15704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119; FRL–9273–4] 

RIN 2060–AO12 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 

EPA’s final response to the 2001 

voluntary remand of the December 1, 

2000, new source performance 

standards and emission guidelines for 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration units and the vacatur and 

remand of several definitions by the 

District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals in 2007. In addition, this action 

includes the 5-year technology review of 

the new source performance standards 

and emission guidelines required under 

section 129 of the Clean Air Act. This 

action also promulgates other 

amendments that EPA believes are 

necessary to address air emissions from 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration units. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on May 

20, 2011. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the final 

rule are approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of May 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single 

docket under Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0119 for this action. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at 

EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Toni Jones, Natural Resources and 

Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0316; facsimile number: (919) 541–3470; 

e-mail address: jones.toni@epa.gov, or 

Ms. Charlene Spells, Natural Resources 

and Commerce Group, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5255; facsimile number: (919) 541–3470; 

e-mail address: spells.charlene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms 

and Abbreviations. The following 

acronyms and abbreviations are used in 

this document. 

7-PAH 7 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 

16-PAH 16 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 

ACI Activated Carbon Injection 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

BAT Best Available Technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

Systems 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

Catalyst Carbon Monoxide Oxidation 

Catalyst 

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit 

CSA Canadian Standards Association 

CWA Clean Water Act 

D/F Dioxin/Furan 

DIFF Dry Sorbent Injection Fabric Filter 

dscf Dry Standard Cubic Foot 

dscm Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EMPC Estimated Maximum Possible 

Concentration 

EOM Extractable Organic Matter 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ERU Energy Recovery Unit 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitator 

FF Fabric Filters 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMI Hospital, Medical and Infectious 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious 

Waste Incineration 

HWC Hazardous Waste Combustor 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISO International Standards Organization 

LBMS Linkageless Burner Management 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MDL Method Detection Level 

mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard 

Cubic Meter 

mmBtu/hr Million British Thermal Units 

per Hour 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

MW Megawatts 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustor 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial 

Classification System 

ND Nondetect 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard 

Cubic Meter 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

Pb Lead 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins 

PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

ppm Parts Per Million 

ppmv Parts Per Million by Volume 

ppmvd Parts Per Million by Dry Volume 

PRA Paper Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specification 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SARU Sulfuric Acid Regeneration Unit 

SNCR Selective Noncatalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act 

TBtu Tera British Thermal Unit 

TEF Total Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

TMB Total Mass Basis 

tpy Tons Per Year 

TRI Toxics Release Inventory 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

ug/dscm Micrograms per Dry Standard 

Cubic Meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UL Upper Limit 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

UTL Upper Tolerance Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of this document. The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15705 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

final rule? 

B. What is the history of the CISWI 

standards? 

C. How is the solid waste definition 

addressed in this final rule? 

D. What is the relationship between the 

final rule and other combustion rules? 

E. What is EPA’s approach for conducting 

a 5-year review under CAA section 

129(a)(5)? 

F. What is the relationship of this final 

action to section 112(c)(6) of the CAA? 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Which units are affected by this final 

rule? 

B. What are the emission limits in the final 

rule? 

C. What are the testing and monitoring 

requirements? 

D. What are the requirements during 

periods of SSM? 

E. How do the rule amendments affect the 

applicability of the 2000 NSPS and EG? 

F. What is the compliance schedule? 

G. What is the state plan implementation 

schedule? 

H. What are the requirements for 

submission of emissions test results to 

EPA? 

I. What are the costs and benefits of this 

final rule? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since 

Proposal 

V. Public Comments 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues, 

Compliance Schedule, and Certification 

Procedures 

B. MACT Floor Analysis 

C. Control Technology Assumptions for the 

Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

D. Rationale for Subcategories 

E. Emission Limits 

F. New Data/Corrections to Existing Data 

G. Testing and Monitoring 

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Requirements 

I. Notification, Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

J. Air Curtain Incinerators 

K. Role of States 

L. Biased Data Collection From Phase II 

ICR Testing 

VI. Impacts of the Action 

A. What are the primary air impacts? 

B. What are the water and solid waste 

impacts? 

C. What are the energy impacts? 

D. What are the secondary air impacts? 

E. What are the cost and economic 

impacts? 

F. What are the benefits? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by the final action are those that 

operate CISWI units. The NSPS and EG, 

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘standards,’’ for 

CISWI affect the following categories of 

sources: 

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Any industrial or commercial facility using a solid waste 

incinerator.

211, 212, 486 Mining, oil and gas exploration operations; pipeline operators. 

221 ................. Utility providers. 

321, 322, 337 Manufacturers of wood products; manufacturers of pulp, paper and 

paperboard; manufacturers of furniture and related products. 

325, 326 ......... Manufacturers of chemicals and allied products; manufacturers of 

plastics and rubber products. 

327 ................. Manufacturers of cement; nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing. 

333, 336 ......... Manufacturers of machinery; manufacturers of transportation equipment. 

423, 44 ........... Merchant wholesalers, durable goods; retail trade. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the final action. If you have 

any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final action to a 

particular entity, contact the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the final 

action will also be available on the 

WWW through the TTN. Following 

signature, a copy of the final action will 

be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final rule is available only 

by filing a petition for review in the 

Court by May 20, 2011. Section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides 

that ‘‘only an objection to a rule or 

procedure which was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review.’’ This section also 

provides a mechanism for us to convene 

a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f 

the person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within [the period for public comment] 

or if the grounds for such objection 

arose after the period for public 

comment (but within the time specified 

for judicial review) and if such objection 

is of central relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make 

such a demonstration to us should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Section 112(D) MACT standards are based on 

the performance of sources at a moment in time (or 

over some demarcated timeframe), and EPA 

therefore bases those standards on performance of 

sources classified as part of the source category at 

the time their performance is evaluated (i.e., the 

time of performance testing). However, EPA could 

not use this approach here. Sources combusting 

non-hazardous secondary materials, the best 

example being alternative fuels, were not classified 

as CISWI absent a regulatory definition of solid 

waste classifying such secondary materials. In order 

to issue the CISWI standards by the mandated 

promulgation deadline, EPA thus deviated from its 

usual practice and based the standards on the 

performance of devices which would have been 

classified as CISWI had the final waste definition 

been in place at the time of the performance testing 

even though these sources were not CISWI at the 

time. There was no approach that would be based 

on the sources’ actual status that would have 

allowed EPA to complete this CISWI rule by the 

time of the mandated deadline for promulgation. 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this final rule? 

