best available control
technology (BACT) determinations under PSD and lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) determinations under nonattainment NSR. EPA
believes that this is guidance will promote consistency in
control requirements, and reduce delay and confusion in the
permitting process. At the same time it will allow permitting
authorities to give appropriate consideration to local factors in
making case-by-case BACT determinations as required under law.
II. Administrative History
Section 169(3) of the Act provides that BACT determinations
in PSD permits must be "based on the maximum degree of reduction
pj/83-09 L-4
-------
of each pollutant subject to regulation under this [Act] . . .
which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and
other costs, determines is achievable." EPA's regulations track
this language. See 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(12), 40 C.F.R.
51.166(b)(12). In addition, in two administrative appeals
involving resource recovery facilities, EPA has further refined
the analysis which permitting authorities must conduct in making
BACT determinations.
In North County Resource Recovery Associates, PSD Appeal No.
85-2 (June 3, 1986), the Administrator issued a Remand Order
which held that, in making BACT determinations for a regulated
air pollutant, the permitting authority must consider the effect
of that decision on emissions of pollutants not regulated under
the Clean Air Act. North County provided that the final BACT
decision should address these environmental impacts, and that the
permitting authority may ultimately choose more stringent
emissions limitations for the regulated pollutant than it would
otherwise have chosen if it would have the collateral benefit of
restricting emissions of the unregulated pollutant. In the North
County case, the permitting authority has required the use of a
dry scrubber and fabric filter as BACT for sulfur dioxide, but
had failed to consider the effect of that decision on emissions
of certain unregulated pollutants — dioxins and furans, heavy
metals, and acid gases — on the grounds that it lacked authority
to do so. Various persons petitioned the Administrator under
40 C.F.R. Part 124. In response to the Administrator's
subsequent remand order, the permitting authority analyzed the
effect of various control options on these three classes of
pollutants, and found that no other controls on regulated
pollutants would be more effective in reducing emissions of the
unregulated pollutants. The Administrator then ruled that the
permitting authority had satisfied the requirements of the remand
order, and denied the petitions. See North County Resource
L-5
-------
Recovery Associates, PSD Appeal No. 85-2, Order Denying Review
(September 4, 1986).
The Administrator ruled in Honolulu Resource Recovery
Facility ("H-Power"), PSD Appeal No. 86-6, Remand Order (June 22,
1987), that a PSD permitting authority has the burden of
demonstrating that adverse economic impacts justify the failure
to require as BACT the most effective control technology which is
available. He also found that acid gas scrubbers are an
available control technology for sulfur dioxide (S02)• The
H-Power decision also provided that the economic impacts must be
specific to the source in question and substantial. Thus,
because the Administrator agreed with EPA Region IX that Hawaii
had not adequately demonstrated the basis for its conclusion that
economic factors justified the absence of flue gas treatment as
BACT for SO2/ he remanded the matter for further proceedings.
EPA today also draws upon the technical data referenced
below, and its experience in issuing, reviewing, and enforcing
PSD permits for MWCs. Recent emission test data have
demonstrated that particulate matter (PM), SO2, and other air
pollutants (including organics, heavy metals, and acid gases) can
be controlled effectively by acid gas scrubbing devices (dry
scrubbers) equipped with efficient particulate collectors. Over
20 MWC facilities in Europe are known to be operating with dry
scrubbers and particulate collectors, and at least 37 such
facilities are known to exist in Japan. In the United States,
three facilities currently are in operation and at least 15 have
been permitted to construct with dry scrubbing and particulate
control devices as the specified technology. Thirteen of these
facilities are expected to be operating by December 1988.
Based on this information, it is clear that a dry scrubber
followed by either a fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator
are "available" technologies for effective control of the SO2 and
PM emitted by MWCs, and that these technologies also are
effective in controlling emissions of potentially toxic organic
and heavy metal pollutants, and acid gases other than SO2» In
pj/83-09 L-6
-------
addition, the data show that these technologies are reliable and
reasonably affordable. Similarly, combustion controls are an
available technology for the control of carbon monoxide (CO)
emitted by MWCs, and are effective in controlling that criteria
pollutant and potentially toxic organic pollutants. EPA's
information indicates that this technology also is reliable and
reasonably affordable.
III. BACT Guidance for S02, PM, and CO
Accordingly, in considering the range of potential control
options during the BACT determination process for MWCs, the
reviewing authority must consider a dry scrubber and a fabric
filter or electrostatic precipitator as BACT for SO2 and PM, and
combustion controls as BACT for CO. In order to justify a BACT
determination calling for a lesser degree of emissions control
than can be achieved using these technologies, the permitting
authority must demonstrate, based on information contained in the
permit file, that significant technical defects, or substantial
adverse economic, energy, or environmental impacts or other cost
of these technologies, EPA expects that proper application of
this guidance will result in few, if any, BACT determinations
entailing application of pollution control technologies less
effective than those called for herein.
Today's guidance is general; it is limited to describing
types of post-combustion control equipment and to establishing
general criteria for combustor design, combustor operating
practices, emission monitoring, and operator training. It does
not set specific emission limits. Detailed information regarding
the maximum degree of emissions control achievable with those
technologies is available in the referenced technical documents,
the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, or from EPA. Such information
should be used by applicants and permitting authorities setting
specific emissions limits for PSD permits. In addition, today's
guidance only addresses control technologies currently in
widespread use for MWCs, and establishes minimum criteria for
BACT determinations. Permitting authorities are not relieved of
pj/83-09 Lrl
-------
their responsibility to consider, on a case-by-case basis,
whatever available technologies may be anticipated to provide a
greater degree of control than those addressed today. Similarly,
because control technologies and the other factors in forming
BACT determinations are constantly evolving, the technology
providing the greatest degree of emissions control taking
economic, energy, and environmental impacts into account may
likewise change over time. As one example, flue gas treatment
technology for the criteria pollutant nitrogen oxides (NOX) is in
operation at one MWC in the U.S., and this technology should be
considered by permitting authorities in making BACT
determinations. In addition, emerging technologies in flue gas
cleaning may develop which can attain the level of multipollutant
control currently demonstrated by dry scrubbing/particulate
matter controls, and technologies such as these should be
considered in future BACT determinations. Permitting authorities
and applicants must keep abreast of new developments. Of course,
EPA will assist in this endeavor.
IV. LAER Guidance for Nonattainment Areas
The technologies discussed herein for control of S(>2/ PM,
CO, and NOX have all been successfully implemented, and thus have
been "achieved in practice" by MWCs within the meaning of
section 171(3) of the Act. Hence, in nonattainment areas where
NSR requirements apply and major new sources and modifications
must apply LAER, no less effective pollution control technologies
may be imposed as LAER.
V. Implementation
Today's guidance applies to all ongoing PSD and NSR
proceedings, as well as to all new permit application. In
consideration of the needs for program stability and equity to
sources which have in good faith relied on pre-existing
permitting guidelines, this guidance does not apply to PSD and
NSR permit proceedings for which, as of June 26, 1987, final
permits have already been issued and, with respect to PSD permits
pj/83-09
-------
issued by EPA, agency review procedures under 40 C.F.R. Part 124
have been exhausted.
This operational guidance applies to PSD permits issued by
EPA directly through its Regional offices and indirectly through
State and local agencies pursuant to delegation agreements made
under 40 C.F.R. 52.21(u). Such agencies will be notified by
letter of this guidance. It will constitute an amendment to the
pre-existing delegation agreements. EPA Regional offices will
review all draft permits for MWCs issued by delegate agencies
during the public comment period to insure proper application.
Further program evaluation will take place under the National Air
Audit System (NAAS). If delegate agencies should fail to adhere
to this guidance, EPA staff may initiate administrative appeal
proceedings under 40 C.F.R. Part 124 in appropriate cases. Such
action would be appropriate where, for example, failure to follow
the guidance results in a finding of fact or conclusion of law
which is clearly erroneous, or involves an exercise of discretion
or an important policy consideration which the Administrator
should review. See 40 C.F.R. 124.19(a). Action would also be
appropriate where failure to follow the guidance resulting in an
inability to determine, based on the record, whether a clear
error occurred. If necessary, EPA may also revoke the delegation
of PSD authority to the State or local agency.
With respect to State PSD permits issued pursuant to a State
implementation plan (SIP) program approved by EPA under 40 C.F.R.
51.166 (formerly 51.24), and State NSR programs approved under
Part D of the Act and 40 C.F.R. 51.165 (formerly 51.18(j)), EPA
expects States to follow today's guidance in generally the same
fashion as delegate agencies. EPA will use the guidance as a
reference point in its oversight of State MWC permit actions. As
with delegated permits EPA will participate in permit proceedings
and conduct NAAS evaluations. If agencies processing NSR permits
or PSD permits under approved State programs should fail to
adhere to this guidance, EPA may initiate administrative and/or
judicial action under sections 113 and/or 167 of the Act in
pj/83-09 L-9
-------
appropriate cases. Such action would be appropriate where, for
example, failure to follow the guidance results in a finding of
fact or conclusion of law which is clearly erroneous, or an
inability to determine whether a clear error occurred. If
necessary, EPA may also call for SIP revisions under
section 110(a)(2)(H).
Insofar as today's guidance addresses minimum legal
requirements for BACT determinations, it simply implements
existing regulations and policy, including Agency actions already
made by the Administrator in the North County and H-Power cases.
To the extent the guidance addresses the technical issues of
availability, effectiveness, and cost of control technologies for
MWCs, it expresses EPA's view regarding the proper usage, in
permit proceedings under existing EPA regulations and SIP
programs, of the factual data contained in the five documents
referenced below. Those documents present information on the
alternative controls available for MWCs, the performance
capabilities and costs of those controls, and the methods for
monitoring and measuring emissions from MWCs. Factors to be
considered in choosing the "specified values" to be included in
permits, as noted in the guidance, such as maximum concentration
of CO in emissions and minimum value of furnace temperature, are
contained in these references. Thus, the guidance does not
constitute rulemaking within the meaning of section 307(d) of the
Act or under the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, it
is not necessary to implement this guidance, as to EPA permits
issued by Regional offices or State and local agencies, through
changes in the PSD regulations at 40 C.F.R. 52.21. Likewise,
regarding approved State PSD programs, it is not necessary to
revise 40 C.F.R. 51.166 and require corresponding SIP revisions.
VI. Technical Guidance
Today's operational guidance applies to three types of MWCs:
massburn, excess air MWCs; excess air MWCs that fire refuse-
derived fuel; and modular, starved air MWCs. It applies to those
MWCs that operate with energy recovery and those that operate
pj/83-09 L-10
-------
without energy recovery. It applies to both major new and major
modified facilities of these types. The guidance requires that
values for emission limits and operating parameters be specified
in MWC permitting decisions.
One component of control technology for MWCs is the
application of the appropriate post-combustion control equipment.
The EPA has identified this equipment as a dry scrubber with
fabric filter or with electrostatic precipitator. The
concentration of particulate emissions in the exhaust gases from
the post-combustion control equipment shall not exceed a
specified maximum value; and the S02 emissions in the exhaust
gases shall not exceed a specified maximum concentration value or
the percent reduction in SC>2 emissions across the post-combustion
control equipment shall not be less than a specified value.
Performance of the dry scrubber and fabric filter or
electrostatic precipitator in controlling acid gases, potentially
toxic metals, and potentially toxic organic pollutants is
affected significantly by the reduction in flue gas temperature
which occurs in the dry scrubber. The control system shall be
designed and operated such that the flue gas temperature at the
outlet from the dry scrubber does not exceed a specified value.
A second component of control technology for MWCs is proper
design and operation of the combustion system, which controls CO
and potentially toxic organic pollutants. Minimum concentrations
of CO in emissions from MWCs are associated with the
implementation of several good combustion practices. These
practices are also related to the effective destruction of
potential emissions of toxic organic pollutants, including
dioxins and furans. Concentrations of CO in furnace exhaust
gases shall not exceed a specified maximum value, and CO and 02
concentrations in the exhaust gases shall be monitored
continuously. In addition, furnace operating temperatures shall
be no lower than a specified minimum value, and a procedure for
continuous monitoring shall be established to ensure that the
specified temperature is maintained.
pj/83-09 L-ll
-------
The capabilities to control flow rates and distributions of
underfire (primary) and overfire (secondary) air, to monitor
continuously CO concentration and furnace temperature, to
maintain thermal load within a specified range, and to control
the process to maintain CO and temperature of the furnace at
appropriate levels are all important to good combustion.
Detailed information regarding the numerical values to be
assigned to the emission levels and equipment design and
operating parameters associated with good combustion are provided
in the documents cited under References.
References
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Emission Data Base for
Municipal Waste Combustors.
EPA/530-SW-87-021B
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Combustion Control of Organic
Emissions.
EPA/530-SW-87-021C
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Flue Gas Cleaning Technology.
EPA/530-SW-87-021D
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Cost of Flue Gas Cleaning
Technologies.
EPA/530-SW-87-021E
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Sampling and Analysis.
EPA/530-SW-87-021F
PJ/83-09
-------
Appendix M
Clean Air Act Section lll(d)
-------
APPENDIX M--CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION lll(d)
Note: The State Plans for MWCs must be developed to
satisfy the requirements of both Section lll(d) and
Section 129. Where conflicts arise, Section 129 takes
precedent. Refer to Appendix N for the text of Section 129.
(d)(l) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure
similar to that provided by section 110 under which each State shall submit to the
Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing
source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or
which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or 112(b)(l)(A) but (ii) to
which a standard of performance under this section would apply if such existing source
were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such
standards of performance. Regulations of the Administrator under this paragraph shall
permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any particular source under a
plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the
remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard applies.
(2) The Administrator shall have the same authority-
(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a
satisfactory plan as he would have under section 110(c) in the case of failure to submit
an implementation plan, and
(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce
them as he would have under sections 113 and 114 with respect to an implementation
plan. In promulgating a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under this
paragraph, the Administrator shall take into consideration, among other factors,
remaining useful lives of the sources in the category of sources to which such standard
applies.
M-l
-------
Appendix N
Clean Air Act Section 129
-------
APPENDIX N-SECTION 129 STATUTORY LANGUAGE
Note: The State Plans for MWCs must be developed to
satisfy the requirements of both Section lll(d) and
Section 129. Where conflicts arise, Section 129 takes
precedent. Refer to Appendix M for the text of Section lll(d).
SEC. 129. SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION.
(a) NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(1) IN GENERAL. - (A) The Administrator shall establish performance standards
and other requirements pursuant to section 111 and this section for each category of
solid waste incineration units. Such standards shall include emissions limitations and
other requirements applicable to new units and guidelines (under section lll(d) and this
section) and other requirements applicable to existing units.
(B) Standards under section 111 and this section applicable to solid waste incineration
units with capacity greater than 250 tons per day combusting municipal waste shall be
promulgated not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Nothing in this subparagraph shall alter any schedule for the
promulgation of standards applicable to such units under section 111 pursuant to any
settlement and consent decree entered by the Administrator before the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, provided that, such standards are
subsequently modified pursuant to the schedule established in this subparagraph to
include each of the requirements of this section.
(C) Standards under section 111 and this section applicable to solid waste incineration
units with capacity equal to or less than 250 tons per day combusting municipal waste
and units combusting hospital waste, medical waste and infectious waste shall be
promulgated not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
(D) Standards under section 111 and this section applicable to solid waste incineration
units combusting commercial or industrial waste shall be proposed not later than 36
months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and
promulgated not later than 48 months after such date of enactment.
(E) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, the Administrator shall publish a schedule for the promulgation of
standards under section 111 and this section applicable to other categories of solid waste
incineration units.
(2) EMISSIONS STANDARD. - Standards applicable to solid waste incineration units
promulgated under section 111 and this section shall reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4) that the Administrator,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new or existing units in each category. The Administrator may distinguish
among classes, types (including mass-burn, refuse-derived fuel, modular and other types
of units), and sizes of units within a category in establishing such standards. The degree
pj/834» N-l
-------
of reduction in emissions that is deemed achievable for new units in a category shall not
be less stringent than the emissions control that is achieved hi practice by the best
controlled similar unit, as determined by the Administrator. Emissions standards for
existing units in a category may be less stringent than standards for new units in the
same category but shall not be less stringent than the average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in the category (excluding units
which first met lowest achievable emissions rates 18 months before the date such
standards are proposed or 30 months before the date such standards are promulgated,
whichever is later).
(3) CONTROL METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES. - Standards under section 111
and this section applicable to solid waste incineration units shall be based on methods
and technologies for removal or destruction of pollutants before, during, or after
combustion, and shall incorporate for new units siting requirements that minimize, on a
site specific basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks to public health or
the environment.
(4) NUMERICAL EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS. -- The performance standards
promulgated under section 111 and this section and applicable to solid waste incineration
units shall specify numerical emission limitations for the following substances or
mixtures: paniculate matter (total and fine), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide,
hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and
dioxins and dibenzofurans. The Administrator may promulgate numerical emissions
limitations or provide for the monitoring of postcombustion concentrations of surrogate
substances, parameters or periods of residence time in excess of stated temperatures with
respect to pollutants other than those listed in this paragraph.
(5) REVIEW AND REVISION. - Not later than 5 years following the initial
promulgation of any performance standards and other requirements under this section
and section 111 applicable to a category of solid waste incineration units, and at 5 year
intervals thereafter, the Administrator shall review, and in accordance with this section
and section 111, revise such standards and requirements.
(b) EXISTING UNITS.
(1) GUIDELINES. - Performance standards under this section and section 111 for
solid waste incineration units shall include guidelines promulgated pursuant to section
lll(d) and this section applicable to existing units. Such guidelines shall include, as
provided in this section, each of the elements required by subsection (a) (emissions
limitations, notwithstanding any restriction in section lll(d) regarding issuance of such
limitations), subsection (c) (monitoring), subsection (d) (operator training), subsection
(e) (permits), and subsection (h)(4) (residual risk).
(2) STATE PLANS. - Not later than 1 year after the Administrator promulgates
guidelines for a category of solid waste incineration units, each State in which units in
the category are operating shall submit to the Administrator a plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines with respect to such units. The State plan shall be at least as
protective as the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator and shall provide that
each unit subject to the guidelines shall be in compliance with all requirements of this
section not later than 3 years after the State plan is approved by the Administrator but
not later than 5 years after the guidelines were promulgated. The Administrator shall
N-2
-------
approve or disapprove any State plan within 180 days of the submission, and if a plan is
disapproved, the Administrator shall state the reasons for disapproval in writing. Any
State may modify and resubmit a plan which has been disapproved by the Administrator.
(3) FEDERAL PLAN. - The Administrator shall develop, implement and enforce a
plan for existing solid waste incineration units within any category located in any State
which has not submitted an approvable plan under this subsection with respect to units
in such category within 2 years after the date on which the Administrator promulgated
the relevant guidelines. Such plan shall assure that each unit subject to the plan is in
compliance with all provisions of the guidelines not later than 5 years after the date the
relevant guidelines are promulgated.
(c) MONITORING. - The Administrator shall, as part of each performance standard
promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) and section 111, promulgate regulations requiring
the owner or operator of each solid waste incineration unit
(1) to monitor emissions from the unit at the point at which such emissions are
emitted into the ambient air (or within the stack, combustion chamber or pollution
control equipment, as appropriate) and at such other points as necessary to protect
public health and the environment;
(2) to monitor such other parameters relating to the operation of the unit and its
pollution control technology as the Administrator determines are appropriate; and
(3) to report the results of such monitoring. Such regulations shall contain provisions
regarding the frequency of monitoring, test methods and procedures validated on solid
waste incineration units, and the form and frequency of reports containing the results of
monitoring and shall require that any monitoring reports or test results indicating an
exceedance of any standard under this section shall be reported separately and in a
manner that facilitates review for purposes of enforcement actions. Such regulations
shall require that copies of the results of such monitoring be maintained on file at the
facility concerned and that copies shall be made available for inspection and copying by
interested members of the public during business hours.
(d) OPERATOR TRAINING. - Not later than 24 months after the enactment of the
dean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Administrator shall develop and promote a
model State program for the training and certification of solid waste incineration unit
operators and high-capacity fossil fuel fired plant operators. The Administrator may
authorize any State to implement a model program for the training of solid waste
incineration unit operators and high-capacity fossil fuel fired plant operators, if the State
has adopted a program which is at least as effective as the model program developed by
the Administrator. Beginning on the date 36 months after the date on which
performance standards and guidelines are promulgated under subsection (a) and section
111 for any category of solid waste incineration units it shall be unlawful to operate any
unit in the category unless each person with control over processes affecting emissions
from such unit has satisfactorily completed a training program meeting the requirements
established by the Administrator under this subsection.