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled 

‘‘Solid Waste Combustion,’’ requires 

EPA to develop and adopt standards for 

solid waste incineration units pursuant 

to CAA sections 111 and 129. Section 

129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to 

establish performance standards, 

including emission limitations, for 

‘‘solid waste incineration units’’ 

generally and, in particular, for ‘‘solid 

waste incineration units combusting 

commercial or industrial waste’’ (CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(D)). Section 129 of the 

CAA defines ‘‘solid waste incineration 

unit’’ as ‘‘a distinct operating unit of any 

facility which combusts any solid waste 

material from commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general public’’ 

(section 129(g)(1)). Section 129 of the 

CAA also provides that ‘‘solid waste’’ 

shall have the meaning established by 

EPA pursuant to its authority under the 

RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). 

In Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007), 

the Court vacated the CISWI Definitions 

Rule (70 FR 55568, September 22, 2005), 

which EPA issued pursuant to CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA 

defined the term ‘‘commercial or 

industrial solid waste incineration unit’’ 

to mean a combustion unit that 

combusts ‘‘commercial or industrial 

waste.’’ The rule defined ‘‘commercial or 

industrial waste’’ to mean waste 

combusted at a unit that does not 

recover thermal energy from the 

combustion for a useful purpose. Under 

these definitions, only those units that 

combusted commercial or industrial 

waste and were not designed to, or did 

not operate to, recover thermal energy 

from the combustion, were subject to 

CAA section 129 standards. In vacating 

the rule, the Court found that the 

definitions in the amendments to the 

CISWI regulations were inconsistent 

with the CAA. Specifically, the Court 

held that the term ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ in CAA section 

129(g)(1) ‘‘unambiguously include[s] 

among the incineration units subject to 

its standards any facility that combusts 

any commercial or industrial solid 

waste material at all—subject to the four 

statutory exceptions identified [in CAA 

section 129(g)(1)]’’ NRDC v. EPA, 489 

F.3d at 1257–58. 

In response to the Court’s vacatur of 

the CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA 

initiated a rulemaking to define which 

non-hazardous secondary materials is 

‘‘solid waste’’ for purposes of subtitle D 

(non-hazardous waste) of RCRA when 

burned in a combustion unit. See 74 FR 

41 (January 2, 2009) soliciting comment 

on whether certain non-hazardous 

secondary materials used as alternative 

fuels or ingredients are solid wastes 

within the meaning of subtitle D of the 

RCRA. That definition, once 

established, will determine the 

applicability of CAA section 129(a) to 

commercial and industrial combustion 

units. 

On the same day EPA proposed 

standards for CISWI units, EPA issued 

a proposed definition of non-hazardous 

secondary materials that are solid waste 

pursuant to subtitle D of RCRA (75 FR 

31844, June 4, 2010). In a parallel action 

to today’s final CISWI rule, EPA is 

promulgating a final definition of solid 

waste that identifies whether nonhazardous secondary materials burned 

as fuels in combustion units are solid 

waste. That action, hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Non-hazardous Solid Waste 

Definition Rulemaking,’’ is relevant to 

this proceeding because some ERUs and 

waste-burning kilns combust secondary 

materials in their combustion units 

which are defined as solid waste under 

the new definition. Units that combust 

solid waste (as defined under the new 

non-hazardous solid waste definition) 

will be subject to standards in the final 

CAA section 129 CISWI rules rather 

than to the standards under CAA 

section 112 applicable to boilers, 

process heaters, and cement kilns. 

At proposal, we acknowledged that 

we had incomplete information on the 

exact nature of the non-hazardous 

secondary materials that ERUs and 

waste-burning kilns combust. For 

example, we indicated that we lacked 

complete information concerning the 

provider(s) of the non-hazardous 

secondary materials, how much 

processing the non-hazardous secondary 

materials may have undergone, if any, 

and other issues potentially relevant in 

a determination as to whether nonhazardous secondary materials are solid 

waste, all information relevant not only 

in this rulemaking but also in 

developing a definition in the 

concurrent Non-hazardous Solid Waste 

Definition Rulemaking. 

In developing standards for this final 

rule, we used best efforts to estimate 

which units would have been classified 

as CISWI (i.e., units combusting solid 

waste) had the final definition of nonhazardous solid waste been in place at 

the time of the performance testing. The 

standards (and, necessarily, the pool of 

best performers establishing the floors 

for each standard) are based on the 

performance of this universe of 

sources.1 In evaluating which sources 

would have been classified as CISWI 

had the new definition of solid waste 

been effective, EPA used the 

information currently available on 

which non-hazardous secondary 

materials the sources combust, as 

supplemented by information obtained 

from public comment and further 

information gathered by EPA after the 

public comment period of this rule. 

Energy recovery units (i.e., boilers and 

process heaters) and waste-burning 

kilns (i.e., cement kilns) that are burning 

solid waste (as defined in new section 

241) will be subject to today’s standards. 

Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA 

address emissions from new CISWI 

units (i.e., NSPS) and CAA sections 

111(d) and 129(b) address emissions 

from existing CISWI units (i.e., EG). The 

NSPS are directly enforceable federal 

regulations and under CAA section 

129(f)(1) become effective 6 months 

after promulgation. Under CAA section 

129(f)(2), the EG become effective and 

enforceable no later than 3 years after 

EPA approves a state plan implementing 

the EG or 5 years after the date they are 

promulgated, whichever is earlier. 

The CAA sets forth a two-stage 

approach to regulating emissions from 

solid waste incinerator units. The 

statute also provides EPA with 

substantial discretion to distinguish 

among classes, types, and sizes of 

incineration units within a category 

while setting standards. In the first stage 

of setting standards, CAA section 

129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish 

technology-based emission standards 

that reflect levels of control EPA 

determines are achievable for new and 

existing units, after considering costs, 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements 

associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the 

CAA then directs EPA to review those 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15707 

standards and revise them as necessary 

every 5 years. In the second stage, CAA 

section 129(h)(3) requires EPA to 

determine whether further revisions of 

the standards are necessary in order to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. See, e.g., NRDC 

and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079– 

80 (D.C. Cir. 2008) addressing the 

similarly required two-stage approach 

under CAA sections 112(d) and (f) and 

upholding EPA’s implementation of 

same. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA 

must use to establish the first-stage 

technology-based standards for the 

NSPS and EG, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

provides that standards ‘‘applicable to 

solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this 

section shall reflect the maximum 

degree of reduction in emissions of 

[certain listed air pollutants] that the 

Administrator, taking into consideration 

the cost of achieving such emission 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, determines is achievable 

for new and existing units in each 

category.’’ This level of control is 

referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, 

EPA must first calculate the minimum 

stringency levels for new and existing 

solid waste incineration units in a 

category, generally based on levels of 

emissions control achieved or required 

to be achieved by the subject units. The 

minimum level of stringency is called 

the MACT ‘‘floor,’’ and CAA section 

129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of 

minimum stringency that EPA’s 

standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and 

reconstructed sources, or existing 

sources. For new and reconstructed 

sources, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides 

that the ‘‘degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable 

* * * shall not be less stringent than 

the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

unit, as determined by the 

Administrator.’’ Emissions standards for 

existing units may be less stringent than 

standards for new units, but ‘‘shall not 

be less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of units in 

the category.’’ 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology analyses involve an 

assessment of the emissions from the 

best-performing unit or units in a source 

category. The assessment can be based 

on actual emissions data, knowledge of 

the air pollution control in place in 

combination with actual emissions data, 

or on state regulatory requirements that 

may enable EPA to estimate the actual 

performance of the regulated units. For 

each source category, the assessment 

involves a review of actual emissions 

data with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability. Other methods of 

estimating emissions can be used, if the 

methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual 

emissions performance of a source or 

sources. Where there is more than one 

method or technology to control 

emissions, the analysis may result in a 

series of potential regulations (called 

regulatory options), one of which is 

selected as MACT. 

Each regulatory option EPA considers 

must be at least as stringent as the 

CAA’s minimum stringency ‘‘floor’’ 

requirements. EPA must examine, but is 

not necessarily required to adopt, more 

stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ regulatory 

options to determine MACT. Unlike the 

floor minimum stringency requirements, 

EPA must consider various impacts of 

the more stringent regulatory options in 

determining whether MACT standards 

are to reflect ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ 

requirements. If EPA concludes that the 

more stringent regulatory options have 

unreasonable impacts, EPA selects the 

‘‘floor-based’’ regulatory option as 

MACT. However, if EPA concludes that 

impacts associated with ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ levels of control are reasonable in 

light of additional emissions reductions 

achieved, EPA selects those levels as 

MACT. 

The CAA requires that MACT for new 

sources be no less stringent than the 

emissions control achieved in practice 

by the best-controlled similar unit. 

Under CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA 

determines the best control currently in 

use for a given pollutant and establishes 

one potential regulatory option at the 

emission level achieved by that control 

with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability. More stringent 

potential beyond-the-floor regulatory 

options might reflect controls used on 

other sources that could be applied to 

the source category in question. 

For existing sources, the CAA requires 

that MACT be no less stringent than the 

average emissions limitation achieved 

by the best-performing 12 percent of 

units in a source category. EPA must 

determine some measure of the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of units to 

form the floor regulatory option. More 

stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory 

options reflect other or additional 

controls capable of achieving better 

performance. 

B. What is the history of the CISWI 

standards? 

On December 1, 2000, EPA published 

a notice of final rulemaking establishing 

the NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 FR 

75338), hereinafter referred to as the 

2000 CISWI rule. On August 17, 2001, 

EPA granted a Request for 

Reconsideration, pursuant to CAA 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

submitted on behalf of the National 

Wildlife Federation and the Louisiana 

Environmental Action Network, related 

to the definition of ‘‘commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration unit’’ 

and ‘‘commercial or industrial waste’’ in 

EPA’s CISWI rulemaking. In granting 

the Petition for Reconsideration, EPA 

agreed to undertake further notice and 

comment proceedings related to these 

definitions. On January 30, 2001, Sierra 

Club filed a petition for review in the 

Court challenging EPA’s final CISWI 

rule. On September 6, 2001, the Court 

entered an order granting EPA’s motion 

for a voluntary remand of the CISWI 

rule, without vacatur. EPA’s request for 

a voluntary remand of the final CISWI 

rule was taken to allow the EPA to 

address concerns related to EPA’s 

procedures for establishing MACT floors 

for CISWI units in light of the Court’s 

decision in Cement Kiln Recycling 

Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 

2001)(Cement Kiln). Neither EPA’s 

granting of the Petition for 

Reconsideration, nor the Court’s order 

granting a voluntary remand, stayed, 

vacated, or otherwise influenced the 

effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. 

Specifically, CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) 

provides that ‘‘reconsideration shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of the rule,’’ 

except that ‘‘[t]he effectiveness of the 

rule may be stayed during such 

reconsideration * * * by the 

Administrator or the Court for a period 

not to exceed three months.’’ Neither 

EPA nor the Court stayed the 

effectiveness of the final CISWI 

regulations in connection with the 

reconsideration petition. In addition, 

the Court granted EPA’s motion for a 

remand without vacatur; therefore, the 

remand order had no impact on the 

implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule. 

On February 17, 2004, EPA published 

a proposed rule soliciting comments on 

the definitions of ‘‘solid waste,’’ 

‘‘commercial and industrial waste,’’ and 

‘‘commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration unit.’’ On September 22, 

2005, EPA published in the Federal 

Register the final rule reflecting our 

decisions with respect to the CISWI 

Definitions Rule. The rule was 

challenged and, on June 8, 2007, the 

Court vacated and remanded the CISWI 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Definitions Rule. In vacating the rule, 

the Court found that CAA section 129 

unambiguously includes among the 

incineration units subject to its 

standards, any facility that combusts 

any solid waste material, subject to four 

statutory exceptions. While the Court 

vacated the CISWI Definitions Rule, the 

2000 CISWI rule remains in effect. 

On June 4, 2010, EPA proposed 

revised NSPS and EG for CISWI units 

(75 FR 31938). Today’s final action 

constitutes EPA’s response to the 

voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI 

rule and to the 2007 vacatur and remand 

of the CISWI Definitions Rule. In 

addition, these amendments address the 

5-year technology review that is 

required under CAA section 129(a)(5). 

C. How is the solid waste definition 

addressed in this final rule? 

The RCRA definition of solid waste is 

integral in defining the CISWI source 

category. EPA defines the nonhazardous secondary materials that are 

solid waste under RCRA in the final 

Non-hazardous Solid Waste Definition 

Rulemaking. At proposal, the Nonhazardous Solid Waste Definition 

Rulemaking proposed a definition of 

solid waste and identified an 

‘‘alternative approach’’ for consideration 

and comment. However, the final solid 

waste definition does not incorporate 

the ‘‘alternative approach,’’ and more 

closely reflects the proposed definition 

of non-hazardous secondary materials 

that are solid waste. 

D. What is the relationship between the 

final rule and other combustion rules? 

These amendments address the 

combustion of solid waste materials (as 

defined by the Administrator under 

RCRA in the concurrent Non-hazardous 

Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking) in 

combustion units at commercial and 

industrial facilities. If an owner or 

operator of a CISWI unit permanently 

ceases combusting solid waste, the 

affected unit would no longer be subject 

to this regulation under CAA section 

129. Section 112 rules of the CAA, 

applicable to boilers and process heaters 

at major sources and boilers at area 

sources, are being promulgated in 

parallel actions that are relevant to this 

action because those standards would 

apply to subject boilers and process 

heaters that do not combust solid waste. 