(e) PERMITS. - Beginning (1) 36 months after the promulgation of a performance
standard under subsection (a) and section 111 applicable to a category of solid waste
incineration units, or (2) the effective date of a permit program under title V in the State
in which the unit is located, whichever is later, each unit in the category shall operate
pj/8349 N-3
-------
pursuant to a permit issued under this subsection and title V. Permits required by this
subsection may be renewed according to the provisions of title V. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, each permit for a solid waste incineration unit combusting
municipal waste issued under this Act shall be issued for a period of up to 12 years and
shall be reviewed every 5 years after date of issuance or reissuance. Each permit shall
continue in effect after the date of issuance until the date of termination, unless the
Administrator or State determines that the unit is not in compliance with all standards
and conditions contained in the permit. Such determination shall be made at regular
intervals during the term of the permit, such intervals not to exceed 5 years, and only
after public comment and public hearing. No permit for a solid waste incineration unit
may be issued under this Act by an agency, instrumentality or person that is also
responsible, in whole or part, for the design and construction or operation of the unit.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the Administrator or the State
shall require the owner or operator of any unit to comply with emissions limitations or
implement any other measures, if the Administrator or the State determines that
emissions in the absence of such limitations or measures my reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or the environment. The Administrator's determination under
the preceding sentence is a discretionary decision.
(f) EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEMENT.
(1) NEW UNITS. - Performance standards and other requirements promulgated
pursuant to this section and section 111 and applicable to new solid waste incineration
units shall be effective as of the date 6 months after the date of promulgation.
(2) EXISTING UNITS. - Performance standards and other requirements promulgated
pursuant to this section and section 111 and applicable to existing solid waste
incineration units shall be effective as expeditiously as practicable after approval of a
State plan under subsection (b)(2) (or promulgation of a plan by the Administrator
under subsection (b)(3)) but in no event later than 3 years after the State plan is
approved or 5 years after the date such standards or requirements are promulgated,
whichever is earlier.
(3) PROHIBITION. - After the effective date of any performance standard, emission
Limitation or other requirement promulgated pursuant to this section and section 111, it
shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any solid waste incineration unit to which
such standard, limitation or requirement applies to operate such unit in violation of such
limitation, standard or requirement or for any other person to violate an applicable
requirement of this section.
(4) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES. - For purposes of sections
lll(e), 113, 114, 116, 120, 303, 304, 307 and other provisions for the enforcement of this
Act, each performance standard, emission limitation or other requirement established
pursuant to this section by the Administrator or a State or local government, shall be
treated in the same manner as a standard of performance under section 111 which is an
emission Limitation.
(g) DEF1MTIONS. - For purposes of section 306 of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and this section only
(1) SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. - The term 'solid waste incineration
unit' means a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid waste
pj/83-09 N-4
-------
material from commercial or industrial establishments or the general public (including
single and multiple residences, hotels, and motels). Such term does not include
incinerators or other units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act. The term 'solid waste incineration unit' does not include (A)
materials recovery faculties (including primary or secondary smelters) which combust
waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power
production facilities, as defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous waste (such as
units which burn tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the
production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which
burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and steam or forms of
useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling
purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood
wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators comply with
opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator by rule.
(2) NEW SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. - The term 'new solid waste
incineration unit' means a solid waste incineration unit the construction of which is
commenced after the Administrator proposes requirements under this section
establishing emissions standards or other requirements which would be applicable to
such unit or a modified solid waste incineration unit.
(3) MODIFIED SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. - The term 'modified solid
waste incineration unit' means a solid waste incineration unit at which modifications have
occurred after the effective date of a standard under subsection (a) if (A) the cumulative
cost of the modifications, over the life of the unit, exceed 50 per centum of the original
cost of construction and installation of the unit (not including the cost of any land
purchased in connection with such construction or installation) updated to current costs,
or (B) the modification is a physical change in or change in the method of operation of
the unit which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the unit for which
standards have been established under this section or section 111.
(4) EXISTING SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. -- The term 'existing solid
waste incineration unit' means a solid waste unit which is not a new or modified solid
waste incineration unit.
(5) MUNICIPAL WASTE. - The term 'municipal waste' means refuse (and
refuse-derived fuel) collected from the general public and from residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial sources consisting of paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes,
plastics, leather, rubber, and other combustible materials and non-combustible materials
such as metal, glass and rock, provided that: (A) the term does not include industrial
process wastes or medical wastes that are segregated from such other wastes; and (B) an
incineration unit shall not be considered to be combusting municipal waste for purposes
of section 111 or this section if it combusts a fuel feed stream, 30 percent or less of the
weight of which is comprised, in aggregate, of municipal waste.
(6) OTHER TERMS. - The terms 'solid waste' and 'medical waste' shall have the
meanings established by the Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(h) OTHER AUTHORITY.
pj/8349 N-5
-------
(1) STATE AUTHORITY. - Nothing in this section shall preclude or deny the right
of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation,
requirement, limitation or standard relating to solid waste incineration units that is more
stringent than a regulation, requirement, limitation or standard in effect under this
section or under any other provision of this Act.
(2) OTHER AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ACT. ~ Nothing in this section shall
diminish the authority of the Administrator or a State to establish any other
requirements applicable to solid waste incineration units under any other authority of
law, including the authority to establish for any air pollutant a national ambient air
quality standard, except that no solid waste incineration unit subject to performance
standards under this section and section 111 shall be subject to standards under section
112(d)oftbisAct.
(3) RESIDUAL RISK. - The Administrator shall promulgate standards under section
112(f) for a category of solid waste incineration units, if promulgation of such standards
is required under section 112(f). For purposes of this preceding sentence only
(A) the performance standards under subsection (a) and section 111 applicable to a
category of solid waste incineration units shall be deemed standards under section
112(d)(2), and
(B) the Administrator shall consider and regulate, if required, the pollutants listed
under subsection (a)(4) and no others.
(4) ACID RAIN. - A solid waste incineration unit shall not be utility unit as defined
in title IV: provided, that, more than 80 per centum of its annual average fuel
consumption measured on a Btu basis, during a period or periods to be determined by
the Administrator, is from a fuel (including any waste burned as a fuel) other than a
fossil fuel.
(5) REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS C AND D. - No requirement of an applicable
implementation plan under section 165 (relating to construction of facilities in regions
identified pursuant to section 107(d)(l)(A)(ii) or (iii)) or under section 172(c)(5)
(relating to permits for construction and operation in nonattainment areas) may be used
to weaken the standards in effect under this section.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. -- Section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act is
amended by striking "two hundred and" after "municipal incinerators capable of charging
more than".
(c) REVIEW OF ACID GAS SCRUBBING REQUIREMENTS. » Prior to the
promulgation of any performance standard for solid waste incineration units combusting
municipal waste under section 111 or section 129 of the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator shall review the availability of acid gas scrubbers as a pollution control
technology for small new units and for existing units (as defined in 54 Federal Register
52190 (December 20, 1989), taking into account the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of
section 129 of the Clean Air Act.
pj/83-09 N-6
-------
Appendix O
40 CFR 60 Subpart B
-------
APPENDIX 0—40 CFR 60 SUBPART B WITH 12/19/95 INSERTS
Subpart B — Adoption and Submittal of State Plans
for Designated Facilities
60.20 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart apply to States upon publication
of a final guideline document under section 60.22(a).
60.21 Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this subpart shall have the
meaning given them in the Act and in Subpart A:
(a) "Designated pollutant" means any air pollutant, emissions
of which are subject to a standard of performance for new
stationary sources but for which air quality criteria have not
been issued, and which is not included on a list published under
section 108(a) or section 112(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
(b) "Designated facility" means any existing facility (see
section 60.2(aa)) which emits a designated pollutant and which
would be subject to a standard of performance for that pollutant
if the existing facility were an affected facility (see section
60.2) .
(c) "Plan" means a plan under section lll(d) of the Act which
establishes emission standards for designated pollutants from
designated facilities and provides for the implementation and
enforcement of such emission standards.
(d) "Applicable plan" means the plan, or most recent revision
thereof, which has been approved under section 60.27(b) or
promulgated under section 60.27(d).
(e) "Emission guideline" means a guideline set forth in
Subpart C of this part, or in a final guideline document
published under AU 60.22(a), which reflects the degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of the best
system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of such reduction) the Administrator has determined has been
adequately demonstrated for designated facilities.
(f) "Emission standard" means a legally enforceable regulation
setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere,
or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air
pollution emissions.
(g) "Compliance schedule" means a legally enforceable schedule
specifying a date or dates by which a source or category of
sources must comply with specific emission standards contained in
a plan or with any increments of progress to achieve such
compliance.
(h) "Increments of progress" means steps to achieve compliance
which must be taken by an owner or operator of a designated
facility, including:
pj/83-09 0-1
-------
(1) Submittal of a final control plan for the designated
facility to the appropriate air pollution control agency;
(2) Awarding of contracts for emission control systems or for
process modifications, or issuance of orders for the purchase of
component parts to accomplish emission control or process
modification;
(3) Initiation of on-site construction or installation of
emission control equipment or process change;
(4) Completion of on-site construction or installation of
emission control equipment or process change; and
(5) Final compliance.
(i) "Region" means an air quality control region designated
under section 107 of the Act and described in Part 81 of this
chapter.
(j) "Local agency" means any local governmental agency.
60.22 Publication of guideline documents, emission guidelines,
and final compliance times.
(a) Concurrently upon or after proposal of standards of
performance for the control of a designated pollutant from
affected facilities, the Administrator will publish a draft
guideline document containing information pertinent to control of
the designated pollutant from designated facilities. Notice of
the availability of the draft guideline document will be
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER and public comments on its
contents will be invited. After consideration of Public comments
and upon or after promulgation of standards of performance for
control of a designated pollutant from affected facilities, a
final guideline document will be published and notice of its
availability will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
(b) Guideline documents published under this section will
provide information for the development of State plans, such as:
(1) Information concerning known or suspected endangerment of
public health or welfare caused, or contributed to, by the
designated pollutant.
(2) A description of systems of emission reduction which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, have been adequately
demonstrated.
(3) Information on the degree of emission reduction which is
achievable with each system, together with information on the
costs and environmental effects of applying each system to
designated facilities.
(4) Incremental periods of time normally expected to be
necessary for the design, installation, and startup of identified
control systems.
(5) An emission guideline that reflects the application of the
best system of emission reduction (considering the cost of such
reduction) that has been adequately demonstrated for designated
facilities, and the time within which compliance with emission
standards of equivalent stringency can be achieved. The
Administrator will specify different emission guidelines or
pj/83-09 O-2
-------
compliance times or both for different sizes, types, and classes
of designated facilities when costs of control, physical
limitations, geographical location, or similar factors make
subcategorization appropriate.
(6) Such other available information as the Administrator
determines may contribute to the formulation of State plans.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
the emission guidelines and compliance times referred to in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section will be proposed for comment
upon publication of the draft guideline document, and after
consideration of comments will be promulgated in Subpart C of
this part with such modifications as may be appropriate.
(d)(1) If the Administrator determines that a designated
pollutant may cause or contribute to endangerment of public
welfare, but that adverse effects on public health have not been
demonstrated, he will include the determination in the draft
guideline document and in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of its
availability. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, paragraph (c) of this section shall be inapplicable in
such cases.
(2) If the Administrator determines at any time on the basis
of new information that a prior determination under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section is incorrect or no longer correct, he will
publish notice of the determination in the FEDERAL REGISTER,
revise the guideline document as necessary under paragraph (a) of
this section, and propose and promulgate emission guidelines and
compliance times under paragraph (c) of this section.
60.23 Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings.
(a)(1) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart,
within 9 months after notice of the availability of a final
guideline document is published under section 60.22a), each State
shall adopt and submit to the Administrator, in accordance with
section 60.4 of subpart A of this part, a plan for the control of
the designated pollutant to which the guideline document applies.
(2) Within nine months after notice of the availability of a
final revised guideline document is published as provided in
section 60.22(d)(2), each State shall adopt and submit to the
Administrator any plan revision necessary to meet the
requirements of this subpart.
(b) If no designated facility is located within a State, the
State shall submit a letter of certification to that effect to
the Administrator within the time specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. Such certification shall exempt the State from the
requirements of this subpart for that designated pollutant.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of
this section, the State shall, prior to the adoption of any plan
or revision thereof, conduct one or more public hearings within
the State on such plan or plan revision.
(2) No hearing shall be required for any change to an
increment of progress in an approved compliance schedule unless
pj/83-09 O-3
-------
the change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to comply
with the final compliance date in the schedule.
(3) No hearing shall be required on an emission standard in
effect prior to the effective date of this subpart if it was
adopted after a public hearing and is at least as stringent as
the corresponding emission guideline specified in the applicable
guideline document published under section 60.22(a).
(d) Any hearing required by paragraph (c) of this section
shall be held only after reasonable notice. Notice shall be
given at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing and
shall include:
(1) Notification to the public by prominently advertising the
date, time, and place of such hearing in each region affected;
(2) Availability, at the time of public announcement, of each
proposed plan or revision thereof for public inspection in at
least one location in each region to which it will apply;
(3) Notification to the Administrator;
(4) Notification to each local air pollution control agency in
each region to which the plan or revision will apply; and
(5) In the case of an interstate region, notification to any
other State included in the region.
(e) The State shall prepare and retain, for a minimum of 2
years, a record of each hearing for inspection by any interested
party. The record shall contain, as a minimum, a list of
witnesses together with the text of each presentation.
(f) The State shall submit with the plan or revision:
(1) Certification that each hearing required by paragraph (c)
of this section was held in accordance with the notice required
by paragraph (d) of this section; and
(2) A list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations,
if any, appearing at the hearing and a brief written summary of
each presentation or written submission.
(g) Upon written application by a State agency (through the
appropriate Regional Office), the Administrator may approve State
procedures designed to insure public participation in the matters
for which hearings are required and public notification of the
opportunity to participate if, in the judgment of the
Administrator, the procedures, although different from the
requirements of this subpart, in fact provide for adequate notice
to and participation of the public. The Administrator may impose
such conditions on his approval as he deems necessary.
Procedures approved under this section shall be deemed to satisfy
the requirements of this subpart regarding procedures for public
hearings.
60.24 Emission standards and compliance schedules.
(a) Each plan shall include emission standards and compliance
schedules.
(b)(1) Emission standards shall prescribe allowable rates of
emissions except when it is clearly impracticable. Such cases
will be identified in the guideline documents issued under
pj/83-09 O-4
-------
section 60.22. Where emission standards prescribing equipment
specifications are established, the plan shall, to the degree
possible, set forth the emission reductions achievable by
implementation of such specifications, and may permit compliance
by the use of equipment determined by the State to be equivalent
to that prescribed.
(2) Test methods and procedures for determining compliance
with the emission standards shall be specified in the plan.
Methods other than those specified in Appendix A to this part may
be specified in the plan if shown to be equivalent or alternative
methods as defined in section 60.2(t) and (u).
(3) Emission standards shall apply to all designated
facilities within the State. A plan may contain emission
standards adopted by local jurisdictions provided that the
standards are enforceable by the State.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where
the Administrator has determined that a designated pollutant may
cause or contribute to endangerment of public health, emission
standards shall be no less stringent than the corresponding
emission guideline(s) specified in Subpart C of this part, and
final compliance shall be required as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the compliance times specified in
Subpart C of this part.
(d) Where the Administrator has determined that a designated
that a designated pollutant may cause or contribute to
endangerment of public welfare but that adverse effects on public
health have not been demonstrated, States may balance the
emission guidelines, compliance times, and other information
provided in the applicable guideline document against other
factors of public concern in establishing emission standards,
compliance schedules, and variances. Appropriate consideration
shall be given to the factors specified in section 60.22(b) and
to information presented at the public hearing(s) conducted under
section 60.23(c).
(e)(1) Any compliance schedule extending more than 12 months
from the date required for submittal of the plan shall include
legally enforceable increments of progress to achieve compliance
for each designated facility or category of facilities.
Increments of progress shall include, where practicable, each
increment of progress specified in section 60.21(h) and shall
include such additional increments of progress as may be
necessary to permit close and effective supervision of progress
toward final compliance.
(2) A plan may provide that compliance schedules for
individual sources or categories of sources will be formulated
after plan submittal. Any such schedule shall be the subject of
a public hearing held according to section 60.23 and shall be
submitted to the Administrator within 60 days after the date of
adoption of the schedule but in no case later than the date
prescribed for submittal of the first semiannual report required
by section 60.25(e).
(f) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on a
case-by-case basis for particular designated facilities or
pj/83-09 0-5
-------
classes of facilities, States may provide for the application of
less stringent emissions standards or longer compliance schedules
than those otherwise required by paragraph (c) of this section,
provided that the State demonstrates with respect to each such
facility (or class of facilities):
(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age,
location, or basic process design;
(2) Physical impossibility of installing necessary control
equipment; or
(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or class of
facilities) that make application of a less stringent standard or
final compliance time significantly more reasonable.
(g) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preclude any
State or political subdivision thereof from adopting or enforcing
(1) emission standards more stringent than emission guidelines
specified in Subpart C of this part or in applicable guideline
documents or
(2) compliance schedules requiring final compliance at earlier
times than those specified in Subpart C or in applicable
guideline documents.
60.25 Emission inventories, source surveillance, reports.
(a) Each plan shall include an inventory of all designated
facilities, including emission data for the designated pollutants
and information related to emissions as specified in Appendix D
to this part. Such data shall be summarized in the plan, and
emission rates of designated pollutants from designated
facilities shall be correlated with applicable emission
standards. As used in this subpart, "correlated" means presented
in such a manner as to show the relationship between measured or
estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions
allowable under applicable emission standards.
(b) Each plan shall provide for monitoring the status of
compliance with applicable emission standards. Each plan shall,
as a minimum, provide for:
(1) Legally enforceable procedures for requiring owners or
operators of designated facilities to maintain records and
periodically report to the State information on the nature and
amount of emissions from such facilities, and/or such other
information as may be necessary to enable the State to determine
whether such facilities are in compliance with applicable
portions of the plan.
(2) Periodic inspection and, when applicable, testing of
designated facilities.
(c) Each plan shall provide that information obtained by the
State under paragraph (b) of this section shall be correlated
with applicable emission standards (see section 60.25(a)) and
made available to the general public.
(d) The provisions referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section shall be specifically identified. Copies of such
provisions shall be submitted with the plan unless:
pj/83-09 O—6
-------
(1) They have been approved as portions of a preceding plan
submitted under this subpart or as portions of an implementation
plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, and
(2) The State demonstrates:
(i) That the provisions are applicable to the designated
pollutant(s) for which the plan is submitted, and
(ii) That the requirements of section 60.26 are met.
(e) The State shall submit reports on progress in plan
enforcement to the Administrator on an annual (calendar year)
basis, commencing with the first full report period after
approval of a plan or after promulgation of a plan by the
Administrator. Information required under this paragraph must be
included in the annual report required by section 51.321 of this
chapter.
(f) Each progress report shall include:
(1) Enforcement actions initiated against designated
facilities during the reporting period, under any emission
standard or compliance schedule of the plan.
(2) Identification of the achievement of any increment of
progress required by the applicable plan during the reporting
period.
(3) Identification of designated facilities that have ceased
operation during the reporting period.
(4) Submission of emission inventory data as described in
paragraph (a) of this section for designated facilities that were
not in operation at the time of plan development but began
operation during the reporting period.
(5) Submission of additional data as necessary to update the
information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section or in
previous progress reports.
(6) Submission of copies of technical reports on all
performance testing on designated facilities conducted under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, complete with concurrently
recorded process data.
60.26 Legal authority.
(a) Each plan shall show that the State has legal authority to
carry out the plan, including authority to:
(1) Adopt emission standards and compliance schedules
applicable to designated facilities.
(2) Enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards, and
compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief.
(3) Obtain information necessary to determine whether
designated facilities are in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and compliance schedules, including
authority to require recordkeeping and to make inspections and
conduct tests of designated facilities.
(4) Require owners or operators of designated facilities to
install, maintain, and use emission monitoring devices and to
make periodic reports to the State on the nature and amounts of
emissions from such facilities; also authority for the State to
pj/83-09 O-7
-------
make such data available to the public as reported and as
correlated with applicable emission standards.
(b) The provisions of law or regulations which the State
determines provide the authorities required by this section shall
be specifically identified. Copies of such laws or regulations
shall be submitted with the plan unless:
(1) They have been approved as portions of a preceding plan
submitted under this subpart or as portions of an implementation
plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, and
(2) The State demonstrates that the laws or regulations are
applicable to the designated pollutant(s) for which the plan is
submitted.
(c) The plan shall show that the legal authorities specified
in this section are available to the State at the time of
submission of the plan. Legal authority adequate to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section may be
delegated to the State under section 114 of the Act.