Boilers and process heaters that 

combust solid waste are subject to 

CISWI as ERUs. EPA has also finalized 

revised CAA section 112 NESHAP from 

the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry (75 FR 21136, September 9, 

2010). Cement kilns combusting solid 

waste are waste-burning kilns subject to 

this final rule, not the otherwise 

applicable NESHAP. 

E. What is EPA’s approach for 

conducting a 5-year review under CAA 

section 129(a)(5)? 

Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires 

EPA to conduct a review of the section 

129 standards at 5-year intervals and, in 

accordance with CAA sections 129 and 

111, revise the standards. We do not 

interpret CAA section 129(a)(5), together 

with CAA section 111, as requiring EPA 

to recalculate MACT floors in 

connection with this periodic review. 

(71 FR 27324, 27327–28, May 10, 2006; 

NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

1083–84 (DC Cir. 2008) (upholding 

EPA’s interpretation that the periodic 

review requirement in CAA section 

112(d)(6) does not impose an obligation 

to recalculate MACT floors). Rather, in 

conducting such periodic reviews, EPA 

attempts to assess the performance of 

and variability associated with control 

measures affecting emissions 

performance at sources in the subject 

source category (including the installed 

emissions control equipment), along 

with recent developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies, and 

determines whether it is appropriate to 

revise the standards. This is the same 

general approach taken by EPA in 

periodically reviewing CAA section 111 

standards, because CAA section 111 

contains a similar review and revise 

provision. 

Our obligation to conduct a 5-year 

review based on implementation of the 

2000 CISWI rule is fulfilled with the 

finalization of these CISWI standards. 

This action responds to the vacatur and 

remand of the CISWI Definition Rule 

and the voluntary remand of the 2000 

CISWI NSPS and EG, and, in this 

response, EPA is requiring new 

standards based on a MACT 

methodology that is consistent with the 

CAA and District of Columbia Circuit 

Court precedent. The MACT levels 

required herein reflect MACT floor 

levels determined by current emissions 

data from CISWI units, and, therefore, 

reflect the current performance of the 

best-performing unit or units subject to 

the CISWI standards. Consequently, we 

believe that our obligation to conduct a 

5-year review based on implementation 

of the 2000 CISWI rule is fulfilled. 

Our conclusion is supported by the 

fact that the revised MACT standards 

included in this final remand response 

are based on the available performance 

data for the currently operating CISWI 

units, including those units that are 

subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and those 

units that will be subject to the CISWI 

standards for the first time based on the 

final Non-hazardous Solid Waste 

Definition Rulemaking under RCRA. In 

establishing MACT floors based on 

currently available emissions 

information, we address the technology 

review’s goals of assessing the 

performance efficiency of the installed 

equipment and ensuring that the 

emission limits reflect the performance 

of the technologies required by the 

MACT standards. In addition, in 

establishing these final standards, we 

considered whether new technologies, 

processes, and improvements in 

practices have been demonstrated at 

sources subject to the 2000 CISWI rule 

and at sources that will be subject to 

these proposed standards for the first 

time based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste. Accordingly, the remand 

response in this final action fulfills 

EPA’s obligations regarding the 5-year 

review of the CISWI standards. Further 

discussion of the EPA’s response to the 

CAA section 129(a)(5) 5-year review is 

found in section III.B of the proposal 

preamble (75 FR 31946). 

F. What is the relationship of this final 

action to section 112(c)(6) of the CAA? 

Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires 

EPA to identify categories of sources of 

seven specified pollutants to assure that 

sources accounting for not less than 90 

percent of the aggregate emissions of 

each such pollutant are subject to 

standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

or 112(d)(4). EPA has identified certain 

CISWI units as sources necessary to 

meet the 90 percent requirement under 

section 112(c)(6). In the Federal 

Register notice ‘‘Source Category Listing 

for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking 

Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) 

Requirements’’, 63 FR 17838, 17849, 

Table 2 (1998), EPA identified source 

categories that must be ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ for purposes of CAA section 

112(c)(6). Included in that list are 

cement kilns and combustion units (e.g., 

major source boilers and process 

heaters). Cement kilns, boilers, and 

process heaters that combust solid waste 

are subject to the CAA section 129 

standards for CISWI as either wasteburning kilns or ERUs. These CISWI 

units emit five of the seven CAA section 

112(c)(6) pollutants: POM, dioxins, 

furans, Hg and PCBs. The POM emitted 

by CISWI is composed of 7–PAH and 

16–PAH. 

For purposes of CAA section 

112(c)(6), EPA has determined that 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 129 are substantively equivalent 

to those promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d). (63 FR 17845; 62 FR 

33625, 33632 (1997)). As discussed in 

more detail in response to comments on 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15709 

this issue, the CAA section 129 

standards effectively control emissions 

of the five identified CAA section 

112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since CAA 

section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from 

regulating CISWI units under CAA 

section 112(d), EPA cannot further 

regulate the emissions of 112(c)(6) 

pollutants from CISWI units under CAA 

section 112(d). As a result, EPA 

considers emissions of these five 

pollutants from waste-burning kilns and 

ERUs ‘‘subject to standards’’ for 

purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6). The 

remaining CISWI subcategories will be 

subject to MACT standards either in this 

action or in a future action, but 

regulation of the remaining 

subcategories is not required for EPA to 

complete its 112(c)(6) obligations. 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Which units are affected by this final 

rule? 

This final rule defines a CISWI unit as 

any combustion unit at a commercial or 

industrial facility that is used to 

combust solid waste (as defined under 

RCRA). (40 CFR 60.2265 (NSPS) and 

60.2875 (EG)). Therefore, in this final 

rule, CISWI units subject to standards in 

this final rule include incinerators 

designed to burn discarded waste 

materials; units designed for heat 

recovery that combust solid waste 

materials (i.e., ERUs that would be 

boilers or process heaters if they did not 

burn solid waste); and waste burning 

kilns (i.e., units that would be cement 

kilns if they did not burn solid waste); 

we also define other CISWI units that 

are not subject to standards in this final 

action. The final rule contains 

definitions of the four subcategories of 

CISWI units that are subject to standards 

under these amendments: incinerators, 

small remote incinerators, ERUs, and 

waste burning kilns. At proposal, we 

also defined and proposed standards for 

burn-off ovens. Based on information 

obtained during proposal, and because 

we do not need such units to comply 

with our section 112(c)(6) obligations, 

we are not finalizing standards for burnoff ovens as explained further below in 

response to comments on this issue. 

We are revising the definition of 

CISWI unit to reflect the Court’s 

decision that all units burning solid 

waste as defined under RCRA are to be 

covered by regulation under CAA 

section 129. To ensure consistency with 

the definition of CISWI unit, we are also 

adding a definition of ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ and removing the 

definition of ‘‘commercial and industrial 

waste.’’ 

The 2000 CISWI rule, through the 

definition of ‘‘commercial and industrial 

waste,’’ excluded from regulation 

combustion units at commercial or 

industrial facilities that recovered 

energy for a useful purpose. We are 

eliminating those exemptions that were 

vacated by the Court. 

Qualifying small power producers, 

qualifying cogeneration units, and 

materials recovery units continue to be 

expressly exempt from coverage 

pursuant to CAA exclusions from the 

definition of ‘‘solid waste incineration 

unit’’ set forth in CAA section 129(g)(1). 

Units that are required to have a permit 

under section 3005 of the SWDA (i.e., 

hazardous waste combustion units) are 

also exempt from section 129 rules per 

CAA section 129(g)(1). Air curtain 

incinerators at commercial or industrial 

facilities combusting ‘‘clean wood’’ 

waste are also excluded from the 

definition of solid waste incineration 

unit set forth in CAA section 129(g)(1), 

but that section provides that such units 

must comply with opacity limits to 

maintain that exemption. 

Solid waste incineration units that are 

included within the scope of other CAA 

section 129 categories include MWC 

units; institutional, pathological waste 

incineration units (EPA intends to 

regulate these units under OSWI 

standards); SSI units (EPA is issuing 

final standards for these units in a 

concurrent action), and HMIWI units. 

These solid waste incineration units 

will remain exempt from the CISWI 

standards. As stated above, we created 

subcategories for waste-burning kilns 

and ERUs, and they are subject to this 

final rule in light of the CISWI 

Definitions Rule vacatur. We note that 

other CAA section 129 standards may 

contain an exemption for cement kilns. 

Those exemptions do not excuse waste 

burning kilns from compliance with 

these final standards. As those other 

CAA section 129 rules are amended, we 

will clarify that cement kilns that meet 

the definition of waste-burning kiln and 

other CISWI units, that may be 

expressly exempt from those standards, 

are subject to CISWI standards if they 

are located at a commercial or industrial 

facility and they combust solid waste. 

B. What are the emission limits in the 

final rule? 

The final MACT floor emission limits 

for new and existing sources are 

presented in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

preamble. These emission limits are 

based on subcategories established 

considering sources that we believe are 

CISWI units under the final definition of 

non-hazardous secondary materials, as 

discussed in the concurrent Nonhazardous Solid Waste Definition 

Rulemaking. The final MACT floor 

emission limits for existing sources in 

each subcategory are shown in Table 1 

of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF EXISTING SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR 2000 CISWI RULE AND THE FINAL MACT 

FLOOR LIMITS (BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE FINAL NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTE DEFINITION

RULEMAKING) 

Pollutant (units) a

Incinerators 

(2000 CISWI 

limit) 

Final CISWI subcategories 

Incinerators ERUs—solids ERUs— 

liquid/gas 

Waste-burning 

kilns 

Small, remote 

incinerators 

HCl (ppmv) ........................... 62 ................ 29 0.45 ..................................... 14 b 25 b 220 

CO (ppmv) ............................ 157 .............. 36 b 490 (biomass units)/59 (coal 

units).

36 110 20 

Pb (mg/dscm) ....................... 0.04 ............. 0.0036 0.0036 b ............................... 0.096 0.0026 2.7 

Cd (mg/dscm) ....................... 0.004 ........... 0.0026 0.00051 b ............................. 0.023 0.00048 0.61 

Hg (mg/dscm) ....................... 0.47 ............. 0.0054 0.00033 ............................... 0.0013 b 0.0079 b 0.0057 

PM, filterable (mg/dscm) ...... 70 ................ 34 250 ...................................... 110 6.2 230 

Dioxin, furans, total (ng/ 

dscm).

(no limit) ...... 4.6 0.35 ..................................... 2.9b 0.20 1,200 

Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/ 

dscm).

0.41 ............. 0.13 0.059 ................................... 0.32b 0.0070 57 

NOX (ppmv) .......................... 388 .............. 53 290 (biomass units)/340 

(coal units).

76 540 240 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF EXISTING SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR 2000 CISWI RULE AND THE FINAL MACT 

FLOOR LIMITS (BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE FINAL NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID WASTE DEFINITION

RULEMAKING)—Continued 

Pollutant (units) a

Incinerators 

(2000 CISWI 

limit) 

Final CISWI subcategories 

Incinerators ERUs—solids ERUs— 

liquid/gas 

Waste-burning 

kilns 

Small, remote 

incinerators 

SO2 (ppmv) ........................... 20 ................ 11 6.2 (biomass units)/650 

(coal units).

720 38 420 

aAll emission limits are expressed as concentrations corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

bSee the memorandum ‘‘CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details on this calculation. 

The new source MACT floor emission 

limits for each CISWI subcategory are 

shown in Table 2 of this preamble. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF NEW SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR 2000 CISWI RULE AND THE FINAL MACT FLOOR

LIMITS (BASED ON THE PRIMARY DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE SOLID WASTE DEFINITION RULE) 

Pollutant (units) a Incinerators 

(2000 limit) 

Final CISWI subcategories 

Incinerators ERUs—solids ERUs— 

liquid/gas 

Waste-burning 

kilns 

Small, remote 

incinerators 

HCl (ppmv) ............................ 62 ................ 0.091 0.45 c ..................................... 14b .............. 3.0 b 200 

CO (ppmv) ............................. 157 .............. 12 160 (biomass units)/ 46 (coal 

units).

36 ................ 90 12 

Pb (mg/dscm) ........................ 0.04 ............. 0.0019 b 0.0031 ................................... 0.096 ........... 0.0026 0.26 

Cd (mg/dscm) ........................ 0.004 ........... 0.0023 0.00051 c ............................... 0.023 ........... 0.00048 c 0.61 c

Hg (mg/dscm) ........................ 0.47 ............. 0.00016 0.00033 c ............................... 0.00025 d ..... 0.0062 e 0.0035 b

PM, filterable (mg/dscm) ....... 70 ................ 18 250 c ...................................... 110 .............. 2.5 230 c

Dioxin, furans, total (ng/ 

dscm).

(no limit) ...... 0.052 b 0.068 ..................................... (no limit) ...... 0.090 1,200 c

Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/ 

dscm).

0.41 ............. 0.13 c 0.011 ..................................... 0.002 d ......... 0.0030 31 

NOX (ppmv) ........................... 388 .............. 23 290c (biomass units)/340 

(coal units).