(d) A State governmental agency other than the State air
pollution control agency may be assigned responsibility for
carrying out a portion of a plan if the plan demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the State governmental agency
has the legal authority necessary to carry out that portion of
the plan.
(e) The State may authorize a local agency to carry out a
plan, or portion thereof, within the local agency's jurisdiction
if the plan demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the local agency has the legal authority necessary to implement
the plan or portion thereof, and that the authorization does not
relieve the State of responsibility under the Act for carrying
out the plan or portion thereof.
60.27 Actions by the Administrator.
(a) The Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary,
extend the period for submission of any plan or plan revision or
portion thereof.
(b) After receipt of a plan or plan revision, the
Administrator will propose the plan or revision for approval or
disapproval. The Administrator will, within four months after
the date required for submission of a plan or plan revision,
approve or disapprove such plan or revision or each portion
thereof.
(c) The Administrator will, after consideration of any State
hearing record, promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations
setting forth a plan, or portion thereof, for a State if:
(1) The State fails to submit a plan within the time
prescribed;
(2) The State fails to submit a plan revision required by
section 60.23(a)(2) within the time prescribed; or
(3) The Administrator disapproves the State plan or plan
revision or any portion thereof, as unsatisfactory because the
requirements of this subpart have not been met.
pj/83-09 O-8
-------
(d) The Administrator will, within six months after the date
required for submission of a plan or plan revision, promulgate
the regulations proposed under paragraph (c) of this section with
such modifications as may be appropriate unless, prior to such
promulgation, the State has adopted and submitted a plan or plan
revision which the Administrator determines to be approvable.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
regulations proposed and promulgated by the Administrator under
this section will prescribe emission standards of the same
stringency as the corresponding emission guideline(s) specified
in the final guideline document published under section 60.22(a)
and will require final compliance with such standards as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the times
specified in the guideline document.
(2) Upon application by the owner or operator of a designated
facility to which regulations proposed and promulgated under this
section will apply, the Administrator may provide for the
application of less stringent emission standards or longer
compliance schedules than those otherwise required by this
section in accordance with the criteria specified in section
60.24(f).
(f) If a State failed to hold a public hearing as required by
section 60.23(c), the Administrator will provide opportunity for
a hearing within the State prior to promulgation of a plan under
paragraph (d) of this section.
60.28 Plan revisions by the State.
(a) Plan revisions which have the effect of delaying
compliance with applicable emission standards or increments of
progress or of establishing less stringent emission standards
shall be submitted to the Administrator within 60 days after
adoption in accordance with the procedures and requirements
applicable to development and submission of the original plan.
(b) More stringent emission standards, or orders which have
the effect of accelerating compliance, may be submitted to the
Administrator as plan revisions in accordance with the procedures
and requirements applicable to development and submission of the
original plan.
(c) A revision of a plan, or any portion thereof, shall not be
considered part of an applicable plan until approved by the
Administrator in accordance with this subpart.
60.29 Plan revisions by the Administrator.
After notice and opportunity for public hearing in each
affected State, the Administrator may revise any provision of an
applicable plan if:
(a) The provision was promulgated by the Administrator, and
(b) The plan, as revised, will be consistent with the Act and
with the requirements of this subpart.
pj/83-09 O-9
-------
Appendix P
40 CFR 60 Subparts Cb and Eb
PI 40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb
P2 40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb
-------
Appendix PI
40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb
-------
APPENDIX P—40 CFR 60 SUBPARTS Cb AND Eb
APPENDIX PI—40 CFR 60 SUBPART Cb
Part 60, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 60 - [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429, and
7601.
* * * * *
2. Section 60.17 of subpart A of part 60 is amended by
revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) to read as
follows:
S 60.17 Incorporation bv reference.
*****
(h) * * *
(1) ASME QRO-1-1994, Standard for the Qualification and
Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators, IBR
approved for §§ 60.56a and 60.58b(i)(6)(ii).
(2) ASME PTC 4.1-1964 (Reaffirmed 1991), Power Test Codes:
Test Code for Steam Generating Units (with 1968 and 1969
Addenda), IBR approved for §§ 60.46b, 60.54b(a), 60.54b(b), and
60.58a(h).
(3) ASME Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and
Apparatus: Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th Edition
(1971), IBR approved for §§ 60.58a(h) and 60.58b(i)(6)(ii).
pj/83-09 P-l
-------
* * * * *
3. Section 60.23 of subpart B of part 60 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
S 60.23 Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings.
(a) * * *
(1) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart,
within 9 months after notice of the availability of a final
guideline document is published under § 60.22(a), each State
shall adopt and submit to the Administrator, in accordance with
§ 60.4 of subpart A of this part, a plan for the control of the
designated pollutant to which the guideline document applies.
*****
4. Section 60.24 of subpart B of part 60 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
S 60.24 Emission standards and compliance schedules.
*****
(f) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on
a case-by-case basis for particular designated facilities or
classes of facilities, States may provide for the application of
less stringent emissions standards or longer compliance schedules
than those otherwise required by paragraph (c) of this section,
provided that the State demonstrates with respect to each such
facility (or class of facilities):
*****
5. Subpart C of part 60 is amended by revising § 60.30 to
read as follows:
pj/83-09 P-2
-------
S 60.30 Scope.
The following subparts contain emission guidelines and
compliance times for the control of certain designated pollutants
in accordance with section lll(d) and section 129 of the Clean
Air Act and subpart B of this part.
(a) Subpart Ca—[Removed and Reserved]
(b) Subpart Cb—Municipal Waste Combustors
(c) Subpart Cc—[Reserved]
(d) Subpart Cd—Sulfuric Acid Production Plants
*****
6. Part 60 is amended by redesignating subpart Cb as Cd,
reserving subpart Cc, and revising the new subpart Cd to read as
follows:
Subpart Cd—Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Sulfuric Acid Production Units
Sec.
60.30d Designated facilities.
60.3Id Emission guidelines.
60.32d Compliance times.
Subpart Cd—Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Sulfuric
Acid Production Units
S 60.30d Designated facilities.
Sulfuric acid production units. The designated facility to
which §§ 60.31d and 60.32d apply is each existing "sulfuric acid
production unit" as defined in § 60.81(a) of subpart H of this
part.
pj/83-09 P-3
-------
S 60.3Id Emissions guidelines.
Sulfuric acid production units. The emission guideline for
designated facilities is 0.25 grams sulfuric acid mist (as
measured by EPA Reference Method 8 of appendix A of this part)
per kilogram (0.5 pounds per ton) of sulfuric acid produced, the
production being expressed as 100 percent sulfuric acid.
S 60.32d Compliance times.
Sulfuric acid production units. Planning, awarding of
contracts, and installation of equipment capable of attaining the
level of the emission guideline established under § 60.3Id can be
accomplished within 17 months after the effective date of a State
emission standard for sulfuric acid mist.
*****
7. Part 60 is further amended by adding a new subpart Cb to
read as follow:
Subpart Cb—Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Waste Combustors that are constructed on or before
[insert date of publication in the Federal Register]
Sec.
60.3Ob Scope.
60.31b Definitions.
60.32b Designated facilities.
60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor metals,
acid gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
60.34b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
operating practices.
pj/83-09 P-4
-------
60.35b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
operator training and certification.
60.36b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
fugitive ash emissions.
60.37b Emission guidelines for air curtain incinerators.
60.38b Compliance and performance testing.
60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines, and
compliance schedules.
Subpart Cb—Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Schedules for
Municipal Waste Combustors
S 60.30b Scope.
This subpart contains emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of certain designated pollutants from
certain municipal waste combustors in accordance with
section lll(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B
of this part. The provisions in these emission guidelines
supersede the provisions of § 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part.
S 60.31b Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this subpart have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act and subparts A, B, and Eb of this
part.
Municipal waste combustor plant means one or more municipal
waste combustor units at the same location for which construction
was commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
Municipal waste combustor plant capacity means the aggregate
municipal waste combustor unit capacity of all municipal waste
pj/83-09 P-5
-------
combustor units at a municipal waste combustor plant for which
construction was commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
S 60.32b Designated facilities.
(a) The designated facility to which these guidelines apply
is each municipal waste combustor unit located within a municipal
waste combustor plant with an aggregate municipal waste combustor
plant capacity greater than 35 megagrams per day of municipal
solid waste for which construction was commenced on or before
September 20, 1994.
(b) Any waste combustion unit at a medical, industrial, or
other type of waste combustor plant that is capable of combusting
more than 35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste and is
subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the plantwide
maximum amount of municipal solid waste that may be combusted to
less than or equal to 10 megagrams per day is not subject to this
subpart if the owner or operator (1) notifies the Administrator
of an exemption claim, (2) provides a copy of the federally
enforceable permit that limits the firing of municipal solid
waste to less than 10 megagrams per day, and (3) keeps records of
the amount of municipal solid waste fired on a daily basis.
(c) Physical or operational changes made to an existing
municipal waste combustor unit primarily for the purpose of
complying with emission guidelines under this subpart are not
considered in determining whether the unit is a modified or
reconstructed facility under subpart Ea or subpart Eb of this
part.
pj/83-09 P-6
-------
(d) A qualifying small power production facility, as
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
796(17)(C)), that burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive
tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the
production of electric energy is not subject to this subpart if
the owner or operator of the facility notifies the Administrator
of this exemption and provides data documenting that the facility
qualifies for this exemption.
(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in
section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)),
that burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used
oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of
electric energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as
heat) that are used for industrial, commercial, heating, or
cooling purposes, is not subject to this subpart if the owner or
operator of the facility notifies the Administrator of this
exemption and provides data documenting that the facility
qualifies for this exemption.
(f) Any unit combusting a single-item waste stream of tires
is not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the
unit (1) notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim, and
(2) provides data documenting that the unit qualifies for this
exemption.
(g) Any unit required to have a permit under section 3005
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
pj/83-09 P-7
-------
(h) Any materials recovery facility (including primary or
secondary smelters) that combusts waste for the primary purpose
of recovering metals is not subject to this subpart.
(i) Any cofired combustor, as defined under § 60.51b of
subpart Eb of this part, that meets the capacity specifications
in paragraph (a) of this section is not subject to this subpart
if the owner or operator of the cofired combustor (1) notifies
the Administrator of an exemption claim, (2) provides a copy of
the federally enforceable permit (specified in the definition of
cofired combustor in this section), and (3) keeps a record on a
calendar quarter basis of the weight of municipal solid waste
combusted at the cofired combustor and the weight of all other
fuels combusted at the cofired combustor.
(j) Air curtain incinerators, as defined under § 60.51b of
subpart Eb of this part, that meet the capacity specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section, and that combust a fuel stream
composed of 100 percent yard waste are exempt from all provisions
of this subpart except the opacity standard under § 60.37b, the
testing procedures under § 60.38b, and the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions under § 60.39b.
(k) Air curtain incinerators that meet the capacity
specifications in paragraph (a) of this section and that combust
municipal solid waste other than yard waste are subject to all
provisions of this subpart.
(1) Pyrolysis/combustion units that are an integrated part
of a plastics/rubber recycling unit (as defined in § 60.51b) are
pj/83-09 P-8
-------
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the
plastics/rubber recycling unit keeps records of (1) the weight of
plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tires processed on a calendar
quarter basis, (2) the weight of chemical plant feedstocks and
petroleum refinery feedstocks produced and marketed on a calendar
quarter basis, and (3) the name and address of the purchaser of
the feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet
fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,
liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical
plants or petroleum refineries that use feedstocks produced by
plastics/rubber recycling units are not subject to this subpart.
S 60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
metals, acid gases, organics. and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor
metals are specified in paragraphs (a)(l) through (a)(3) of this
section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for particulate matter and opacity at least as protective
as the emission limits for particulate matter and opacity
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this
section.
(i) The emission limit for particulate matter contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility
located within a large municipal waste combustor plant is
27 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
pj/83-09 p-9
-------
(ii) The emission limit for particulate matter contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility
located within a small municipal waste combustor plant is
70 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to
7 percent oxygen.
(iii) The emission limit for opacity exhibited by the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant is
10 percent (6-minute average).
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for cadmium and lead at least as protective as the
emission limits for cadmium and lead specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) The emission limit for cadmium contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a large municipal waste combustor plant is
0.040 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to
7 percent oxygen.
(ii) The emission limit for cadmium contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant is 0.10 milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(iii) The emission limit for lead contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a large municipal waste combustor plant is 0.49 milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
PJ/83-09 P-10
-------
(iv) The emission limit for lead contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant is 1.6 milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(3) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for mercury at least as protective as the emission limits
specified in this paragraph. The emission limit for mercury
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility located within a small or large municipal
waste combustor plant is 0.080 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter or 15 percent of the potential mercury emission
concentration (an 85-percent reduction by weight), corrected to
7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
(b) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor acid
gases, expressed as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride, are
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for sulfur dioxide at least as protective as the emission
limits for sulfur dioxide specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) The emission limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility
located within a large municipal waste combustor plant is
31 parts per million by volume or 25 percent of the potential
sulfur dioxide emission concentration (75-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis),
pj/83-09 P-H
-------
whichever is less stringent. Compliance with this emission limit
is based on a 24-hour daily geometric mean.
(ii) The emission limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility
located within a small municipal waste combustor plant is
80 parts per million by volume or 50 percent of the potential
sulfur dioxide emission concentration (50-percent reduction by
weight or volume) , corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis),
whichever is less stringent. Compliance with this emission limit
is based on a 24-hour geometric mean.
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for hydrogen chloride at least as protective as the
emission limits for hydrogen chloride specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) The emission limit for hydrogen chloride contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility
located within a large municipal waste combustor plant is
31 parts per million by volume or 5 percent of the potential
hydrogen chloride emission concentration (95-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis),
whichever is less stringent.
(ii) The emission limit for hydrogen chloride contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere from an affected facility
located within a small municipal waste combustor plant is
250 parts per million by volume or 50 percent of the potential
hydrogen chloride emission concentration (50-percent reduction by
pj/83-09 P-12
-------
weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis),
whichever is less stringent.
(c) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor
organics, expressed as total mass dioxins/furans, are specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission
limit for dioxins/furans contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility located within a large
municipal waste combustor plant at least as protective as the
emission limit for dioxins/furans specified in either paragraph
(c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) The emission limit for designated facilities that
employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission control
system is 60 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) The emission limit for designated facilities that do
not employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission control
system is 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission
limit for dioxins/furans contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility located within a small
municipal waste combustor plant at least as protective as the
emission limit for dioxins/furans specified in this paragraph.
The emission limit for dioxins/furans for designated facilities
located within a small municipal waste combustor plant is
pj/83-09 P-13
-------
125 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for nitrogen oxides at least as protective as the emission
limits listed in table 1 of this subpart for designated
facilities located within large municipal waste combustor plants.
Table 1 provides emission limits
for the nitrogen oxides concentration level for each type of
designated facility.
pj/83-09 P-14
-------
TABLE 1. NITROGEN OXIDES GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AT LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANTS
Municipal waste combustor
technology
Nitrogen oxides emission
limit (parts per million by
volume)a
Mass burn waterwall
Mass burn rotary waterwall
Refuse-derived fuel combustor
Fluidized bed combustor
Mass burn refractory
combustors
Otherb
200
250
250
240
no limit
200
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
b Excludes mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors.
pj/83-09
P-15
-------
(1) A State plan may allow nitrogen oxides emissions
averaging as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d) (1)(v)
of this section.
(i) An owner or operator of a large municipal waste
combustor plant may elect to implement a nitrogen oxides
emissions averaging plan for the designated facilities that are
located at that plant and that are subject to subpart Cb, except
as specified in paragraphs (d) (1) (i) (A) and (d) (1) (i) (B) of this
section.
(A) Municipal waste combustor units subject to subpart Ea
or Eb cannot be included in the emissions averaging plan.
(B) Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor units
cannot be included in the emissions averaging plan.
(ii) The designated facilities included in the nitrogen
oxides emissions averaging plan must be identified in the initial
compliance report specified in § 60.59b(f) or in the annual
report specified in § 60.59b(g)/ as applicable, prior to
implementing the averaging plan. The designated facilities being
included in the averaging plan may be redesignated each calendar
year. Partial year redesignation is allowable with State
approval.
(iii) To implement the emissions averaging plan, the
average daily (24-hour) nitrogen oxides emission concentration
level for gases discharged from the designated facilities being
included in the emissions averaging plan must be no greater than
the levels specified in table 2 of this subpart. Table 2
pj/83-09 P-16
-------
provides emission limits for the nitrogen oxides concentration
level for each type of designated facility.
pJ/83-09 P-17
-------
TABLE 2. NITROGEN OXIDES LIMITS FOR EXISTING DESIGNATED
FACILITIES INCLUDED IN AN EMISSIONS
AVERAGING PLAN AT LARGE MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANTS
Nitrogen oxides emission
Municipal waste combustor limit (parts per million by
technology volume )a
Mass burn waterwall 180
Mass burn rotary waterwall 220
Refuse-derived fuel combustor 230
Fluidized bed combustor 220
Otherb 180
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
b Excludes mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors.
Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors may not be
included in an emissions averaging plan.
pj/83-09 P-18
-------
(iv) Under the emissions averaging plan, the average daily
nitrogen oxides emissions specified in paragraph (d) (1) (iii) of
this section shall be calculated using equation (1) . Designated
facilities that are offline shall not be included in calculating
the average daily nitrogen oxides emission level.
(N0x) (Si)
x24-hr = ^
xi
N°
where :
NO*.,, , = 24-hr daily average nitrogen oxides emission
A2 4 — nr
concentration level for the emissions
averaging plan (parts per million by volume
corrected to 7 percent oxygen) .
NOX. = 24-hr daily average nitrogen oxides
emission concentration level for designated
facility i (parts per million by volume,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen) / calculated
according to the procedures in § 60.58b(h)
of this subpart.
Si = maximum demonstrated municipal waste
combustor unit load for designated facility
i (pounds per hour steam or feedwater flow
as determined in the most recent
dioxin/furan performance test) .
pj/83-09 P-19
-------
h = total number of designated facilities
being included in the daily emissions
average.
(v) For any day in which any designated facility included
in the emissions averaging plan is offline, the owner or operator
of the municipal waste combustor plant must demonstrate
compliance according to either paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) of this
section or both paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(B) and (d)(1)(v) (C) of this
section.
(A) Compliance with the applicable limits specified in
table 2 of this subpart shall be demonstrated using the averaging
procedure specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section for
the designated facilities that are online.
(B) For each of the designated facilities included in the
emissions averaging plan, the nitrogen oxides emissions on a
daily average basis shall be calculated and shall be equal to or
less than the maximum daily nitrogen oxides emission level
achieved by that designated facility on any of the days during
which the emissions averaging plan was achieved with all
designated facilities online during the most recent calendar
quarter. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply during
the first quarter of operation under the emissions averaging
plan.
(C) The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per
day) calculated according to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(2) of this
section shall not exceed the average nitrogen oxides emissions
pj/83-09 P-20
-------
(kilograms per day) calculated according to
paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(JL) of this section.
(i) For all days during which the emissions averaging plan
was implemented and achieved and during which all designated
facilities were online, the average nitrogen oxides emissions
shall be calculated. The average nitrogen oxides emissions
(kilograms per day) shall be calculated on a calendar year basis
according to paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(C)(i)(i) through
(d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) For each designated facility included in the emissions
averaging plan, the daily amount of nitrogen oxides emitted
(kilograms per day) shall be calculated based on the hourly
nitrogen oxides data required under § 60.38b(a) and specified
under § 60.58b(h) (5) of subpart Eb of this part, the flue gas
flow rate determined using table 19-1 of EPA Reference Method 19
or a State-approved method, and the hourly average steam or
feedwater flow rate.
(ii) The daily total nitrogen oxides emissions shall be
calculated as the sum of the daily nitrogen oxides emissions from
each designated facility calculated under
paragraph (d) (1) (v) (C) (JL) (i) of this section.
(iii) The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per
day) on a calendar year basis shall be calculated as the sum of
all daily total nitrogen oxides emissions calculated under
paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(ii) of this section divided by the
number of calendar days for which a daily total was calculated.
PJ/83-09 P-21
-------
(2.) For all days during which one or more of the designated
facilities under the emissions averaging plan was offline, the
average nitrogen oxides emissions shall be calculated. The
average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per day) shall be
calculated on a calendar year basis according to
paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(i) through (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(iii} of
this section.