76 ................ 200 78 

SO2 (ppmv) ........................... 20 ................ 11 c 6.2 c (biomass units)/650 

(coal units).

720 .............. 38 1.2 

aAll emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen. 

bSee the memorandum ‘‘CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details on this calculation. cThe NSPS limit equals the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit. 

d Dioxin/furan TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs—liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major source boilers. See ‘‘CISWI 

Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details. e Hg limit was developed using material input data from CISWI kilns identified within the Portland Cement NESHAP database. See the memorandum ‘‘CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details on this calculation. 

C. What are the testing and monitoring 

requirements? 

This final rule requires all CISWI 

units to demonstrate initial compliance 

with the revised emission limits. For 

existing CISWI units, these amendments 

require annual inspections of scrubbers, 

FF, and other air pollution control 

devices that are used to meet the 

emission limits. In addition, a Method 

22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7) 

visible emissions test of the ash 

handling operations is required during 

the annual compliance test for all 

subcategories except waste-burning 

kilns, which do not have ash handling 

systems. Furthermore, for any existing 

CISWI unit that operates a FF air 

pollution control device, we are 

requiring that a bag leak detection 

system be installed to monitor the 

device. These amendments continue to 

require parametric monitoring of all 

other add-on air pollution control 

devices, such as wet scrubbers and ACI. 

Commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration units that install SNCR 

technology to reduce NOX emissions are 

required to monitor the reagent (e.g., 

ammonia or urea) injection rate and 

secondary chamber temperature (if 

applicable to the CISWI unit). 

This final rule also requires 

subcategory-specific monitoring 

requirements in addition to the 

aforementioned inspection, bag leak 

detection, and parametric monitoring 

requirements that are applicable to all 

CISWI units. Existing incinerators, 

small, remote incinerators, and ERUs 

would have annual emissions testing for 

all nine pollutants: PM, SO2, HCl, NOX, 

CO, lead, Cd, Hg, and dioxins and 

furans. Existing kilns are required to 

monitor Hg, PM, and HCl (if no wet 

scrubber) emissions using a CEMS and 

perform annual testing for the remaining 

pollutants. These amendments provide 

reduced annual testing requirements for 

all nine pollutants when testing results 

are shown to be well below the limits. 

If the ERU has a design capacity less 

than or equal to 250 mmBtu/hr and is 

not equipped with a wet scrubber 

control device, then a continuous 

opacity monitor is required or, as an 

alternative, a PM CEMS could be 

employed (see below). If the ERU has a 

design capacity greater than 250 

mmBtu/hr, then PM emissions must be 

monitored using a PM CEMS. 

For new CISWI units, the final rule 

requires the same monitoring 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15711 

2We believe that all the units in the small remote 

incinerator subcategory as defined in this final rule 

qualified for the exemption for MWC in the 2000 

CISWI standards. See 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2) and 

60.2555(c)(2). 

3All sources currently subject to the 2000 CISWI 

EG or NSPS will become existing sources in the 

incinerator or small remote incinerator 

subcategories once the final revised CISWI 

standards are in place. See section III.F of this 

preamble. 

requirements as for existing units, but 

also requires CO CEMS for all 

subcategories. Additionally, SO2 and 

NOX CEMS are required for all new 

kilns. 

For all subcategories of existing 

CISWI units, use of CO CEMS is an 

approved alternative and specific 

language with requirements for CO 

CEMS is included in these amendments. 

For new and existing CISWI units, use 

of PM, NOX, SO2, HCl, multi-metals and 

Hg CEMS and integrated sorbent trap Hg 

monitoring and dioxin monitoring 

(continuous sampling with periodic 

sample analysis) also are approved 

alternatives, and specific language for 

those alternatives is included in these 

amendments. 

D. What are the requirements during 

periods of SSM? 

The 2000 CISWI standards did not 

apply during periods of SSM. This final 

rule revises the 2000 CISWI rule such 

that the standards apply at all times, 

including during SSM periods. As 

further explained in section V.H of this 

preamble, the revision is being made in 

light of the Court decision that vacated 

portions of regulations related to SSM in 

the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 

63. EPA is including in this final rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions. The full 

rationale for these decisions is 

presented in section V.H of this 

preamble. 

E. How do the rule amendments affect 

the applicability of the 2000 NSPS and 

EG? 

Incinerators subject to the 2000 CISWI 

standards are treated differently under 

the amended standards than they were 

under the 2000 CISWI rule in terms of 

whether they are ‘‘existing’’ or ‘‘new’’ 

sources.2 Consistent with the CAA 

section 129 definition of ‘‘new’’ sources, 

there are new dates defining what units 

are ‘‘new’’ sources. Incinerators that are 

currently subject to the NSPS will 

become ‘‘existing’’ sources under the 

final amended standards and are 

required to meet the revised EG by the 

applicable compliance date for the 

revised guidelines. Those units will 

continue to be NSPS units subject to the 

2000 CISWI rule until they become 

‘‘existing’’ sources under the amended 

standards. Incinerators and small 

remote incinerators that are existing 

sources under the 2000 EG must 

continue to comply with those 

standards until the applicable 

compliance date for the revised EG, at 

which time those sources must be in 

compliance with the applicable EG. 

Commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration units in the four 

subcategories for which we are issuing 

final standards in this rule that 

commenced construction after June 4, 

2010, or for which a modification is 

commenced on or after 6 months after 

promulgation of these final standards, 

are ‘‘new’’ units subject to more stringent 

NSPS emission limits. Units for which 

construction or modification is 

commenced prior to those dates would 

be existing units subject to the EG, 

except that units in the incinerators and 

small remote incinerators subcategories 

remain subject to the 2000 CISWI rule 

until the compliance date of the CISWI 

EG as discussed below. Commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration units 

in the subcategories other than the 

incinerator subcategory and small 

remote incinerator subcategory (if a unit 

was not exempt) will not in any case be 

subject to the standards in the 2000 

CISWI rule. 

Under this final rule, incinerators that 

commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, and on or before 

June 4, 2010, or that were reconstructed 

or modified prior to the date 6 months 

after promulgation of any revised final 

standards, are subject to the 2000 CISWI 

NSPS until the applicable compliance 

date for the revised EG, at which time 

those units would become ‘‘existing’’ 

sources. Similarly, units in the 

incinerator or small remote incinerator 

subcategories that are subject to the EG 

under the 2000 CISWI rule must meet 

the revised EG by the applicable 

compliance date for the revised 

guidelines. Commercial and industrial 

solid waste incineration units that 

commence construction after June 4, 

2010, or that are reconstructed or 

modified 6 months or more after the 

date of promulgation of the revised 

standards, must meet the revised NSPS 

emission limits in the NSPS within 6 

months after the promulgation date of 

the amendments or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

F. What is the compliance schedule? 

New CISWI units must demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit within 60 days after the 

CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at 

which it will operate, but no later than 

180 days after its initial startup. 