(i) For each designated facility included in the emissions
averaging plan, the daily amount of nitrogen oxides emitted
(kilograms per day) shall be calculated based on the hourly
nitrogen oxides data required under § 60.38b(a) and specified
under § 60.58b(h)(5) of subpart Eb of this part, the flue gas
flow rate determined using table 19-1 of EPA Reference Method 19
or a State-approved method, and the hourly average steam or
feedwater flow rate.
(ii) The daily total nitrogen oxides emissions shall be
calculated as the sum of the daily nitrogen oxides emissions from
each designated facility calculated under
paragraph (d) (1) (v) (C) (2.) (i) of this section.
(iii) The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per
day) on a calendar year basis shall be calculated as the sum of
all daily total nitrogen oxides emissions calculated under
paragraph (d) (1) (v) (C) (2.) (ii) of this section divided by the
number of calendar days for which a daily total was calculated.
(2) A State plan may establish a program to allow owners or
operators of municipal waste combustor plants to engage in
pj/83-09 P-22
-------
trading of nitrogen oxides emission credits. A trading program
must be approved by the Administrator before implementation.
S 60.34b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
operating practices.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include emission
limits for carbon monoxide at least as protective as the emission
limits for carbon monoxide listed in table 3 of this subpart.
Table 3 provides emission limits for the carbon monoxide
concentration level for each type of designated facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant.
PJ/83-09 p-23
-------
TABLE 3. MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES
Municipal waste combustor technology
Mass burn waterwall
Mass burn refractory
Mass burn rotary refractory
Mass burn rotary waterwall
Modular starved air
Modular excess air
*p Refuse-derived fuel stoker
to
** Bubbling fluidized bed combustor
Circulating fluidized bed combustor
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed
fuel- fired combustor
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed
fuel-fired combustor
Carbon monoxide emissions level
(parts per million by volume)*
100
100
100
250
50
50
200
100
100
150
200
Averaging
time
4-hour
4-hour
24-hour
24-hour
4-hour
4-hour
24-hour
4-hour
4-hour
4-hour
24-hour
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. Calculated as an arithmetic average.
-------
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include requirements
for municipal waste combustor operating practices at least as
protective as those requirements listed in § 60.53b(b) and (c) of
subpart Eb of this part.
S 60.35b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
operator training and certification.
For approval, a State plan shall include requirements for
designated facilities located within small or large municipal
waste combustor plants for municipal waste combustor operator
training and certification at least as protective as those
requirements listed in § 60.54b of subpart Eb of this part. The
State plan shall require compliance with these requirements
according to the schedule specified in § 60.39b(c)(4).
S 60.36b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
fugitive ash emissions.
For approval, a State plan shall include requirements for
municipal waste combustor fugitive ash emissions at least as
protective as those requirements listed in § 60.55b of subpart Eb
of this part.
S 60.37b Emission guidelines for air curtain incinerators.
For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
opacity for air curtain incinerators at least as protective as
those listed in § 60.56b of subpart Eb of this part.
S 60.38b Compliance and performance testing.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the
performance testing methods listed in § 60.58b of subpart Eb of
pj/83-09 P-25
-------
this part, as applicable, except as provided for under
§ 60.24 (b) (2) of subpart B of this part and paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include for designated
facilities at large municipal waste combustor plants the
alternative performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans
specified in § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this part, as
applicable, for those designated facilities that achieve a
dioxin/furan emission level less than or equal to 15 nanograms
per dry standard cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall include for designated
facilities at small municipal waste combustor plants the
alternative performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans
specified in § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this part, as
applicable, for those designated facilities that achieve a
dioxin/furan emission level less than or equal to 30 nanograms
per dry standard cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen.
S 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines and
compliance schedules.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the reporting
and recordkeeping provisions listed in § 60.59b of subpart Eb of
this part, as applicable, except for the siting requirements
under § 60.59b(a), (b) (5), and (d) (11) of subpart Eb of this
part.
PJ/83-09 P-26
-------
(b) Not later than [insert the date 1 year after the date
of publication in the Federal Register!, each State in which a
designated facility is operating shall submit to the
Administrator a plan to implement and enforce the emission
guidelines. The compliance schedule specified in this paragraph
is in accordance with section 129(b)(2) of the Act and supersedes
the compliance schedule provided in § 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of
this part.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall include the compliance
schedules specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this
section.
(1) A State plan shall allow designated facilities located
within large municipal waste combustor plants to comply with all
requirements of a State plan (or close) within 1 year after
approval of the State plan, except as provided by
paragraph (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) A State plan that allows designated facilities more
than 1 year but less than 3 years following the date of issuance
of a revised construction or operation permit, if a permit
modification is required, or more than 1 year but less than 3
years following approval of the State plan, if a permit
modification is not required shall include measurable and
enforceable incremental steps of progress toward compliance.
Suggested measurable and enforceable activities are specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (c)(1)(i)(J) of this section.
pj/83-09 P-27
-------
(A) Date for obtaining services of an architectural and
engineering firm regarding the air pollution control device(s);
(B) Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution
control device(s);
(C) Date for submittal of permit modifications, if
necessary;
(D) Date for submittal of the final control plan to the
Administrator. [§60.21 (h)(1) of subpart B of this part.];
(E) Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s);
(F) Date for obtaining the major components of the air
pollution control device(s);
(G) Date for initiation of site preparation for
installation of the air pollution control device(s);
(H) Date for initiation of installation of the air
pollution control device(s);
(I) Date for initial startup of the air pollution control
device(s); and
(J) Date for initial performance test(s) of the air
pollution control device(s).
(ii) A State plan that allows designated facilities more
than 1 year but up to 3 years after State plan approval to close
shall require a closure agreement. The closure agreement must
include the date of plant closure.
(2) If the State plan requirements for a designated
facility located within a large municipal waste combustor plant
include a compliance schedule longer than 1 year after approval
pj/83-09 P-28
-------
of the State plan in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) or
(c)(1)(ii) of this section, the State plan submittal (for
approval) shall include performance test results for dioxin/furan
emissions for each designated facility that has a compliance
schedule longer than 1 year following the approval of the State
plan, and the performance test results shall have been conducted
during or after 1990. The performance test shall be conducted
according to the procedures in § 60.38b.
(3) A State plan shall allow designated facilities located
within small municipal waste combustor plants to comply with all
requirements of the State plan (or close) within 3 years
following the date of issuance of a revised construction or
operation permit, if a permit modification is required, or within
3 years following approval of the State plan, if a permit
modification is not required.
(4) A State plan shall require compliance with the
municipal waste combustor operator training and certification
requirements under § 60.35b according to the schedule specified
in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(i) For designated facilities located within small
municipal waste combustor plants, the State plan shall require
compliance with the municipal waste combustor operator training
and certification requirements specified under § 60.54b(a)
through (c) of subpart Eb of this part by the date 6 months after
startup of a designated facility or 18 months after State plan
approval, whichever is later.
PJ/83-09 P-29
-------
(ii) For designated facilities located within large
municipal waste combustor plants, the State plan shall require
compliance with the municipal waste combustor operator training
and certification requirements specified under § 60.54b(a)
through (c) of subpart Eb of this part by the date 6 months after
the date of startup or 12 months after State plan approval,
whichever is later.
(iii) For designated facilities located within small or
large municipal waste combustor plants, the State plan shall
require compliance with the requirements specified in
§ 60.54b(d), (f), and (g) of subpart Eb of this part no later
than 6 months after startup or 12 months after State plan
approval, whichever is later.
(A) The requirement specified in § 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb
of this part does not apply to chief facility operators, shift
supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained full
certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
on or before the date of State plan approval.
(B) The owner or operator may request that the
Administrator waive the requirement specified in § 60.54b(d) of
subpart Eb of this part for chief facility operators, shift
supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained
provisional certification from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers on or before the date of State plan approval.
(C) The initial training requirements specified in
§ 60.54b(f) (1) of subpart Eb of this part shall be completed no
PJ/83-09 P-30
-------
later than the date specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) (C)(1) ,
(c)(4)(iii)(C)(2), or (c)(4)(iii)(C)(1), of this section
whichever is later.
(1) The date 6 months after the date of startup of the
affected facility;
(2.) Twelve months after State plan approval; or
(3.) The date prior to the day when the person assumes
responsibilities affecting municipal waste combustor unit
operation.
(5) A State plan shall require all designated facilities
for which construction, modification, or reconstruction is
commenced after June 26, 1987 that are located within a large
municipal waste combustor plant to comply with the emission limit
for mercury specified in § 60.33b(a) (3) and the emission limit
for dioxins/furans specified in § 60.33b(c)(l) within 1 year
following issuance of a revised construction or operation permit,
if a permit modification is required, or within 1 year following
approval of the State plan, whichever is later.
(d) In the event no plan for implementing the emission
guidelines is adopted, all designated facilities meeting the
applicability requirements under § 60.32b shall be in compliance
with the guidelines no later than r insert the date 5 years after
the date of publication in the Federal Register!.
8. Part 60 is amended by adding subpart Eb as follows:
Subpart Eb—Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste
pj/83-09 P-31
-------
Combustors for which Construction is Commenced after
September 20, 1994.
Sec.
60.50b Applicability and delegation of authority.
60.51b Definitions.
60.52b Standards for municipal waste combustor metals, acid
gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
60.53b Standards for municipal waste combustor operating
practices.
60.54b Standards for municipal waste combustor operator training
and certification.
60.55b Standards for municipal waste combustor fugitive ash
emissions.
60.56b Standards for air curtain incinerators.
60.57b Siting requirements.
60.58b Compliance and performance testing.
60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
pj/83-09 P-32
-------
Appendix P2
40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb
-------
APPENDIX P2—40 CFR 60 SUBPART Eb
Subpart Eb—Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste
Combustors for which Construction is Commenced after
September 20, 1994.
S 60.50b Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) The affected facility to which this subpart applies is
each municipal waste combustor unit located within a municipal
waste combustor plant with an aggregate municipal waste combustor
plant capacity greater than 35 megagrams per day of municipal
solid waste for which construction is commenced after
September 20, 1994 or for which modification or reconstruction is
commenced after [insert the date 6 months after the date of
publication in the Federal Register.]
(b) Any waste combustion unit at a medical, industrial, or
other type of waste combustor plant that is capable of combusting
more than 35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste and is
subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the plantwide
maximum amount of municipal solid waste that may be combusted to
less than or equal to 10 megagrams per day is not subject to this
subpart if the owner or operator (1) notifies the Administrator
of an exemption claim, (2) provides a copy of the federally
enforceable permit that limits the firing of municipal solid
waste to less than 10 megagrams per day, and (3) keeps records of
the amount of municipal solid waste fired on a daily basis.
(c) An affected facility to which this subpart applies is
not subject to subpart E or Ea of this part.
pj/83-09 p-1
-------
(d) Physical or operational changes made to an existing
municipal waste combustor unit primarily for the purpose of
complying with emission guidelines under subpart Cb are not
considered a modification or reconstruction and do not result in
an existing municipal waste combustor unit becoming subject to
this subpart.
(e) A qualifying small power production facility, as
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
796(17)(C)), that burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive
tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the
production of electric energy is not subject to this subpart if
the owner or operator of the facility notifies the Administrator
of this exemption and provides data documenting that the facility
qualifies for this exemption.
(f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in
section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)),
that burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used
oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of
electric energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as
heat) that are used for industrial, commercial, heating, or
cooling purposes, is not subject to this subpart if the owner or
operator of the facility notifies the Administrator of this
exemption and provides data documenting that the facility
qualifies for this exemption.
(g) Any unit combusting a single-item waste stream of tires
is not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the
pj/83-09 P-2
-------
unit (1) notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim, and
(3) provides data documenting that the unit qualifies for this
exemption.
(h) Any unit required to have a permit under section 3005
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
(i) Any materials recovery facility (including primary or
secondary smelters) that combusts waste for the primary purpose
of recovering metals is not subject to this subpart.
(j) Any cofired combustor, as defined under § 60.51b,
located at a plant that meets the capacity specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section is not subject to this subpart if
the owner or operator of the cofired combustor (1) notifies the
Administrator of an exemption claim, (2) provides a copy of the
federally enforceable permit (specified in the definition of
cofired combustor in this section), and (3) keeps a record on a
calendar quarter basis of the weight of municipal solid waste
combusted at the cofired combustor and the weight of all other
fuels combusted at the cofired combustor.
(k) Air curtain incinerators, as defined under § 60.51b,
located at a plant that meet the capacity specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section and that combust a fuel stream
composed of 100 percent yard waste are exempt from all provisions
of this subpart except the opacity limit under § 60.56b, the
testing procedures under § 60.58b(l), and the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions under § 60.59b(e) and (i).
pj/83-09 P-3
-------
(1) Air curtain incinerators located at plants that meet
the capacity specifications in paragraph (a) of this section
combusting municipal solid waste other than yard waste are
subject to all provisions of this subpart.
(m) Pyrolysis/combustion units that are an integrated part
of a plastics/rubber recycling unit (as defined in § 60.51b) are
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the
plastics/rubber recycling unit keeps records of (1) the weight of
plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tires processed on a calendar
quarter basis, (2) the weight of chemical plant feedstocks and
petroleum refinery feedstocks produced and marketed on a calendar
quarter basis, and (3) the name and address of the purchaser of
the feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet
fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,
liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical
plants or petroleum refineries that use feedstocks produced by
plastics/rubber recycling units are not subject to this subpart.
(n) The following authorities shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a State: None.
(o) This subpart shall become effective [insert the date
6 months after the date of publication in the Federal Register!.
S 60.51b Definitions.
Air curtain incinerator means an incinerator that operates
by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber
or pit in which burning occurs. Incinerators of this type can be
pj/83-09 P-4
-------
constructed above or below ground and with or without refractory
walls and floor.
Batch municipal waste combustor means a municipal waste
combustor unit designed so that it cannot combust municipal solid
waste continuously 24 hours per day because the design does not
allow waste to be fed to the unit or ash to be removed while
combustion is occurring.
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor means a fluidized bed
combustor in which the majority of the bed material remains in a
fluidized state in the primary combustion zone.
Calendar quarter means a consecutive 3-month period
(nonoverlapping) beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1, and
October 1.
Calendar year means the period including 365 days starting
January 1 and ending on December 31.
Chief facility operator means the person in direct charge
and control of the operation of a municipal waste combustor and
who is responsible for daily onsite supervision, technical
direction, management, and overall performance of the facility.
Circulating fluidized bed combustor means a fluidized bed
combustor in which the majority of the fluidized bed material is
carried out of the primary combustion zone and is transported
back to the primary zone through a recirculation loop.
Clean wood means untreated wood or untreated wood products
including clean untreated lumber, tree stumps (whole or chipped),
and tree limbs (whole or chipped) . Clean wood does not include
pj/83-09 P-5
-------
yard waste, which is defined elsewhere in this section, or
construction, renovation, and demolition wastes (including but
not limited to railroad ties and telephone poles), which are
exempt from the definition of municipal solid waste in this
section.
Cofired combustor means a unit combusting municipal solid
waste with nonmunicipal solid waste fuel (e.g., coal, industrial
process waste) and subject to a federally enforceable permit
limiting the unit to combusting a fuel feed stream, 30 percent or
less of the weight of which is comprised, in aggregate, of
municipal solid waste as measured on a calendar quarter basis.
Continuous emission monitoring system means a monitoring
system for continuously measuring the emissions of a pollutant
from an affected facility.
Dioxin/furan means tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions
that are enforceable by the Administrator including the
requirements of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, requirements within
any applicable State implementation plan, and any permit
requirements established under 40 CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18
and 40 CFR 51.24.
First calendar half means the period starting on January 1
and ending on June 30 in any year.
Four-hour block average or 4-hour block average means the
average of all hourly emission concentrations when the affected
pj/83-09 P-6
-------
facility is operating and combusting municipal solid waste
measured over 4-hour periods of time from 12:00 midnight to
4 a.m., 4 a.m. to 8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 12:00 noon, 12:00 noon to
4 p.m., 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and 8 p.m. to 12:00 midnight.
Large municipal waste combustor plant means a municipal
waste combustor plant with a municipal waste combustor aggregate
plant capacity for affected facilities that is greater than
225 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste. Mass burn
refractory municipal waste combustor means a field-erected
combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a refractory
wall furnace. Unless otherwise specified, this includes
combustors with a cylindrical rotary refractory wall furnace.
Mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor means a
field-erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a
cylindrical rotary waterwall furnace.
Mass burn waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a
waterwall furnace.
Materials separation plan means a plan that identifies both
a goal and an approach to separate certain components of
municipal solid waste for a given service area in order to make
the separated materials available for recycling. A materials
separation plan may include elements such as dropoff facilities,
buy-back or deposit-return incentives, curbside pickup programs,
or centralized mechanical separation systems. A materials
separation plan may include different goals or approaches for
pj/83-09 P-7
-------
different subareas in the service area, and may include no
materials separation activities for certain subareas or, if
warranted, an entire service area.
Maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load
means the highest 4-hour arithmetic average municipal waste
combustor unit load achieved during four consecutive hours during
the most recent dioxin/furan performance test demonstrating
compliance with the applicable limit for municipal waste
combustor organics specified under § 60.52b(c).
Maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device
temperature means the highest 4-hour arithmetic average flue gas
temperature measured at the particulate matter control device
inlet during four consecutive hours during the most recent
dioxin/furan performance test demonstrating compliance with the
applicable limit for municipal waste combustor organics specified
under § 60.52b(c).
Modification or modified municipal waste combustor unit
means a municipal waste combustor unit to which changes have been
made after rinsert date 6 months after the date of publication in
the Federal Register] if (1) the cumulative cost of the changes,
over the life of the unit, exceed 50 percent of the original cost
of construction and installation of the unit (not including the
cost of any land purchased in connection with such construction
or installation) updated to current costs, or (2) any physical
change in the municipal waste combustor unit or change in the
method of operation of the municipal waste combustor unit
pj/83-09 P-8
-------
increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the unit for
which standards have been established under section 129 or
section 111. Increases in the amount of any air pollutant
emitted by the municipal waste combustor unit are determined at
100-percent physical load capability and downstream of all air
pollution control devices, with no consideration given for load
restrictions based on permits or other nonphysical operational
restrictions.
Modular excess-air municipal waste combustor means a
combustor that combusts municipal solid waste and that is not
field-erected and has multiple combustion chambers, all of which
are designed to operate at conditions with combustion air amounts
in excess of theoretical air requirements.
Modular starved-air municipal waste combustor means a
combustor that combusts municipal solid waste and that is not
field-erected and has multiple combustion chambers in which the
primary combustion chamber is designed to operate at
substoichiometric conditions.
Municipal solid waste or municipal-type solid waste means
household, commercial/retail, and/or institutional waste.
Household waste includes material discarded by single and
multiple residential dwellings, hotels, motels, and other similar
permanent or temporary housing establishments or facilities.
Commercial/retail waste includes material discarded by stores,
offices, restaurants, warehouses, nonmanufacturing activities at
industrial facilities, and other similar establishments or
pj/83-09 P-9
-------
facilities. Institutional waste includes material discarded by
schools, nonmedical waste discarded by hospitals, material
discarded by nonmanufacturing activities at prisons and
government facilities, and material discarded by other similar
establishments or facilities. Household, commercial/retail, and
institutional waste does not include used oil; sewage sludge;
wood pallets; construction, renovation, and demolition wastes
(which includes but is not limited to railroad ties and telephone
poles); clean wood; industrial process or manufacturing wastes;
medical waste; or motor vehicles (including motor vehicle parts
or vehicle fluff). Household, commercial/retail, and
institutional wastes include (1) yard waste, (2) refuse-derived
fuel, and (3) motor vehicle maintenance materials limited to
vehicle batteries and tires except as specified in § 60.50b(g).
Municipal waste combustor or municipal waste combustor unit
means any setting or equipment that combusts solid, liquid, or
gasified municipal solid waste including, but not limited to,
field-erected incinerators (with or without heat recovery),
modular incinerators (starved-air or excess-air), boilers (i.e.,
steam generating units), furnaces (whether suspension-fired,
grate-fired, mass-fired, air curtain incinerators, or fluidized
bed-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion units. Municipal waste
combustors do not include pyrolysis/combustion units located at a
plastics/rubber recycling unit (as specified in § 60.50b(m) of
this section). Municipal waste combustors do not include
internal combustion engines, gas turbines, or other combustion
pj/83-09 P-10
-------
devices that combust landfill gases collected by landfill gas
collection systems.
The boundaries of a municipal solid waste combustor are
defined as follows. The municipal waste combustor unit includes,
but is not limited to, the municipal solid waste fuel feed
system, grate system, flue gas system, bottom ash system, and the
combustor water system. The municipal waste combustor boundary
starts at the municipal solid waste pit or hopper and extends
through:
(1) The combustor flue gas system, which ends immediately
following the heat recovery equipment or, if there is no heat
recovery equipment, immediately following the combustion chamber,
(2) The combustor bottom ash system, which ends at the
truck loading station or similar ash handling equipment that
transfer the ash to final disposal, including all ash handling
systems that are connected to the bottom ash handling system; and
(3) The combustor water system, which starts at the feed
water pump and ends at the piping exiting the steam drum or
superheater.
The municipal waste combustor unit does not include air
pollution control equipment, the stack, water treatment
equipment, or the turbine-generator set.
Municipal waste combustor acid gases means all acid gases
emitted in the exhaust gases from municipal waste combustor units
including, but not limited to, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
chloride gases.
pj/83-09 P-ll
-------
Municipal waste combustor metals means metals and metal
compounds emitted in the exhaust gases from municipal waste
combustor units.
Municipal waste combustor orcranics means organic compounds
emitted in the exhaust gases from municipal waste combustor units
and includes tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and dibenzofurans.
Municipal waste combustor plant means one or more municipal
waste combustor units at the same location for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced after
September 20, 1994.
Municipal waste combustor plant capacity means the aggregate
municipal waste combustor unit capacity of all municipal waste
combustor units at a municipal waste combustor plant for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction of the units
commenced after September 20, 1994. Any municipal waste
combustor units for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction is commenced on or before September 20, 1994 are
not included for determining applicability under this subpart.
Municipal waste combustor unit capacity means the maximum
charging rate of a municipal waste combustor unit expressed in
megagrams per day of municipal solid waste combusted, calculated
according to the procedures under § 60.58b(j). Section 60.58b(j)
includes procedures for determining municipal waste combustor
unit capacity for continuous and batch feed municipal waste
combustors.
PJ/83-09 P-12
-------
Municipal waste combustor unit load means the steam load of
the municipal waste combustor unit measured as specified in
§ 60.58b(i)(6).
Particulate matter means total particulate matter emitted
from municipal waste combustor units as measured by EPA
Reference Method 5 (see § 60.58b(c)).
Plastics/rubber recycling unit means an integrated
processing unit where plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tires are
the only feed materials (incidental contaminants may be included
in the feed materials) and they are processed into a chemical
plant feedstock or petroleum refinery feedstock, where the
feedstock is marketed to and used by a chemical plant or
petroleum refinery as input feedstock. The combined weight of
the chemical plant feedstock and petroleum refinery feedstock
produced by the plastics/rubber recycling unit on a calendar
quarter basis shall be more than 70 percent of the combined
weight of the plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed by the
plastics/rubber recycling unit on a calendar quarter basis. The
plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tire feed materials to the
plastics/rubber recycling unit may originate from the separation
or diversion of plastics, rubber, or rubber tires from MSW or
industrial solid waste, and may include manufacturing scraps,
trimmings, and off-specification plastics, rubber, and rubber
tire discards. The plastics, rubber, and rubber tire feed
materials to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may contain
pj/83-09 P-13
-------
incidental contaminants (e.g., paper labels on plastic bottles,
metal rings on plastic bottle caps, etc.).
Potential hydrogen chloride emission concentration means the
hydrogen chloride emission concentration that would occur from
combustion of municipal solid waste in the absence of any
emission controls for municipal waste combustor acid gases.
Potential mercury emission concentration means the mercury
emission concentration that would occur from combustion of
municipal solid waste in the absence of any mercury emissions
control.
Potential sulfur dioxide emissions means the sulfur dioxide
emission concentration that would occur from combustion of
municipal solid waste in the absence of any emission controls for
municipal waste combustor acid gases.
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired
combustor means a combustor that fires coal and refuse-derived
fuel simultaneously, in which pulverized coal is introduced into
an air stream that carries the coal to the combustion chamber of
the unit where it is fired in suspension. This includes both
conventional pulverized coal and micropulverized coal.
Pyrolysis/combustion unit means a unit that produces gases,
liquids, or solids through the heating of municipal solid waste,
and the gases, liquids, or solids produced are combusted and
emissions vented to the atmosphere. Reconstruction means
rebuilding a municipal waste combustor unit for which the
reconstruction commenced after [insert the date 6 months after
pj/83-09 P-14
-------
the date of publication in the Federal Register] and the
cumulative costs of the construction over the life of the unit
exceed 50 percent of the original cost of construction and
installation of the unit (not including any cost of land
purchased in connection with such construction or installation)
updated to current costs (current dollars).
Refractory unit or refractory wall furnace means a
combustion unit having no energy recovery (e.g., via a waterwall)
in the furnace (i.e., radiant heat transfer section) of the
combustor.
Refuse-derived/fuel means a type of municipal solid waste
produced by processing municipal solid waste through shredding
and size classification. This includes all classes of refuse-
derived fuel including low-density fluff refuse-derived fuel
through densified refuse-derived fuel and pelletized refuse-
derived fuel.
Refuse-derived fuel stoker means a steam generating unit
that combusts refuse-derived fuel in a semisuspension firing mode
using air-fed distributors.
Same location means the same or contiguous property that is
under common ownership or control including properties that are
separated only by a street, road, highway, or other public
right-of-way. Common ownership or control includes properties
that are owned, leased, or
operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary,
subdivision, or any combination thereof including any
PJ/83-09 P-15
-------
municipality or other governmental unit, or any
quasi-governmental authority (e.g., a public utility district or
regional waste disposal authority).
Second calendar half means the period starting July 1 and
ending on December 31 in any year.
Shift supervisor means the person who is in direct charge
and control of the operation of a municipal waste combustor and
who is responsible for onsite supervision, technical direction,
management, and overall performance of the facility during an
assigned shift.
Small municipal waste combustor plant means a municipal
waste combustor plant with a municipal waste combustor plant
capacity for affected facilities that is greater than
35 megagrams per day but equal to or less than 225 megagrams per
day of municipal solid waste.
Spreader stoker coal/refuse~derived fuel mixed fuel—fired
combustor means a combustor that fires coal and refuse-derived
fuel simultaneously, in which coal is introduced to the
combustion zone by a mechanism that throws the fuel onto a grate
from above. Combustion takes place both in suspension and on the
grate.
Standard conditions means a temperature of 20 °C and a
pressure of 101.3 kilopascals.
Total mass dioxin/furan or total mass means the total mass
of tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
pj/83-09 P-16
-------
dibenzofurans, as determined using EPA Reference Method 23 and
the procedures specified under § 60.58b(g).
Twenty-four hour daily average or 24-hour daily average
means either the arithmetic mean or geometric mean (as specified)
of all hourly emission concentrations when the affected facility
is operating and combusting municipal solid waste measured over a
24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight.
Untreated lumber means wood or wood products that have been
cut or shaped and include wet, air-dried, and kiln-dried wood
products. Untreated lumber does not include wood products that
have been painted, pigment-stained, or "pressure-treated."
Pressure-treating compounds include, but are not limited to,
chromate copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, and creosote.
Water-wall furnace means a combustion unit having energy
(heat) recovery in the furnace (i.e., radiant heat transfer
section) of the combustor.
Yard waste means grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and
clippings from bushes and shrubs that are generated by
residential, commercial/retail, institutional, and/or industrial
sources as part of maintenance activities associated with yards
or other private or public lands. Yard waste does not include
construction, renovation, and demolition wastes, which are exempt
from the definition of municipal solid waste in this section.
Yard waste does not include clean wood, which is exempt from the
definition of municipal solid waste in this section.
PJ/83-09 P-17
-------
S 60.52b Standards for municipal waste combustor metals, acid
gases, orqanics. and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The limits for municipal waste combustor metals are
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases that contain particulate
matter in excess of 24 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. (2) On and after the date on
which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility located within a small or large
municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that exhibit
greater than 10 percent opacity (6-minute average).
(3) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases that contain cadmium in
excess of 0.020 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
pj/83-09 P-18
-------
(4) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from the affected facility any gases that contain lead in excess
of 0.20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to
7 percent oxygen.
(5) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from the affected facility any gases that contain mercury in
excess of 0.080 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter or
15 percent of the potential mercury emission concentration (85-
percent reduction by weight), corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
whichever is less stringent.
(b) The limits for municipal waste combustor acid gases are
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases that contain sulfur dioxide
pj/83-09 P-19
-------
in excess of 30 parts per million by volume or 20 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration (80-percent
reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(dry basis), whichever is less stringent. The averaging time is
specified under § 60.58b(e).
(2) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases that contain hydrogen
chloride in excess of 25 parts per million by volume or 5 percent
of the potential hydrogen chloride emission concentration (95-
percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent.
(c) The limits for municipal waste combustor organics are
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commences after September 20, 1994, but on or
before November 20, 1997 shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain
dioxin/furan emissions that exceed 30 nanograms per dry standard
pj/83-09 P-20
-------
cubic meter (total mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen, for the
first 3 years following the date of initial startup. After the
first 3 years following the date of initial startup, no owner or
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases that contain dioxin/furan total
mass emissions that exceed 13 nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (total mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(2) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commences after November 20, 1997 shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any
gases that contain dioxin/furan total mass emissions that exceed
13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen.
(d) The limits for nitrogen oxides are specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
(1) During the first year of operation after the date on
which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility located within a large municipal
waste combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain
nitrogen oxides in excess of 180 parts per million by volume,
pj/83-09 P-21
-------
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The averaging time is
specified under § 60.58b(h).
(2) After the first year of operation following the date on
which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility located within a large municipal
waste combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain
nitrogen oxides in excess of 150 parts per million by volume,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The averaging time is
specified under § 60.58b(h).
S 60.53b Standards for municipal waste combustor operating
practices.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases that contain carbon
monoxide in excess of the emission limits specified in table 1 of
this subpart.
pj/83-09 P-22
-------
TABLE 1. MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING STANDARDS
to
Municipal waste combustor technology
Mass burn waterwall
Mass burn refractory
Mass burn rotary waterwall
Modular starved air
Modular excess air
Refuse-derived fuel stoker
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor
Circulating fluidized bed combustor
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed
Carbon monoxide
emission limit (parts
per million by
volume) a
100
100
100
50
50
150
100
100
150
Averaging
time
4 -hour
4 -hour
2 4 -hour
4 -hour
4 -hour
2 4 -hour
4 -hour
4 -hour
4 -hour
fuel-fired combustor
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel
mixed fuel-fired combustor
150
24-hour
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen
concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The averaging times
are specified in greater detail in § 60.58b(i).
-------
(b) No owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
cause such facility to operate at a load level greater than
110 percent of the maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor
unit load as defined in § 60.51b, except as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. The averaging time
is specified under § 60.58b(i).
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan performance test and the
2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan performance test, no
municipal waste combustor unit load limit is applicable.
(2) The municipal waste combustor unit load limit may be
waived in accordance with permission granted by the Administrator
or delegated State regulatory authority for the purpose of
evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control
technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the
purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-
of-the-art for controlling facility emissions.
(c) No owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
cause such facility to operate at a temperature, measured at the
particulate matter control device inlet, exceeding 17 °C above
the maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device
temperature as defined in § 60.51b, except as specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The averaging time
is specified under § 60.58b(i). The requirements specified in
pj/83-09 P-24
-------
this paragraph apply to each particulate matter control device
utilized at the affected facility.
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan performance test and the
2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan performance test, no
particulate matter control device temperature limitations are
applicable.
(2) The particulate matter control device temperature
limits may be waived in accordance with permission granted by the
Administrator or delegated State regulatory authority for the
purpose of evaluating system performance, testing new technology
or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related
activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or
advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility
emissions.
S 60.54b Standards for municipal waste combustor operator
training and certification.
(a) No later than the date 6 months after the date of
startup of an affected facility located within a small or large
municipal waste combustor plant or on [insert date 12 months
after the date of publication in the Federal Register!, whichever
is later, each chief facility operator and shift supervisor shall
obtain and maintain a current provisional operator certification
from either the American Society of Mechanical Engineers [QRO-1-
1994 (incorporated by reference — see § 60.17 of subpart A of
this part)] or a State certification program.
pj/83-09 P-25
-------
(b) Not later than the date 6 months after the date of
startup of an affected facility located within a small or large
municipal waste combustor plant or on [insert date 12 months
after the date of publication in the Federal Register], whichever
is later, each chief facility operator and shift supervisor shall
have completed full certification or shall have scheduled a full
certification exam with either the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers [QRO-1-1994 (incorporated by reference — see § 60.17
of subpart A of this part)] or a State certification program.
(c) No owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
allow the facility to be operated at any time unless one of the
following persons is on duty and at the affected facility: A
fully certified chief facility operator, a provisionally
certified chief facility operator who is scheduled to take the
full certification exam according to the schedule specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, a fully certified shift
supervisor, or a provisionally certified shift supervisor who is
scheduled to take the full certification exam according to the
schedule specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(i) The requirement specified in paragraph (c) of this
section shall take effect 6 months after the date of startup of
the affected facility or on [insert date 12 months after the date
of publication in the Federal Register]. whichever is later.
(ii) If one of the persons listed in paragraph (c) of this
section must leave the affected facility during their operating
pj/83-09 P-26
-------
shift, a provisionally certified control room operator who is
onsite at the affected facility may fulfill the requirement in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(d) All chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and
control room operators at affected facilities located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant must complete the
EPA or State municipal waste combustor operator training course
no later than the date 6 months after the date of startup of the
affected facility or by [insert the date 12 months after the date
of publication in the Federal Register!, whichever is later.
(e) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
develop and update on a yearly basis a site-specific operating
manual that shall, at a minimum, address the elements of
municipal waste combustor unit operation specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(11) of this section.
(1) A summary of the applicable standards under this
subpart;
(2) A description of basic combustion theory applicable to
a municipal waste combustor unit;
(3) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding
municipal solid waste;
(4) Municipal waste combustor unit startup, shutdown, and
malfunction procedures;
(5) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply
levels;
pj/83-09 P-27
-------
(6) Procedures for operating the municipal waste combustor
unit within the standards established under this subpart;
(7) Procedures for responding to periodic upset or
off-specification conditions;
(8) Procedures for minimizing particulate matter carryover;
(9) Procedures for handling ash;
(10) Procedures for monitoring municipal waste combustor
unit emissions; and
(11) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
establish a training program to review the operating manual
according to the schedule specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this section with each person who has responsibilities
affecting the operation of an affected facility including, but
not limited to, chief facility operators, shift supervisors,
control room operators, ash handlers, maintenance personnel, and
crane/load handlers.
(1) Each person specified in paragraph (f) of this section
shall undergo initial training no later than the date specified
in paragraph (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), or (f)(1)(iii) whichever is
later.
(i) The date 6 months after the date of startup of the
affected facility;
PJ/83-09 P-28
-------
(ii) The date prior to the day the person assumes
responsibilities affecting municipal waste combustor unit
operation; or
(iii) [insert date 12 months after the date of publication
in the Federal Register!.
(2) Annually, following the initial review required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) The operating manual required by paragraph (e) of this
section shall be kept in a readily accessible location for all
persons required to undergo training under paragraph (f) of this
section. The operating manual and records of training shall be
available for inspection by the EPA or its delegated enforcement
agency upon request.
S 60.55b Standards for municipal waste combustor fugitive ash
emissions.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance
test is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged to the atmosphere
visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash conveying system
(including conveyor transfer points) in excess of 5 percent of
the observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3-hour period), as
determined by EPA Reference Method 22 observations as specified
in § 60.58b(k), except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section.
pj/83-09 P-29
-------
(b) The emission limit specified in paragraph (a) of this
section does not cover visible emissions discharged inside
buildings or enclosures of ash conveying systems; however, the
emission limit specified in paragraph (a) of this section does
cover visible emissions discharged to the atmosphere from
buildings or enclosures of ash conveying systems.
(c) The provisions specified in paragraph (a) of this
section do not apply during maintenance and repair of ash
conveying systems.
§ 60.56b Standards for air curtain incinerators.
On and after the date on which the initial performance test
is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an air curtain
incinerator located at a plant with a plant capacity to combust
greater than 35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste and
that combusts a fuel feed stream composed of 100 percent yard
waste and no other municipal solid waste materials shall at no
time cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that
incinerator any gases that exhibit greater than 10-percent
opacity (6-minute average), except that an opacity level of up to
35 percent (6-minute average) is permitted during startup periods
during the first 30 minutes of operation of the unit.
S 60.57b Siting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant, for
which the initial application for a construction permit under
pj/83-09 P-30
-------
40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, is
submitted after [insert the date of publication in the Federal
Register] shall prepare a materials separation plan, as defined
in § 60.51b, for the affected facility and its service area, and
shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(10) of this section. The initial application is
defined as representing a good faith submittal for complying with
the requirements under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as
applicable, as determined by the Administrator.
(1) The owner or operator shall prepare a preliminary draft
materials separation plan and shall make the plan available to
the public as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of
this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall distribute the preliminary
draft materials separation plan to the principal public libraries
in the area where the affected facility is to be constructed.
(ii) The owner or operator shall publish a notification of
a public meeting in the principal newspaper(s) serving the area
where the affected facility is to be constructed and where the
waste treated by the affected facility will primarily be
collected. As a minimum, the notification shall include the
information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) through
(a)(1)(ii)(D) of this section.
(A) The date, time, and location of the public meeting.
PJ/83-09 P-31
-------
(B) The location of the public libraries where the
preliminary draft materials separation plan may be found,
including normal business hours of the libraries.
(C) An agenda of the issues to be discussed at the public
meeting.
(D) The dates that the public comment period on the
preliminary draft materials separation plan begins and ends.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct a public meeting,
accept comments on the preliminary draft materials separation
plan, and comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) The public meeting shall be conducted in the county
where the affected facility is to be located.
(ii) The public meeting shall be scheduled to occur 30 days
or more after making the preliminary draft materials separation
plan available to the public as specified under paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
(iii) Suggested issues to be addressed at the public
meeting are listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through
(a)(2)(iii)(H) of this section.
(A) The expected size of the service area for the affected
facility.
(B) The amount of waste generation anticipated for the
service area.
(C) The types and estimated amounts of materials proposed
for separation.
pj/83-09 P-32
-------
(D) The methods proposed for materials separation.
(E) The amount of residual waste to be disposed.
(F) Alternate disposal methods for handling the residual
waste.
(G) Identification of the location(s) where responses to
public comment on the preliminary draft materials separation plan
will be available for inspection, as specified in paragraphs
(a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section.
(H) Identification of the locations where the final draft
materials separation plan will be available for inspection, as
specified in paragraph (a)(7).
(iv) Nothing in this section shall preclude an owner or
operator from combining this public meeting with any other public
meeting required as part of any other Federal, State, or local
permit review process except the public meeting required under
paragraph (b)(4) of this section,
(3) Following the public meeting required by paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator shall prepare
responses to the comments received at the public meeting.
(4) The owner or operator shall make the document
summarizing responses to public comments available to the public
(including distribution to the principal public libraries used to
announce the meeting) in the service area where the affected
facility is to be located.
pj/83-09 P-33
-------
(5) The owner or operator shall prepare a final draft
materials separation plan for the affected facility considering
the public comments received at the public meeting.
(6) As required under § 60.59b(a), the owner or operator
shall submit to the Administrator a copy of the notification of
the public meeting, a transcript of the public meeting, the
document summarizing responses to public comments, and copies of
both the preliminary and final draft materials separation plans
on or before the time the facility's application for a
construction permit is submitted under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I,
or part 52, as applicable.
(7) As part of the distribution of the siting analysis
required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the owner or
operator shall make the final draft materials separation plan
required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section available to the
public, as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(8) As part of the public meeting for review of the siting
analysis required under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the
owner or operator shall address questions concerning the final
draft materials separation plan required by paragraph (a)(5) of
this section including discussion of how the final draft
materials separation plan has changed from the preliminary draft
materials separation plan that was discussed at the first public
meeting required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(9) If the owner or operator receives any comments on the
final draft materials separation plan during the public meeting
pj/83-09 P-34
-------
required in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the owner or
operator shall respond to those comments in the document prepared
in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(10) The owner or operator shall prepare a final materials
separation plan and shall submit, as required under §
60.59b(b)(5)(ii), the final materials separation plan as part of
the initial notification of construction.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant, for
which the initial application for a construction permit under
40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, is
submitted after rinsert the date of publication in the Federal
Register] shall prepare a siting analysis in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section and shall comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(3) through
(b)(7) of this section.
(1) The siting analysis shall be an analysis of the impact
of the affected facility on ambient air quality, visibility,
soils, and vegetation.