Existing CISWI units must 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission limits as 

expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of a state plan, but no later 

than 3 years from the date of approval 

of a state plan or 5 years after 

promulgation of these revised standards, 

whichever is earlier. 

G. What is the state plan 

implementation schedule? 

Under the final amendments to the 

EG, and consistent with CAA section 

129, revised state plans containing the 

revised existing source emission limits 

and other requirements in the final 

amendments are due within 1 year after 

promulgation of the amendments. States 

must submit revised state plans to EPA 

March 21, 2012. 

These amendments to the EG allow 

existing CISWI to demonstrate 

compliance with the amended standards 

as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of a state plan, but no later 

than 3 years from the date of approval 

of a state plan or 5 years after 

promulgation of the revised standards, 

whichever is earlier. Because we believe 

that many CISWI units will find it 

necessary to retrofit existing emission 

control equipment and/or install 

additional emission control equipment 

in order to meet the final revised limits, 

EPA anticipates that states may choose 

to provide the 3-year compliance period 

allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). 

In revising the standards in a state 

plan, a state has two options. First, it 

may include both the 2000 CISWI 

standards and the new standards in its 

revised state plan, which allows a 

phased approach in applying the new 

limits. The state plan must make clear 

that the standards in the 2000 CISWI 

rule remain in force for subject units 

and apply until the date the revised 

existing source standards are effective 

(as defined in the state plan).3 States 

where existing CISWI incinerators do 

not need to improve their performance 

to meet the revised standards, may want 

to consider a second approach as 

follows. The state may replace the 2000 

CISWI rule standards with the standards 

in this final rule; follow the procedures 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B; and 

submit a revised state plan to EPA for 

approval. If the revised state plan 

contains only the revised standards (i.e., 

the 2000 CISWI rule standards are not 

retained), then the revised standards 

must become effective immediately for 

those units that are subject to the 2000 

CISWI rule, since the 2000 CISWI rule 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

standards would be removed from the 

state plan. 

EPA will revise the existing federal 

plan to incorporate any changes to 

existing source emission limits and 

other requirements that EPA has 

promulgated. The federal plan applies 

to CISWI units in any state without an 

approved state plan. The proposed 

amendments to the EG would allow 

existing CISWI units subject to the 

federal plan up to 5 years after 

promulgation of the revised standards to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

amended standards, as required by CAA 

section 129(b)(3). 

H. What are the requirements for 

submission of emissions test results to 

EPA? 

EPA must have performance test data 

and other compliance data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA section 112 

and 129 standards, as well as for many 

other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emissions factor 

development, and annual emissions rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming not only 

for us but also for regulatory agencies 

and source owners and operators to 

locate, collect, and submit emissions 

test data because of varied locations for 

data storage and varied data storage 

methods. One improvement that has 

occurred in recent years is the 

availability of stack test reports in 

electronic format as a replacement for 

cumbersome paper copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking steps 

to improve data accessibility. Owners 

and operators of CISWI units are 

required to submit to EPA an electronic 

copy of reports of certain performance 

tests required under the CISWI EG and 

NSPS. Sources must submit data 

through the ERT. The ERT was 

developed with input from stack testing 

companies who generally collect and 

compile performance test data 

electronically and offices within state 

and local agencies which perform field 

test assessments. The ERT is currently 

available, and access to direct data 

submittal to EPA’s electronic emissions 

database (WebFIRE) is scheduled to 

become available by December 31, 2011. 

The requirement to submit source test 

data electronically to EPA will not 

require any additional performance 

testing and will apply to those 

performance tests conducted using test 

methods that are supported by ERT. The 

ERT contains a specific electronic data 

entry form for most of the commonly 

used EPA reference methods. The Web 

site listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by ERT. In addition, when a facility 

submits performance test data to 

WebFIRE, there would be no additional 

requirements for emissions test data 

compilation. Moreover, EPA believes 

industry will benefit from development 

of improved emissions factors, fewer 

follow-up information requests, and 

better regulation development as 

discussed below. The information to be 

reported is already required for the 

existing test methods and is necessary to 

evaluate the conformance to the test 

method. 

One major advantage of collecting 

source test data through the ERT is that 

it provides a standardized method to 

compile and store much of the 

documentation required to be reported 

by this final rule while clearly stating 

what testing information EPA requires. 

Another important benefit of submitting 

these data to EPA at the time the source 

test is conducted is that it substantially 

reduces the effort involved in data 

collection activities in the future. 

Specifically, because EPA would 

already have adequate source category 

data to conduct residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews, 

there would likely be fewer or less 

substantial data collection requests (e.g., 

CAA section 114 letters). This results in 

a reduced burden on both affected 

facilities (in terms of reduced labor to 

respond to data collection requests) and 

EPA (in terms of preparing and 

distributing data collection requests). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also 

benefit in that their review may be more 

streamlined and accurate because the 

states would not have to re-enter the 

data to assess the calculations and verify 

the data entry. Finally, another benefit 

of submitting these data to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would 

improve greatly the overall quality of 

the existing and new emissions factors 

by supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data upon which the emissions 

factor is based and by ensuring that data 

are more representative of current 

industry operational procedures. A 

common complaint EPA receives from 

industry and regulators is that emissions 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. Receiving and incorporating 

data for most performance tests would 

ensure that emissions factors, when 

updated, represent accurately the most 

current operational practices. In 

summary, receiving test data already 

collected for other purposes and using 

them in the emissions factors 

development program would save 

industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and 

EPA, time and money and work to 

improve the quality of emissions 

inventories and related regulatory 

decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic 

database that would be used is EPA’s 

WebFIRE, which is a database accessible 

through EPA’s TTN (see http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/). The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store 

emissions test and other data for use in 

developing emissions factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database 

can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

Source owners and operators will be 

able to transmit data collected via the 

ERT through EPA’s CDX network for 

storage in the WebFIRE database. 

Although ERT is not the only electronic 

interface that can be used to submit 

source test data to the CDX for entry 

into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of 

data very straightforward and easy. A 

description of the ERT can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

ert_tool.html. 

Source owners and operators must 

register with the CDX system to obtain 

a user name and password before being 

able to submit data to the CDX. The 

CDX registration page can be found at 

https://cdx.epa.gov/SSL/CDX/ 

regwarning.asp?Referer=registration. If 

they have a current CDX account (e.g., 

they submit reports for the EPA’s TRI 

Program to the CDX), then the existing 

user name and password can be used to 

log in to the CDX. 