(2) The analysis shall consider air pollution control
alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the
maximum extent practicable, potential risks to the public health
or the environment.
(3) The owner or operator shall make the siting analysis
and final draft materials separation plan required by paragraph
pj/83-09 P-35
-------
(a)(5) of this section available to the public as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall distribute the siting
analysis and final draft materials separation plan to the
principal public libraries in the area where the affected
facility is to be constructed.
(ii) The owner or operator shall publish a notification of
a public meeting in the principal newspaper(s) serving the area
where the affected facility is to be constructed and where the
waste treated by the affected facility will primarily be
collected. As a minimum, the notification shall include the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through
(b)(3)(ii)(D) of this section.
(A) The date, time, and location of the public meeting.
(B) The location of the public libraries where the siting
analyses and final draft materials separation plan may be found,
including normal business hours.
(C) An agenda of the issues to be discussed at the public
meeting.
(D) The dates that the public comment period on the siting
analyses and final draft materials separation plan begins and
ends.
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct a public meeting
and accept comments on the siting analysis and the final draft
materials separation plan required under paragraph (a)(5) of this
section. The public meeting shall be conducted in the county
PJ/83-09 P-36
-------
where the affected facility is to be located and shall be
scheduled to occur 30 days or more after making the siting
analysis available to the public as specified under
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(5) The owner or operator shall prepare responses to the
comments on the siting analysis and the final draft materials
separation plan that are received at the public meeting.
(6) The owner or operator shall make the document
summarizing responses to public comments available to the public
(including distribution to all public libraries) in the service
area where the affected facility is to be located.
(7) As required under § 60.59b(b)(5), the owner or operator
shall submit a copy of the notification of the public meeting, a
transcript of the public meeting, the document summarizing
responses to public comments, and the siting analysis as part of
the initial notification of construction.
(c) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant, for
which construction is commenced after September 20, 1994 shall
prepare a siting analysis in accordance with 40 CFR part 51,
Subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, and shall submit the siting
analysis as part of the initial notification of construction.
Affected facilities subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section are not subject to this paragraph.
PJ/83-09 P-37
-------
S 60.58b Compliance and performance testing.
(a) The provisions for startup, shutdown, and malfunction
are provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Except as provided by § 60.56b, the standards under
this subpart apply at all times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. Duration of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction periods are limited to 3 hours per occurrence.
(i) The startup period commences when the affected facility
begins the continuous burning of municipal solid waste and does
not include any warmup period when the affected facility is
combusting fossil fuel or other nonmunicipal solid waste fuel,
and no municipal solid waste is being fed to the combustor.
(ii) Continuous burning is the continuous, semicontinuous,
or batch feeding of municipal solid waste for purposes of waste
disposal, energy production, or providing heat to the combustion
system in preparation for waste disposal or energy production.
The use of municipal solid waste solely to provide thermal
protection of the grate or hearth during the startup period when
municipal solid waste is not being fed to the grate is not
considered to be continuous burning.
(2) The opacity limits for air curtain incinerators
specified in § 60.56b apply at all times as specified under §
60.56b except during periods of malfunction. Duration of
malfunction periods are limited to 3 hours per occurrence.
(b) The owner or operator of a small or large municipal
waste combustor plant shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
pj/83-09 P-38
-------
operate a continuous emission monitoring system and record the
output of the system for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide
content of the flue gas at each location where carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides emissions are monitored and
shall comply with the test procedures and test methods specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section.
(1) The span value of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
monitor shall be 25 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide).
(2) The monitor shall be installed, evaluated, and operated
in accordance with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(3) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed
no later than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the
municipal waste combustor, as specified under § 60.8 of subpart A
of this part.
(4) The monitor shall conform to Performance
Specification 3 in appendix B of this part except for section 2.3
(relative accuracy requirement).
(5) The quality assurance procedures of appendix F of this
part except for section 5.1.1 (relative accuracy test audit)
shall apply to the monitor.
(6) If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent
corrections, the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels shall be established during the initial performance test
according to the procedures and methods specified in paragraphs
(b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iv) of this section. This relationship
may be reestablished during performance compliance tests.
pj/83-09 P-39
-------
(i) The emission rate correction factor and the integrated
bag sampling and analysis procedure of EPA Reference Method 3B
shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the same
location as the carbon dioxide monitor.
(ii) Samples shall be taken for at least 30 minutes in each
hour.
(iii) Each sample shall represent a 1-hour average.
(iv) A minimum of three runs shall be performed.
(7) As required by § 60.59b(f)(5), the relationship between
carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations that is established in
accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall be
submitted to the EPA as part of the initial performance test
report.
(c) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(11) of this section shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limits for particulate matter and
opacity under § 60.52b(a)(l) and (a)(2).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used to select
sampling site and number of traverse points.
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for gas
analysis.
(3) The EPA Reference Method 5 shall be used for
determining compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit. The minimum sample volume shall be 1.7 cubic meters. The
probe and filter holder heating systems in the sample train shall
be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 160 + 14 °C.
pj/83-09 P-40
-------
An oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 5 run.
(4) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the particulate matter emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(5) As specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part,
all performance tests shall consist of three test runs. The
average of the particulate matter emission concentrations from
the three test runs is used to determine compliance.
(6) In accordance with paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(11) of
this section, EPA Reference Method 9 shall be used for
determining compliance with the opacity limit except as provided
under § 60.11(e) of subpart A of this part.
(7) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
conduct an initial performance test for particulate matter
emissions and opacity as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of
this part.
(8) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous opacity
monitoring system for measuring opacity and shall follow the
methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through
(c)(8)(iv) of this section.
PJ/83-09 P-41
-------
(i) The output of the continuous opacity monitoring system
shall be recorded on a 6-minute average basis.
(ii) The continuous opacity monitoring system shall be
installed, evaluated, and operated in accordance with § 60.13 of
subpart A of this part.
(iii) The continuous opacity monitoring system shall
conform to Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this
part.
(iv) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed
no later than 180 days after the date of the initial startup of
the municipal waste combustor unit, as specified under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part.
(9) Following the date that the initial performance test
for particulate matter is completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected
facility located within a large municipal waste combustor plant,
the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for
particulate matter on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar
months following the previous performance test).
(10) Following the date that the initial performance test
for particulate matter is completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected
facility located within a small municipal waste combustor plant,
the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for
particulate matter on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar
months following the previous performance test). If all
pj/83-09 P-42
-------
performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with
the particulate matter emission limit, the owner or operator may
elect not to conduct a performance test for the subsequent
2 years. At a minimum, a performance test for particulate matter
shall be conducted every third year (no more than 36 months
following the previous performance test) at a small municipal
waste combustor plant. If a performance test conducted every
third year indicates compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test for an additional 2 years. If any performance
test indicates noncompliance with the particulate matter emission
limit, performance tests shall be required annually until all
annual performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance
with the particulate matter emission limit.
(11) Following the date that the initial performance test
for opacity is completed or is required to be completed under
§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant, the
owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for opacity on
an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test) using the test method specified in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
(d) The procedures and test methods specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section shall be used to
determine compliance with the emission limits for cadmium, lead,
and mercury under § 60.52b(a).
pj/83-09 P-43
-------
(1) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(ix) of this section shall be used to
determine compliance with the emission limits for cadmium and
lead under § 60.52b(a)(3) and (4).
(i) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used for
determining the location and number of sampling points.
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for flue gas
analysis.
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 shall be used for
determining compliance with the cadmium and lead emission limits.
(iv) An oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement shall be
obtained simultaneously with each Method 29 test run for cadmium
and lead required under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.
(v) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the cadmium or lead emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(vi) All performance tests shall consist of a minimum of
three test runs conducted under representative full load
operating conditions. The average of the cadmium or lead
emission concentrations from three test runs or more shall be
used to determine compliance.
(vii) Following the date of the initial performance test or
the date on which the initial performance test is required to be
pj/83-09 P-44
-------
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or
operator of an affected facility located within a large municipal
waste combustor plant shall conduct a performance test for
compliance with the emission limits for cadmium and lead on an
annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test).
(viii) Following the date that the initial performance test
for cadmium is completed or is required to be completed under
§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or
operator shall conduct a performance test for cadmium emissions
on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test). If all performance tests over a
3-year period indicate compliance with the cadmium emission
limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a
performance test for cadmium shall be conducted every third year
(no more than 36 months following the previous performance test)
at a small municipal waste combustor plant. If a performance
test conducted every third year indicates compliance with the
cadmium emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to
conduct a performance test for an additional 2 years. If any
performance test indicates noncompliance with the cadmium
emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted annually
until all annual performance tests over a 3-year period indicate
compliance with the cadmium emission limit.
pj/83-09 P-45
-------
(ix) Following the date that the initial performance test
for lead is completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part for an affected facility located within
a small municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator
shall conduct a performance test for lead emissions on an annual
basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the previous
performance test). If all three performance tests over a 3-year
period indicate compliance with the lead emission limit, the
owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for
the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a performance test for
lead shall be conducted every third year (no more than 36 months
following the previous performance test) at a small municipal
waste combustor plant. If a performance test conducted every
third year indicates compliance with the lead emission limit, the
owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for
an additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates
noncompliance with the lead emission limit, performance tests
shall be conducted annually until all annual performance tests
over a 3-year period indicate compliance with the lead emission
limit.
(2) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(xi) of this section shall be used to
determine compliance with the mercury emission limit under
§ 60.52b(a)(5).
(i) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used for
determining the location and number of sampling points.
pj/83-09 P-46
-------
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for flue gas
analysis.
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 shall be used to
determine the mercury emission concentration. The minimum sample
volume when using Method 29 for mercury shall be 1.7 cubic
meters.
(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be
obtained simultaneously with each Method 29 test run for mercury
required under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section.
(v) The percent reduction in the potential mercury
emissions (%P#g) is computed using equation 1:
- E,^
x
where:
%p#g = percent reduction of the potential mercury
emissions achieved.
E± = potential mercury emission concentration
measured at the control device inlet, corrected
to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis).
Eo = controlled mercury emission concentration
measured at the mercury control device outlet,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis).
(vi) All performance tests shall consist of a minimum of
three test runs conducted under representative full load
operating conditions. The average of the mercury emission
pi/83-09 P-47
-------
concentrations or percent reductions from three test runs or more
is used to determine compliance.
(vii) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the mercury emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the
affected facility shall be established as specified in paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
(viii) The owner or operator of an affected facility
located within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant
shall conduct an initial performance test for mercury emissions
as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(ix) Following the date that the initial performance test
for mercury is completed or is required to be completed under
§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected facility located within a large municipal waste
combustor plant shall conduct a performance test for mercury
emissions on a annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months from
the previous performance test).
(x) Following the date that the initial performance test
for mercury is completed or is required to be completed under
§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or
operator shall conduct a performance test for mercury emissions
on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test). If all three performance tests over
PJ/83-09 P-48
-------
a 3-year period indicate compliance with the mercury emission
limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a
performance test for mercury shall be conducted every third year
(no more than 36 months following the previous performance test)
at a small municipal waste combustor plant. If a performance
test conducted every third year indicates compliance with the
mercury emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to
conduct a performance test for an additional 2 years. If any
performance test indicates noncompliance with the mercury
emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted annually
until all annual performance tests over a 3-year period indicate
compliance with the mercury emission limit.
(xi) The owner or operator of an affected facility where
activated carbon injection is used to comply with the mercury
emission limit shall follow the procedures specified in
paragraph (m) of this section for measuring and calculating
carbon usage.
(e) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (e)(14) of this section shall be used for
determining compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit
under § 60.52b(b)(1).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.3, shall be used
to calculate the daily geometric average sulfur dioxide emission
concentration.
pj/83-09 P-49
-------
(2) The EPA Reference Method 19, section 5.4, shall be used
to determine the daily geometric average percent reduction in the
potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration.
(3) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
conduct an initial performance test for sulfur dioxide emissions
as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part. Compliance
with the sulfur dioxide emission limit (concentration or percent
reduction) shall be determined by using the continuous emission
monitoring system specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section
to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 24-hour daily
geometric average emission concentration or a 24-hour daily
geometric average percent reduction using EPA Reference
Method 19, sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur dioxide emissions
discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the system.
(6) Following the date that the initial performance test
for sulfur dioxide is completed or is required to be completed
under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, compliance with the
pj/83-09 P-50
-------
sulfur dioxide emission limit shall be determined based on the
24-hour daily geometric average of the hourly arithmetic average
emission concentrations using continuous emission monitoring
system outlet data if compliance is based on an emission
concentration, or continuous emission monitoring system inlet and
outlet data if compliance is based on a percent reduction.
(7) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (e)(7)(i)
and (e)(7)(ii) for 75 percent of the operating hours per day for
90 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that the
affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) At least two data points per hour shall be used to
calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(ii) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour arithmetic average shall be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
(8) The l-hour arithmetic averages required under
paragraph (e)(6) of this section shall be expressed in parts per
million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to
calculate the 24-hour daily geometric average emission
concentrations and daily geometric average emission percent
reductions. The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be calculated
using the data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A
of this part.
PJ/83-09 P-51
-------
(9) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data
shall be used in calculating average emission concentrations and
percent reductions even if the minimum continuous emission
monitoring system data requirements of paragraph (e)(7) of this
section are not met.
(10) The procedures under § 60.13 of subpart A of this part
shall be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of
the continuous emission monitoring system.
(11) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed
no later than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the
municipal waste combustor as specified under § 60.8 of subpart A
of this part.
(12) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be
operated according to Performance Specification 2 in appendix B
of this part.
(i) During each relative accuracy test run of the
continuous emission monitoring system required by Performance
Specification 2 in appendix B of this part, sulfur dioxide and
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data shall be collected concurrently
(or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous
emission monitors and the test methods specified in
paragraphs (e)(12)(i)(A) and (e)(12)(i)(B) of this section.
(A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, or 6C
shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide) , EPA Reference Method 3A
or 3B shall be used.
pj/83-09 P-52
-------
(ii) The span value of the continuous emissions monitoring
system at the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device shall be
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the municipal waste combustor unit. The
span value of the continuous emission monitoring system at the
outlet of the sulfur dioxide control device shall be 50 percent
of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide
emissions of the municipal waste combustor unit.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests shall be performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not obtained
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained by using other monitoring
systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference
Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for a
minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day that the affected
facility is operated and combusting municipal solid waste for
90 percent of the days per calendar quarter that the affected
facility is operated and combusting municipal solid waste.
(f) The procedures and test methods specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(8) of this section shall be used
for determining compliance with the hydrogen chloride emission
limit under § 60.52b(b)(2).
PJ/83-09 P-53
-------
(1) The EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A, as applicable,
shall be used to determine the hydrogen chloride emission
concentration. The minimum sampling time for Method 26 shall be
1 hour.
(2) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be
obtained simultaneously with each Method 26 test run for hydrogen
chloride required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) The percent reduction in potential hydrogen chloride
emissions (% PHCI) i-s computed using equation 2:
Ej - Ef
(2)
where:
%PHCI = percent reduction of the potential hydrogen
chloride emissions achieved.
E± = potential hydrogen chloride emission
concentration measured at the control device
inlet, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis).
Eo = controlled hydrogen chloride emission
concentration measured at the control
device outlet, corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(dry basis).
(4) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the hydrogen chloride emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
PJ/83-09 P-54
-------
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(5) As specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part,
all performance tests shall consist of three test runs. The
average of the hydrogen chloride emission concentrations or
percent reductions from the three test runs is used to determine
compliance.
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
conduct an initial performance test for hydrogen chloride as
required under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(7) Following the date that the initial performance test
for hydrogen chloride is completed or is required to be completed
under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of
an affected facility located within a large municipal waste
combustor plant shall conduct a performance test for hydrogen
chloride emissions on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar
months following the previous performance test).
(8) Following the date that the initial performance test
for hydrogen chloride is completed or is required to be completed
under § 60.8 of this part, the owner or operator of an affected
facility located within a small municipal waste combustor plant
shall conduct a performance test for hydrogen chloride emissions
on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test). If all performance tests over a
3-year period indicate compliance with the hydrogen chloride
pj/83-09 P-55
-------
emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a
performance test for hydrogen chloride shall be conducted every
third year (no more than 36 months following the previous
performance test) at a small municipal waste combustor plant. If
a performance test conducted every third year indicates
compliance with the hydrogen chloride emission limit, the owner
or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for an
additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates
noncompliance with the hydrogen chloride emission limit,
performance tests shall be conducted annually until all annual
performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with
the hydrogen chloride emission limit.
(g) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(9) of this section shall be used to determine
compliance with the limits for dioxin/furan emissions under
§ 60.52b(c).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used for
determining the location and number of sampling points.
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for flue gas
analysis.
(3) The EPA Reference Method 23 shall be used for
determining the dioxin/furan emission concentration.
(i) The minimum sample time shall be 4 hours per test run.
PJ/83-09 P-56
-------
(ii) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be
obtained simultaneously with each Method 23 test run for
dioxins/furans.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
conduct an initial performance test for dioxin/furan emissions in
accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section, as required
under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(5) Following the date that the initial performance test
for dioxins/furans is completed or is required to be completed
under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of
ah affected facility located within small and large municipal
waste combustor plants shall conduct performance tests for
dioxin/furan emissions in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of
this section, according to one of the schedules specified in
paragraphs (g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities located within small and large
municipal waste combustor plants, performance tests shall be
conducted on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months
following the previous performance test.) (ii) For affected
facilities located within small municipal waste combustor plants
where all performance tests for an affected facility over a
3-year period indicate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test for the subsequent 2 years for that affected
facility. At a minimum, a performance test for dioxin/furan
emissions shall be conducted every third year (no more than
pj/83-09 P-57
-------
36 months following the previous performance test) for each
affected facility. If a performance test conducted every third
year indicates compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit,
the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test
on the affected facility for an additional 2 years. If any
performance test indicates noncompliance with the dioxin/furan
emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted annually
until all annual performance tests for the affected facility over
a 3-year period indicate compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission limit.
(iii) For affected facilities located within small or large
municipal waste combustor plants where all performance tests for
all affected facilities over a 2-year period indicate that
dioxin/furan emissions are less than or equal to 7 nanograms per
dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for all affected facilities
located within a municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or
operator of the municipal waste combustor plant may elect to
conduct annual performance tests for one affected facility (i.e.,
unit) per year at the municipal waste combustor plant. At a
minimum, a performance test for dioxin/furan emissions shall be
conducted annually (no more than 12 months following the previous
performance test) for one affected facility at the municipal
waste combustor plant. Each year a different affected facility
at the municipal waste combustor plant shall be tested, and the
affected facilities at the plant shall be tested in sequence
(e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as applicable). If each annual
pj/83-09 P-58
-------
performance test continues to indicate a dioxin/furan emission
level less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (total mass), the owner or operator may continue conducting
a performance test on only one affected facility per year. If
any annual performance test indicates a dioxin/furan emission
level greater than 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(total mass), performance tests thereafter shall be conducted
annually on all affected facilities at the plant until and unless
all annual performance tests for all affected facilities at the
plant over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/furan emission level
less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(total mass).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility that
selects to follow the performance testing schedule specified in
paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section shall follow the procedures
specified in § 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting the selection of this
schedule.
(7) The owner or operator of an affected facility where
activated carbon is used to comply with the dioxin/furan emission
limits specified in § 60.52b(c) or the dioxin/furan emission
level specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section shall
follow the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this section
for measuring and calculating the carbon usage rate.
(8) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the dioxin/furan emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
pj/83-09 P-59
-------
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(9) As specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part,
all performance tests shall consist of three test runs. The
average of the dioxin/furan emission concentrations from the
three test runs is used to determine compliance.
(h) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (h)(12) of this section shall be used to determine
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit for municipal
waste combustors located at large municipal waste combustor
plants under § 60.52b(d) (no nitrogen oxides performance tests
are required for affected facilities located within small
municipal waste combustor plants).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1, shall be used
for determining the daily arithmetic average nitrogen oxides
emission concentration.
(2) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the nitrogen oxides emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a large municipal waste combustor plant subject to the
nitrogen oxides limit under § 60.52b(d) shall conduct an initial
pj/83-09 P-60
-------
performance test for nitrogen oxides as required under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part. Compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emission limit shall be determined by using the continuous
emission monitoring system specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this
section for measuring nitrogen oxides and calculating a 24-hour
daily arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA
Reference Method 19, section 4.1.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a large municipal waste combustor plant subject to the
nitrogen oxides emission limit under § 60.52b(d) shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring
system for measuring nitrogen oxides discharged to the
atmosphere, and record the output of the system.
(5) Following the date that the initial performance test
for nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed
under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, compliance with the
emission limit for nitrogen oxides required under § 60.52b(d)
shall be determined based on the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
of the hourly emission concentrations using continuous emission
monitoring system outlet data.
(6) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring
system hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in
paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of this section for
75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the
operating days per calendar quarter that the affected facility is
combusting municipal solid waste.
PJ/83-09 P-61
-------
(i) At least 2 data points per hour shall be used to
calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(ii) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour arithmetic average shall
be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-
hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system data.
(7) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required by
paragraph (h)(5) of this section shall be expressed in parts per
million by volume (dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour
daily arithmetic average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages shall be calculated using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A of this part.
(8) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data
must be used in calculating emission averages even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of
paragraph (h)(6) of this section are not met.
(9) The procedures under § 60.13 of subpart A of this part
shall be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of
the continuous emission monitoring system. The initial
performance evaluation shall be completed no later than 180 days
after the date of initial startup of the municipal waste
combustor unit, as specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of this
part.
(10) The owner or operator shall operate the continuous
emission monitoring system according to Performance
Specification 2 in appendix B of this part and shall follow the
pj/83-09 P-62
-------
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (h)(10) (i) and
(h)(10)(ii) of this section.
(i) During each relative accuracy test run of the
continuous emission monitoring system required by Performance
Specification 2 of appendix B of this part, nitrogen oxides and
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data shall be collected concurrently
(or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous
emission monitors and the test methods specified in paragraphs
(h)(10)(i)(A) and (h)(10)(i)(B) of this section.
(A) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 7C,
7D, or 7E shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A
or 3B shall be used.
(ii) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring
system shall be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly
potential nitrogen oxide emissions of the municipal waste
combustor unit.
(11) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests shall be performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(12) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions data are not
obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span
adjustments, emissions data shall be obtained using other
monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions
PJ/83-09 P-63
-------
data for a minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day for
90 percent of the days per calendar quarter the unit is operated
and combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) The procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through
(i)(12) of this section shall be used for determining compliance
with the operating requirements under § 60.53b.
(1) Compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limits in
§ 60.53b(a) shall be determined using a 4-hour block arithmetic
average for all types of affected facilities except mass burn
rotary waterwall municipal waste combustors and refuse-derived
fuel stokers.
(2) For affected mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste
combustors and refuse-derived fuel stokers, compliance with the
carbon monoxide emission limits in § 60.53b(a) shall be
determined using a 24-hour daily arithmetic average.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring carbon monoxide at the combustor
outlet and record the output of the system and shall follow the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through
(i)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be
operated according to Performance Specification 4A in appendix B
of this part.
(ii) During each relative accuracy test run of the
continuous emission monitoring system required by Performance
pi/83-09 P-64
-------
Specification 4A in appendix B of this part, carbon monoxide and
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data shall be collected concurrently
(or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous
emission monitors and the test methods specified in paragraphs
(i)(3)(ii)(A) and (i)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(A) For carbon monoxide, EPA Reference Method 10, 10A, or
10B shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A
or 3B shall be used.
(iii) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring
system shall be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly
potential carbon monoxide emissions of the municipal waste
combustor unit.
(4) The 4-hour block and 24-hour daily arithmetic averages
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this section shall
be calculated from 1-hour arithmetic averages expressed in parts
per million by volume corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis).
The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be calculated using the data
points generated by the continuous emission monitoring system.
At least two data points shall be used to calculate each 1-hour
arithmetic average.
(5) An owner or operator may request that compliance with
the carbon monoxide emission limit be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
pj/83-09 P-65
-------
levels for the affected facility shall be established as
specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(6) The procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(6)(i)
through (i)(6)(v) of this section shall be used to determine
compliance with load level requirements under § 60.53b(b).
(i) The owner or operator of an affected facility with
steam generation capability shall install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a steam flow meter or a feedwater flow meter; measure
steam (or feedwater) flow in kilograms per hour (or pounds per
hour) on a continuous basis; and record the output of the
monitor. Steam (or feedwater) flow shall be calculated in 4-hour
block arithmetic averages.
(ii) The method included in the "American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam
Generating Units, Power Test Code 4.1 — 1964 (R1991)" section 4
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of this
part) shall be used for calculating the steam (or feedwater) flow
required under paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section. The
recommendations in "American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th edition (1971),"
chapter 4 (incorporated by reference — see § 60.17 of subpart A
of this part) shall be followed for design, construction,
installation, calibration, and use of nozzles and orifices except
as specified in (i)(6)(iii) of this section.
pj/83-09 P-66
-------
(iii) Measurement devices such as flow nozzles and orifices
are not required to be recalibrated after they are installed.
(iv) All signal conversion elements associated with steam
(or feedwater flow) measurements must be calibrated according to
the manufacturer's instructions before each dioxin/furan
performance test, and at least once per year.
(v) The owner or operator of an affected facility without
steam generation capability shall meet the requirements specified
in paragraph (i)(6)(v)(A) of this section.
(A) [Reserved].
(7) To determine compliance with the maximum particulate
matter control device temperature requirements under § 60.53b(c),
the owner or operator of an affected facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a device for measuring on a
continuous basis the temperature of the flue gas stream at the
inlet to each particulate matter control device utilized by the
affected facility. Temperature shall be calculated in 4-hour
block arithmetic averages.
(8) The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit
load shall be determined during the initial performance test for
dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test during which
compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit specified in
§ 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum demonstrated municipal
waste combustor unit load shall be the highest 4-hour arithmetic
average load achieved during four consecutive hours during the
pJ/83-09 P-67
-------
most recent test during which compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission limit was achieved.
(9) For each particulate matter control device employed at
the affected facility, the maximum demonstrated particulate
matter control device temperature shall be determined during the
initial performance test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent
performance test during which compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission limit specified in § 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum
demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature shall
be the highest 4-hour arithmetic average temperature achieved at
the particulate matter control device inlet during four
consecutive hours during the most recent test during which
compliance with the dioxin/furan limit was achieved.
(10) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring
system hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in
paragraphs (i)(10)(i) and (i)(10)(ii) of this section for 75
percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the
operating days per calendar quarter that the affected facility is
combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) At least two data points per hour shall be used to
calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(ii) At a minimum, each carbon monoxide 1-hour arithmetic
average shall be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system data.
pj/83-09 P-68
-------
(11) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data
must be used in calculating the parameters specified under
paragraph (i) of this section even if the minimum data
requirements of paragraph (i)(10) of this section are not met.
When carbon monoxide continuous emission data are not obtained
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained using other monitoring systems
as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 10 to
provide, as necessary, the minimum valid emission data.
(12) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests for the carbon monoxide continuous
emission monitoring system shall be performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(j) The procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and
(j) (2) of this section shall be used for calculating municipal
waste combustor unit capacity as defined under § 60.51b.
(1) For municipal waste combustor units capable of
combusting municipal solid waste continuously for a 24-hour
period, municipal waste combustor unit capacity, in megagrams per
day of municipal solid waste combusted, shall be calculated based
on 24 hours of operation at the maximum charging rate. The
maximum charging rate shall be determined as specified in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this section as
applicable.
pj/83-09 P-69
-------
(i) For combustors that are designed based on heat
capacity, the maximum charging rate shall be calculated based on
the maximum design heat input capacity of the unit and a heating
value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram.
(ii) For combustors that are not designed based on heat
capacity, the maximum charging rate shall be the maximum design
charging rate.
(2) For batch feed municipal waste combustor units,
municipal waste combustor unit capacity, in megagrams per day of
municipal solid waste combusted, shall be calculated as the
maximum design amount of municipal solid waste that can be
charged per batch multiplied by the maximum number of batches
that could be processed in a 24-hour period. The maximum number
of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour period is
calculated as 24 hours divided by the design number of hours
required to process one batch of municipal solid waste, and may
include fractional batches (e.g., if one batch requires 16 hours,
then 24/16, or 1.5 batches, could be combusted in a 24-hour
period). For batch combustors that are designed based on heat
capacity, the design heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per
kilogram for all municipal solid waste shall be used in
calculating the municipal waste combustor unit capacity in
megagrams per day of municipal solid waste.
(k) The procedures specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through
(k)(3) of this section shall be used for determining compliance
with the fugitive ash emission limit under § 60.55b.
pj/83-09 P-70
-------
(1) The EPA Reference Method 22 shall be used for
determining compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit under
§ 60.55b. The minimum observation time shall be a series of
three 1-hour observations. The observation period shall include
times when the facility is transferring ash from the municipal
waste combustor unit to the area where ash is stored or loaded
into containers or trucks.
(2) The average duration of visible emissions per hour
shall be calculated from the three 1-hour observations. The
average shall be used to determine compliance with § 60.55b.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
conduct an initial performance test for fugitive ash emissions as
required under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(1) The procedures specified in paragraphs (1)(1) through
(1) (3) of this section shall be used to determine compliance with
the opacity limit for air curtain incinerators under § 60.56b.
(1) The EPA Reference Method 9 shall be used for
determining compliance with the opacity limit.
(2) The owner or operator of the air curtain incinerator
shall conduct an initial performance test for opacity as required
under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(3) Following the date that the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of the air curtain
incinerator shall conduct a performance test for opacity on an
pj/83-09 P-71
-------
annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test).
(m) The owner or operator of an affected facility where
activated carbon injection is used to comply with the mercury
emission limit under § 60.52b(a)(5), or the dioxin/furan emission
limits under § 60.52(b)(c), or the dioxin/furan emission level
specified in § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) shall follow the procedures
specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this section.
(1) During the performance tests for dioxins/furans and
mercury, as applicable, the owner or operator shall estimate an
average carbon mass feed rate based on carbon injection system
operating parameters such as the screw feeder speed, hopper
volume, hopper refill frequency, or other parameters appropriate
to the feed system being employed, as specified in paragraphs
(m)(1)(i) and (m) (1)(ii) of this section.
(i) An average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour
or pounds per hour shall be estimated during the initial
performance test for mercury emissions and each subsequent
performance test for mercury emissions.
(ii) An average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour
or pounds per hour shall be estimated during the initial
performance test for dioxin/furan emissions and each subsequent
performance test for dioxin/furan emissions.
(2) During operation of the affected facility, the carbon
injection system operating parameter(s) that are the primary
indicator(s) of the carbon mass feed rate (e.g., screw feeder
pj/83-09 P-72
-------
setting) must equal or exceed the level(s) documented during the
performance tests specified under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and
(m)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator shall estimate the total carbon
usage of the plant (kilograms or pounds) for each calendar
quarter by two independent methods, according to the procedures
in paragraphs (m)(3)(i) and (m)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The weight of carbon delivered to the plant.
(ii) Estimate the average carbon mass feed rate in
kilograms per hour or pounds per hour for each hour of operation
for each affected facility based on the parameters specified
under paragraph (m) (1) of this section, and sum the results for
all affected facilities at the plant for the total number of
hours of operation during the calendar quarter.
S 60.59b Reporting and recordkeepina requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
at a municipal waste combustor plant with a capacity to combust
greater than 35 megagrams per day shall submit, on or before the
date the application for a construction permit is submitted under
40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, the items
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(1) The preliminary and final draft materials separation
plans required by § 60.57b(a)(l) and (a)(5).
(2) A copy of the notification of the public meeting
required by § 60.57b(a)(1)(ii).
pi/63-09 P-73
-------
(3) A transcript of the public meeting required by
§ 60.57b(a) (2) .
(4) A copy of the document summarizing responses to public
comments required by § 60.57b(a) (3) .
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
at a municipal waste combustor plant with a capacity to combust
greater than 35 megagrams per day shall submit a notification of
construction, which includes the information specified in
paragraphs (b) (1) through (b) (5) of this section.
(1) Intent to construct.
(2) Planned initial startup date.
(3) The types of fuels that the owner or operator plans to
combust in the affected facility.
(4) The municipal waste combustor unit capacity, municipal
waste combustor plant capacity, and supporting capacity
calculations prepared in accordance with § 60.58b(j).
(5) Documents associated with the siting requirements under
§ 60.57b(a) and (b) , as specified in paragraphs (b) (5) (i) through
(b) (5) (v) of this section.
(i) The siting analysis required by § 60.57b(b)(l) and
(ii) The final materials separation plan for the affected
facility required by § 60. 57b(a) (10) .
(iii) A copy of the notification of the public meeting
required by § 60.57b(b) (3) (ii) .
PJ/83-09 P-74
-------
(iv) A transcript of the public meeting required by
§ 60.57b(b)(4).
(v) A copy of the document summarizing responses to public
comments required by § 60.57b(a)(9) and (b)(5).
(c) The owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator
subject to the opacity limit under § 60.56b shall provide a
notification of construction that includes the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(d) The owner or operator of an affected facility
located within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant
and subject to the standards under §§ 60.52b, 60.53b, 60.54b,
60.55b, and 60.57b shall maintain records of the information
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(15) of this section,
as applicable, for each affected facility for a period of at
least 5 years.
(1) The calendar date of each record.
(2) The emission concentrations and parameters measured
using continuous monitoring systems as specified under
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) The measurements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A)
through (d)(2)(i)(D) of this section shall be recorded and be
available for submittal to the Administrator or review onsite by
an inspector.
(A) All 6-minute average opacity levels as specified under
§ 60.58b(c).
pj/83-09 P-75
-------
(B) All 1-hour average sulfur dioxide emission
concentrations as specified under § 60.58b(e).
(C) All 1-hour average nitrogen oxides emission
concentrations as specified under § 60.58b(h) (large municipal
waste combustor plants only).
(D) All l-hour average carbon monoxide emission
concentrations, municipal waste combustor unit load measurements,
and particulate matter control device inlet temperatures as
specified under § 60.58b(i).
(ii) The average concentrations and percent reductions, as
applicable, specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through
(d)(2)(ii)(D) of this section shall be computed and recorded, and
shall be available for submittal to the Administrator or review
on-site by an inspector.
(A) All 24-hour daily geometric average sulfur dioxide
emission concentrations and all 24-hour daily geometric average
percent reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions as specified under
§ 60.58b(e).
(B) All 24-hour daily arithmetic average nitrogen oxides
emission concentrations as specified under § 60.58b(h) (large
municipal waste combustor plants only).
(C) All 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic average
carbon monoxide emission concentrations, as applicable, as
specified under § 60.58b(i).
PJ/83-09 P-76
-------
(D) All 4-hour block arithmetic average municipal waste
combustor unit load levels and particulate matter control device
inlet temperatures as specified under § 60.58b(i).
(3) Identification of the calendar dates when any of the
average emission concentrations, percent reductions, or operating
parameters recorded under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through
(d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section, or the opacity levels recorded
under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of this section are above the
applicable limits, with reasons for such exceedances and a
description of corrective actions taken.
(4) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon for
mercury or dioxin/furan control, the records specified in
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(v) of this section.
(i) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per
hour or pounds per hour) estimated as required under
§ 60.58b(m)(1)(i) of this section during the initial mercury
performance test and all subsequent annual performance tests,
with supporting calculations.
(ii) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per
hour or pounds per hour) estimated as required under
§ 60.58b(m)(1)(ii) of this section during the initial
dioxin/furan performance test and all subsequent annual
performance tests, with supporting calculations.
(iii) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per
hour or pounds per hour) estimated for each hour of operation as
pj/83-09 P-77
-------
required under § 60.58b(m)(3)(ii) of this section, with
supporting calculations.
(iv) The total carbon usage for each calendar quarter
estimated as specified by paragraph 60.58b(m)(3) of this section,
with supporting calculations.
(v) Carbon injection system operating parameter data for
the parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon feed
rate (e.g., screw feeder speed).
(5) [Reserved]
(6) Identification of the calendar dates for which the
minimum number of hours of any of the data specified in
paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(v) of this section have not
been obtained including reasons for not obtaining sufficient data
and a description of corrective actions taken.
(i) Sulfur dioxide emissions data;
(ii) Nitrogen oxides emissions data (large municipal waste
combustor plants only);
(iii) Carbon monoxide emissions data;
(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit load data; and
(v) Particulate matter control device temperature data.
(7) Identification of each occurrence that sulfur dioxide
emissions data, nitrogen oxides emissions data (large municipal
waste combustors only), or operational data (i.e., carbon
monoxide emissions, unit load, and particulate matter control
device temperature) have been excluded from the calculation of
PJ/83-09 P-78
-------
average emission concentrations or parameters, and the reasons
for excluding the data.
(8) The results of daily drift tests and quarterly accuracy
determinations for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (large
municipal waste combustors only), and carbon monoxide continuous
emission monitoring systems, as required under appendix F of this
part, procedure 1.
(9) The test reports documenting the results of the initial
performance test and all annual performance tests listed in
paragraphs (d)(9)(i) and (d)(9)(ii) of this section shall be
recorded along with supporting calculations.
(i) The results of the initial performance test and all
annual performance tests conducted to determine compliance with
the particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury,
dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash emission
limits.
(ii) For the initial dioxin/furan performance test and all
subsequent dioxin/furan performance tests recorded under
paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section, the maximum demonstrated
municipal waste combustor unit load and maximum demonstrated
particulate matter control device temperature (for each
particulate matter control device).
(10) [Reserved]
(11) For each municipal waste combustor subject to the
siting provisions under § 60.57b, the siting analysis, the final
materials separation plan, a record of the location and date of
pj/83-09 P-79
-------
the public meetings, and the documentation of the responses to
public comments received at the public meetings.
(12) The records specified in paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through
(d)(12)(iii) of this section.
(i) Records showing the names of the municipal waste
combustor chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control
room operators who have been provisionally certified by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent State-
approved certification program as required by § 60.54b(a)
including the dates of initial and renewal certifications and
documentation of current certification.
(ii) Records showing the names of the municipal waste
combustor chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control
room operators who have been fully certified by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent State-approved
certification program as required by § 60.54b(a) including the
dates of initial and renewal certifications and documentation of
current certification.
(iii) Records showing the names of the municipal waste
combustor chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control
room operators who have completed the EPA municipal waste
combustor operator training course or a State-approved equivalent
course as required by § 60.54b(d) including documentation of
training completion.
(13) Records showing the names of persons who have
completed a review of the operating manual as required by
PJ/83-09 P-80
-------
§ 60.54b(f) including the date of the initial review and
subsequent annual reviews.
(14) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon
for mercury or dioxin/furan control, identification of the
calendar dates when the average carbon mass feed rates recorded
under (d)(4)(iii) of this section were less than either of the
hourly carbon feed rates estimated during performance tests for
mercury or dioxin/furan emissions and recorded under paragraphs
(d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section, respectively, with
reasons for such feed rates and a description of corrective
actions taken.
(15) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon
for mercury or dioxin/furan control, identification of the
calendar dates when the carbon injection system operating
parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon mass
feed rate (e.g., screw feeder speed) recorded under paragraph
(d)(4)(v) of this section are below the level(s) estimated during
the performance tests as specified in § 60.58b(m)(1)(i) and
§ 60.58b(m)(1)(ii) of this section, with reasons for such
occurrences and a description of corrective actions taken.
(e) The owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator
subject to the opacity limit under § 60.56b shall maintain
records of results of the initial opacity performance test and
subsequent performance tests required by § 60.58b(l) for a period
of at least 5 years.
pj/83-09 P-81
-------
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
submit the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f) (6) of this section in the initial performance test report.
(1) The initial performance test data as recorded under
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D) of this section
for the initial performance test for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load
level, and particulate matter control device inlet temperature.
(2) The test report documenting the initial performance
test recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this section for
particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury,
dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash emissions.
(3) The performance evaluation of the continuous emission
monitoring system using the applicable performance specifications
in appendix B of this part.
(4) The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit
load and maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device
inlet temperature(s) established during the initial dioxin/furan
performance test as recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this
section.
(5) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon
injection for mercury control, the owner or operator shall submit
the average carbon mass feed rate recorded under paragraph
(d)(4)(i) of this section.
pj/83-09 P-82
-------
(6) For those affected facilities that apply activated
carbon injection for dioxin/furan control, the owner or operator
shall submit the average carbon mass feed rate recorded under
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section.
(g) Following the first year of municipal combustor
operation, the owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
submit an annual report including the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section, as applicable,
no later than February 1 of each year following the calendar year
in which the data were collected (once the unit is subject to
permitting requirements under Title V of the Act, the owner or
operator of an affected facility must submit these reports
semiannually).
(1) A summary of data collected for all pollutants and
parameters regulated under this subpart, which includes the
information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(v)
of this section.
(i) A list of the particulate matter, opacity, cadmium,
lead, mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive
ash emission levels achieved during the performance tests
recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this section.
(ii) A list of the highest emission level recorded for
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste
combustor unit load level, and particulate matter control device
pj/83-09 P-83
-------
inlet temperature based on the data recorded under paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D) of this section.
(iii) List the highest opacity level measured, based on the
data recorded under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of this section.
(iv) The total number of days that the minimum number of
hours of data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load, and particulate
matter control device temperature data were not obtained based on
the data recorded under paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(v) The total number of hours that data for sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit
load, and particulate matter control device temperature were
excluded from the calculation of average emission concentrations
or parameters based on the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7)
of this section.
(2) The summary of data reported under paragraph (g)(1) of
this section shall also provide the types of data specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(vi) of this section for the
calendar year preceding the year being reported, in order to
provide the Administrator with a summary of the performance of
the affected facility over a 2-year period.
(3) The summary of data including the information specified
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section shall highlight
any emission or parameter levels that did not achieve the
emission or parameter limits specified under this subpart.
pj/83-09 P-84
-------
(4) A notification of intent to begin the reduced
dioxin/furan performance testing schedule specified in
§ 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of this section during the following calendar
year.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall
submit a semiannual report that includes the information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section for
any recorded pollutant or parameter that does not comply with the
pollutant or parameter limit specified under this subpart,
according to the schedule specified under paragraph (h)(6) of
this section.
(1) The semiannual report shall include information
recorded under paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste
combustor unit load level, particulate matter control device
inlet temperature, and opacity.
(2) For each date recorded as required by paragraph (d)(3)
of this section and reported as required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this section, the semiannual report shall include the sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste
combustor unit load level, particulate matter control device
inlet temperature, or opacity data, as applicable, recorded under
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D) and (d)(2)(i)(A)
of this section, as applicable.
PJ/83-09 P-85
-------
(3) If the test reports recorded under paragraph (d) (9) of
this section document any particulate matter, opacity, cadmium,
lead, mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive
ash emission levels that were above the applicable pollutant
limits, the semiannual report shall include a copy of the test
report documenting the emission levels and the corrective actions
taken.
(4) The semiannual report shall include the information
recorded under paragraph (d)(15) of this section for the carbon
injection system operating parameter(s) that are the primary
indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate.
(5) For each operating date reported as required by
paragraph (h)(4) of this section, the semiannual report shall
include the carbon feed rate data recorded under paragraph
(d)(4)(iii) of this section.
(6) Semiannual reports required by paragraph (h) of this
section shall be submitted according to the schedule specified in
paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of this section.
(i) If the data reported in accordance with
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section were collected
during the first calendar half, then the report shall be
submitted by August 1 following the first calendar half.
(ii) If the data reported in accordance with
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section were collected
during the second calendar half, then the report shall be
submitted by February 1 following the second calendar half.
pj/83-09 P-86
-------
(i) The owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator
subject to the opacity limit under § 60.56b shall submit the
results of the initial opacity performance test and all
subsequent annual performance tests recorded under paragraph (e)
of this section. Annual performance tests shall be submitted by
February 1 of the year following the year of the performance
test.
(j) All reports specified under paragraphs (a), (b) , (c) ,
(f) / (g), (h), and (i) of this section shall be submitted as a
paper copy, postmarked on or before the submittal dates specified
under these paragraphs, and maintained onsite as a paper copy for
a period of 5 years.
(k) All records specified under paragraphs (d) and (e) of
this section shall be maintained onsite in either paper copy or
computer-readable format, unless an alternative format is
approved by the Administrator.
(1) If an owner or operator would prefer to select a
different annual or semiannual date for submitting the periodic
reports required by paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) of this section,
then the dates may be changed by mutual agreement between the
owner or operator and the Administrator according to the
procedures specified in § 60.19(c) of subpart A of this part.
*****
pj/83-09 P-87
-------
Appendix Q
Key Elements of an Acceptable Section lll(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs
-------
APPENDIX Q-KEY ELEMENTS FOR AN ACCEPTABLE SECTION lll(d)/129
STATE PLAN FOR MWCs
This document is provided to facilitate preparation of the required State Plans.
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires that states submit to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State Plans to implement and enforce the
Emission Guidelines (EG) promulgated for Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs)
pursuant to Sections lll(d) and 129 of the Act. Section 129 requires that die state
submit the State Plans not later than one year after EPA promulgates the EG. On
December 19, 1995, EPA promulgated the EG as 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cb. Thus,
the State Plans are due no later than December 19, 1996.
The official procedures for adoption and submittal of State Plans are codified in
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B. EPA promulgated the Subpart B provisions on
November 17, 1975. EPA amended them on December 19, 1995, to allow the subparts
developed under Section 129 to include specifications that supersede the provisions in
Subpart B regarding the schedule for submittal of State Plans, the stringency of the
emission limitations, and the compliance schedules. That is, these amendments were
promulgated in order to allow conformity with Section 129, which requires the State
Plans for MWCs be submitted within one year and requires the State Plans to be as
protective as the EG and requires that each unit be in compliance not later than three
years after the State Plan is approved by EPA and no later than five years after the EG
is promulgated (rather than the case-by-case exceptions the state may demonstrate as
otherwise specified in Subpart B).
States must adopt their State Plans according to state procedures prior to official
submittal to EPA. [60.23 (a)]
The following pages include information about public participation, legal
authority, emission standards and other emission limitations, compliance schedules,
emission inventories, source surveillance, compliance assurance, enforcement, and cross-
references to the EG.
A. Public Participation
Public participation, under the Clean Air Act, is an important right and
responsibility of citizens in the state process of developing, adopting, and implementing
the required Section lll(d)/129 State Plans. Under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, the
minimum requirements for the state to conduct public hearings on the adoption of State
Plans and any revisions thereof are as follows:
1. Reasonable notice of one or more public hearing(s) at least 30 days prior
to the hearing(s). [60.23(d)J
Q-l
-------
2. One or more public hearing(s) on the State Plan (or revisions) conducted
in location(s) within the state. [60.23(c)(l)J
3. Date, time and place of hearing(s) prominently advertised in each region
affected. [60.23(d)(l)J "Region" is defined as "air quality control region".
[60.210)]
4. Availability of draft State Plan for public inspection in at least one location
in each region to which it will apply. [60.23(d)(2)J
5. Notice of hearing provided to: (a) EPA Regional Administrator, (b) local
affected agencies, and (c) other states affected. [60.23(d)(3),(4),&(5)J
6. Retention of hearing records (e.g., list of commentors and their affiliation
and summary of each presentation and comments submitted and the state's
responses to those comments) for at least 2 years. [60.23(e) and (f)J
7. Certification that public participation was conducted in accordance with
Subpart B and state procedures. [60.23(f)J Upon written application by
the state agency, EPA may (expected only for limited special cases)
approve different procedures provided that they ensure adequate public
participation. [60.23(g)]
No hearing is required on a state or local emission standard in effect prior to
December 19, 1995, the effective date of Subpart Cb, if it was adopted after a public
hearing and is at least as stringent as the emission guideline. [60.23 (c) (3)]
Similarly, no public hearing is required for any change to an increment of
progress unless the change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to comply with the
final compliance date. [60.23(c) (2)]
For new MWCs, there are special public participation requirements in Subpart Eb
as part of the 40 CFR 60.57b siting requirements for new MWCs. [60FR65425-65247]
B. Legal Authority [60.26(a)J
1. The State Plan shall include demonstration of the state's legal authority to:
(a) adopt emission standards (enforceable conditions) and compliance
schedules applicable to the designated facilities and designated
pollutants for which the State Plan is submitted
(b) enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards, and compliance
schedules, and seek injunctive relief
pj/83-09 Q-2
-------
(c) obtain information necessary to determine compliance
(d) require recordkeeping, make inspections, and conduct tests
(e) require the use of monitors and require emission reports of owners
or operators
(f) make emission data publicly available
[60.26(a)J
2. The state must specifically identify the provisions above and include copies
of the provisions of the law establishing such legal authority unless they
have been approved as a portion of a previous SIP. To facilitate its review
of State Plans, EPA encourages states to submit an opinion by the state's
Attorney General as part of the demonstration required above. States may
use previously submitted Attorney General opinions (e.g., under Title V) to
the extent those documents specifically address the requirements of
Section 60.26 as they apply to the designated facilities and the designated
pollutants. [60.26(b)]
3. The legal authority shown must be in effect at time of State Plan
submission. [60.26(c)j
4. The state may authorize another state governmental agency to carry out a
portion of the State Plan, provided the state demonstrates that the state
governmental agency has adequate authority. [60.26(e)J
5. The state may authorize a local agency to carry out a portion of the State
Plan provided that the state demonstrates that the local agency has
adequate legal authority to implement that portion of the State Plan and
the state is not relieved of responsibility. [60.26(e)J
Q Emission Standards and other Emission Limitations
1. The emission limitations must be at least as protective as the EG. If the
limitations are not identical, the state must demonstrate that the standards
are at least as protective. [60.24(f), as revised December 19, 1995, to be
consistent with Section 129 of the Act and 60.356 and 60.34b ofSubpart Cb]
NOTE: Nothing in the Clean Air Act nor the CFR restricts the state from having
standards and schedules more stringent than the EG. [60.24(g)J
2. The State Plan shall include the specific emission limitations, preferably
cross-referenced to the specific EG requirements. [60.24(a)J
pj/8349 Q-3
-------
3. Test methods and procedures for determining compliance shall be
specified. [60.24(b)2)J
4. If the methods and procedures are not identical to those in Section 6038b,
the state must demonstrate equivalence or request EPA approval of
acceptable alternatives per current EPA method review procedures.
[60.24(b)(2)J
5. If emission standards are adopted by local agencies or other state agencies,
they must also be included in the State Plan and if not identical to the EG,
then the state must show that they are at least as protective as the emission
guidelines. [60.24(a)J
D. Compliance Schedules
1. Compliance schedules must match the Cb and B specifications.
[Subpart Cb, 60.39b]
2. For compliance schedules extending more than 12 months beyond the date
of EPA approval of the State Plan, the compliance schedule must include
legally enforceable increments of progress towards compliance for that
MWC. Each increment of progress in Section 60.21(h) of Subpart B must
have a compliance date and must be included as an enforceable increment
in the State Plan. The State Plan may include such additional increments
of progress as may be necessary to permit close and effective supervision of
progress towards final compliance. [60.24(e)(l), 60.21 (h), & 60.39b]
The minimum five increments of progress are as follows:
(a) Submittal of Final Control Plan; (This may be a brief document or
letter describing the controls that the source will use to comply with
the emission limitations and other requirements. Most likely, the
source, public, and state will have discussed this information as part
of the state process for development of the compliance schedule for
the draft State Plan prior to submittal of the State Plan to EPA.)
(60.21(h)(l)J
(b) Awarding of contracts for controls systems or process modifications
or orders for purchase of components; [60.21 (h)(2)J
(c) Initiation of on-site construction or installation of the air pollution
control device(s) or process changes; [60.21 (h) (3)]
(d) Completion of on-site construction or installation of control
equipment or process changes; [60.21 (h) (4)]
pj/83-09 Q-4
-------
(e) Final compliance. /60.21 (h) (5)]
The first four of these increments of progress can be set as calendar dates or
floating dates tied to the date of the approval of the State Plan or the date of permit
issuance, if a permit is required. For example, the date for submitting a final control
plan could be set as three months following approval of the State Plan. If an increment
of progress is set based on the date of permit issuance the State Plan must identify the
specific permit.
The fifth increment of progress, the date for final compliance, can be set as a
calendar date or a floating date, but if it is floating, it can be tied only to the date of
approval of the State Plan, not the date of permit issuance, and must include the
limitation that the date can in no case be later than December 19, 2000.
3. Suggested measurable and enforceable activities are Listed in
60.39b(c)(l)(i)(A) through (J) of Subpart Cb. [60FR65418-65419] The
state may choose to include them in the State Plan as enforceable
increments of progress with compliance dates, or as non-enforceable
increments of progress with reporting requirements only, or choose to leave
them out of the State Plan.
The suggested increments of progress activities are:
(A) Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering firm
regarding the air pollution control device;
(B) Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control
device(s);
(C) Date for submittal of permit modifications, if necessary;
(D) Date for submittal of final control plan to the Administrator
[already required where practicable by 60.24(e)(l) and 60.21 (h) (1)];
(E) Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s) [already
required where practicable by 60.24(e)(l) and 60.21 (h)(l)]\
(F) Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution
control device(s);
(G) Date for initiation of site preparation for installation of the air
pollution control device(s) [already required where practicable by
60.24(e)(l) and 60.21(h)(l)];
Q-5
-------
(H) Date for installation of the air pollution control device(s) [already
required where practicable by 60.24(e)(l) and 60.21 (h)(l)];
(I) Date for initial startup of the air pollution control device(s);
(J) Date for initial performance test(s) of the air pollution control
device(s);
EPA strongly recommends that activities (I) and (J) be included in the compliance
schedules. Performance tests must be conducted within 180 days after the final retrofit,
and the report of the test results must be submitted within 60 days after the test is
conducted. The test results will demonstrate whether or not the MWC is in compliance
with the emission standards. This performance test timing is consistent with other EPA
air regulations for existing sources, such as the Part 63 NESHAP general provisions.
EPA also strongly encourages states and MWC owners or operators to conduct
preliminary performance tests at least 2-3 months prior to the scheduled final compliance
date in order for the MWC to make any necessary shakedown changes and retest(s), as
necessary, prior to the final compliance date.
4. The State Plan may include one set of increments with compliance dates
applicable to all MWC units, or the State Plan may vary the compliance
dates to address specific issues relevant to individual plants. However, the
enforceable increments of progress must be arranged chronologically and
the compliance dates must be set to ensure full compliance with the
applicable requirements as expeditiouslv as practicable. [60.24(c)J For
example, a State Plan that requires a large plant to "submit a final control
plan and to award contracts no later than the third year of the compliance
schedule" will be closely examined to determine whether the state is
requiring the MWC to comply as expeditiously as practicable.
E. Emission Inventories
The State Plan must include an "emission inventory" of all designated pollutants
for all designated facilities. [60.25(a)J
Emission data must be included where available but estimates can be used where
data are not currently available. Emission factors and default values are described in
this Summary Document.
In addition to the initial inventory, updates are required. [60.25(f)(5] The
updated information is required to be submitted annually in the 51.321 reports.
[60.24(e)(l)] The emission data should be submitted to the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS) [51.321-51.323]
pj/83-09 Q-6
-------
F. Source Surveillance. Compliance Assurance & Enforcement
The State Plan must provide for monitoring the status of compliance. As a
minimum, the State Plan shall include:
1. Provisions for legally enforceable procedures to:
(a) require recordkeeping on nature and amount of emissions and
reports to the state. [60.25(b)(l)]
(b) require any additional information to judge compliance.
[60.25(b)(l)J
2. Provisions for periodic inspection and testing, if necessary. [60.25(b) (2)]
3. Provisions for emission data and other compliance monitoring information
to be correlated with applicable emission standards and be made available
to the public. "Correlated" means showing the relationship between the
measured or estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such
emissions allowable. For example, the emissions should be in the same
units and averaging times. [60.25(a) and (c)J
4. MWC Requirements for Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting that are identical to those specified in 60.38b, 6039b, 60.58b,
and 60.59b. [Subpart Cb]
5. Specific identification of the provisions in 1 through 4 above. Copies of
such provisions should be included unless they have been approved as
portions of a preceding Section lll(d)/129 State Plan or State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and the state demonstrates that the provisions
are applicable and the requirements of 60.26 (legal authorities) are met
[60.25(d)J
6. Commitment to submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to the
EPA Regional Administrator on an annual basis and include it in the
reports required by 51.321. [60.25'(e) and (f)J Each progress report shall
include: enforcement actions, achievement of increments of progress,
identification of sources that have ceased operation, emission inventory
information for sources that were not in operation at the time of plan
development, updated emission inventory and compliance information, and
copies of technical reports on all performance testing, including concurrent
process data. [60.25(j) (1) through 60.25(f) (6)]
Note: Some states and regions have developed more specific or tailored reporting and
recordkeeping procedures via Memoranda of Agreements, Program Specific Guidance for
Q-7
-------
Section 105 Grants, and the Timely and Appropriateness Guidance that should also be
followed. For example, some regions prefer that the state retain the performance test report
until the region needs to review it as part of a compliance determination or other action.
pj/83-09 Q-8
-------
Outline of Subpart Cb Requirements per 12/19/95 Federal Register.
6030b Scope
6031b Definitions
6032b Designated facilities
Emission Limitations:
The emission limits for municipal waste combustor metals, acid gases, organics, and
nitrogen oxides are specified in Section 60.336, beginning on Federal Register page 65415
and continuing through page 65418.
6033b Emission guidelines for MWC metals, acid gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides:
(a)(l) For approval, a State Plan shall include emission limits for particulate
matter and opacity at least as protective as... (a)(l)(i)through (a)(l)(iii)...
(a)(2) For approval,... emission limits for cadmium and lead at least as protective
as... (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv)...
(a)(3) For approval, ...emission limits for mercury at least as protective as...
specified in this paragraph.
(b)(l) For approval,... emission limits for sulfur dioxide at least as protective as...
(b)(l)(i) and (ii)...
(b)(2) For approval,... emission limits for hydrogen chloride at least as protective
as (b)(2)(i) and (ii)...
(c)(l) For approval,... emission limits for dioxins/furans...from...a large MWC
plant at least as protective as ...either(c)(l)(i) or (c)(l)(ii)..., as applicable.
(c)(2) For approval,... emission limits for dioxins/furans...from...a small MWC
plant at least as protective as...this paragraph...
(d) For approval, ...emission limits for nitrogen oxides at least as protective as...
Table 1... for large MWC plants...
(d)(l)... may allow nitrogen oxides emissions averaging as specified in (d)(l)(i)
through (d)(l)(v)
PJ/8WJ9 Q-9
-------
6034b Emission guidelines for MWC operating practices:
(a) For approval,... emission limits for carbon monoxide at least as protective as...
Table 3...
(b) For approval, ...requirements for MWC operating practices at least as
protective as... listed in 60.53b(b) and (c) of Subpart Eb (60FR65424)
6035b Emission guidelines for MWC operator training and certification:
For approval, ...requirements for ...operator training and certification at least as
protective as ...Section 6(X54b of Subpart Eb (60FR65424 et seq) ...The State plan shall
require compliance with these requirements according to the schedule in
Section 6039b(c)(4).
6036b Emission guidelines for MWC fugitive ash emissions
For approval, ...requirements for MWC fugitive ash emissions at least as
protective as...Section 6055b of Subpart Eb (60FR65425)...
6037b Emission guidelines for air curtain incinerators
For approval,... include emission limits for opacity for air curtain incinerators at
least as protective as those listed in Section 6(X56b of Subpart Eb (60FR65425).
6038b Compliance and performance testing
(a) For approval, ...shall include the performance testing methods listed in
Section 60_58b of Subpart Eb (60FR65427-65434), as applicable, except as provided for
under Section 60.24(b)(2) of Subpart B and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) For approval, ...shall include for... at large MWC plants the alternative
performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans specified in Section 60.58b(g)(5)(in) of
Subpart Eb (60FR65431), as applicable, for those ...facilities...that achieve a dioxin/furan
emission level less than or equal to 15 ng/dscm...
(c) For approval, ...shall include for... at small MWC plants the alternative
performance testing schedule for dioxins/rurans specified in Section 60.58b(g)(5)(ui) of
Subpart Eb (60FR65431), as applicable, for those..facilities that achieve a dioxin/furan
emission level less than or equal to 30 ng/dscm...
PJ/KW9 Q-10
-------
6039b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines and compliance schedules
(a) For approval,...indude the reporting and recordkeeping provisions listed in
Section 6(X59b of Subpart Eb (60FR65434-65436), as applicable, except for the siting
requirements under Section 60.59b(a), (b)(5), and (d)(ll).
(b) Not later than December 19, 1996, each state ...shall submit to the
Administrator a plan to implement and enforce the emission guidelines. The comph'ance
schedules specified in this paragraph is in accordance with Section 129(b) of the Act
supersede and supersedes the compliance schedule provided in Section 60.23 (a)(l) of
Subpart B of this part.
[Note: See the Summary Document for more information on compliance schedules
regarding emission limitations.]
(c)(2) If the State Plan requirements for ...large MWC plant include a compliance
schedule longer than 1 year after approval of the State Plan ... the State Plan submittal
shall include performance test results for dioxui/furan emissions... and the test shall have
been conducted during or after 1990. The performance test shall be conducted
according to the procedures of Section 60.38b.
[Note: See the Summary Document for more information on compliance schedules
regarding operator training and certification.]
Q-ll
------- |