I. What are the costs and benefits of this 

final rule? 

EPA estimated the costs and benefits 

associated with the final rule, and the 

results are shown in the following table. 

For more information on the costs and 

benefits for this rule, see the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) in the EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0119. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15713 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE CISWI NSPS AND

EMISSIONS GUIDELINES IN 2015 

[Millions of 2008$] a d

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Option 1: MACT Floor: 

Total Monetized Benefits b ............................................. $340 to $830 ........................................................................ $310 to $750. 

Total Social Costs c; ....................................................... $280 ..................................................................................... $280. 

Net Benefits .................................................................... $60 to $550 .......................................................................... $30 to $470. 

Non-monetized Benefits ................................................. 25,000 tons of CO. 

470 tons of HCl. 

260 pounds of Hg. 

0.95 tons of Cd. 

4.1 tons of lead. 

92 grams of dioxins/furans. 

Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

Option 2: Beyond-the-Floor: 

Total Monetized Benefits b ............................................. $430 to $1,100 ..................................................................... $390 to $960. 

Total Social Costs c ........................................................ $300 ..................................................................................... $300. 

Net Benefits .................................................................... $130 to $770 ........................................................................ $90 to $660. 

Non-monetized Benefits ................................................. 25,000 tons of CO. 

470 tons of HCl. 

260 pounds of Hg. 

0.95 tons of Cd. 

4.1 tons of lead. 

92 grams of dioxins/furans. 

Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. These results include units anticipated to 

come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption. bThe total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects 

associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all 

fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These estimates include energy disbenefits valued at 

$3.8 million. cThe methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs for 

both discount rates. dThe estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to incorporate the final engineering 

costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Since Proposal 

EPA received over 3,500 public 

comments on the proposed rulemaking. 

Furthermore, we conducted three public 

hearings to allow the public to comment 

on the proposed rulemaking and the 

inter-related Boiler and RCRA rules. 

Following are the major changes to the 

rule since the proposal. The rationale 

for these and any other significant 

changes can be found in section V of 

this preamble or in the document titled 

‘‘Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration (CISWI) Rule: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comments’’ available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

• Clarified and revised the 

applicability and compliance 

requirements for CISWI units that cease 

or begin combusting solid waste. 

• Determined that this final action 

will not subject burn-off ovens, soil 

treatment units, cyclonic burn barrels, 

laboratory analysis units, and space 

heaters to this standard. 

• Further subcategorized ERUs with 

separate limits for NOX, CO, and SO2 for 

coal and biomass units. 

• Revised the definition of small, 

remote incinerators. 

• Incorporated new data submitted by 

facilities since December 15, 2010. 

• Revised the emission limit 

methodology to use the UPL for ERUs 

and waste-burning kilns. 

• Revised the statistical analysis to 

use the log normal distribution of data 

in cases where a normal data 

distribution is not indicated 

conclusively by normality tests for the 

data. 

• Revised the nondetect methodology 

to calculate emission limits using three 

times the reported nondetect values 

where the value equal to three times the 

representative MDL was greater than the 

calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

• Revised the requirements for 

opacity. 

• Revised the monitoring 

requirements for continuous compliance 

via testing and parametric monitoring 

and to allow CEMS use to demonstrate 

compliance over a 30-day rolling 

average as an alternative. 

• Revised the CO CEMS monitoring 

requirement from mandatory to 

voluntary for existing ERUs. 

• Incorporated hourly CEMS data into 

emissions limit calculations and 24- 

hour CEMS data into costing and 

impacts analyses. 

• Revised the calculation 

methodology of D/F TEQ and clarified 

that sources must comply with either 

the TMB or TEQ basis limit. 

• Added tire certification procedures 

for all CISWI units to allow them to 

certify that the tires are from a program 

that enables them to be considered nonwaste materials. 

• Added recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for units that burn 

materials other than traditional fuels. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

• Revised the annual performance 

testing requirements to clarify the 

schedule for completion of subsequent 

performance tests. 

• Revised the reduced testing 

provision to state testing for a given 

pollutant may be performed every 3 

years, instead of annually, if measured 

emissions during two consecutive 

annual performance tests are less than 

75 percent of the applicable emission 

limit. 

• Revised the test methods for cement 

kilns to require EPA Method 321 for HCl 

testing of these units. 

• Removed the allowance for sources 

to use the results of previously 

conducted tests to demonstrate 

compliance. 

• Revised monitoring requirements 

for the waste-burning kilns subcategory. 

• Provided an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. 

V. Public Comments 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues, 

Compliance Schedule, and Certification 

Procedures 

1. Section 129 vs. Section 112— 

Applicability for Waste Firing Boilers 

and Kilns That Opt To Stop Burning 

Waste 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that ERUs and waste-burning kilns 

should be able to move between CAA 

sections 129 and 112 standards based on 

the materials being burned. Commenters 

argued that EPA should provide 

flexibility for operators of units burning 

co-fired waste to consider the stringency 

of all applicable standards and opt into 

the appropriate rule. Many commenters 

contended that requiring operators who 

stop burning solid waste to remain 

regulated under CISWI would penalize 

them with no benefit gained. One 

commenter stated that no law or 

regulation prevents EPA from allowing 

a unit to opt out of CISWI and that the 

concern that facilities would ‘‘backslide’’ 

from MACT control levels is not 

applicable. Further, commenters argued 

that the once-in-always-in policy should 

not apply to CISWI and requested 

clarification on how the policy applies 

to sources subject to CAA section 129 

standards that either continue or begin 

combusting solid waste. One commenter 

requested that EPA clarify whether the 

CISWI rule would apply to any kiln that 

is actually using solid waste or to any 

kiln authorized to do so. 

Response: This rule addresses the 

combustion of solid waste materials (as 

defined by the Administrator under 

RCRA) in combustion units at 

commercial and industrial facilities. If 

an owner or operator of a CISWI unit 

permanently ceases combusting solid 

waste, the affected unit is no longer 

subject to this regulation under CAA 

section 129, and the unit would become 

subject to any applicable regulations 

under CAA section 112. Likewise, if an 

owner or operator of any commercial or 

industrial unit starts combusting solid 

waste in that unit, it becomes subject to 

CISWI, and is no longer subject to any 

previously applicable regulations under 

section 112. Consistent with CAA 

section 129(h)(2), no solid waste 

incineration unit subject to performance 

standards under section 129 and section 

111 shall be subject to standards under 

section 112(d) of the Act. 

CISWI units that cease burning solid 

waste in the ERU and waste-burning 

kiln subcategories may be subject to one 

of three rulemaking actions under CAA 

section 112. EPA is finalizing in a 

parallel action two NESHAP applicable 

to boilers, one for area source boilers 

and one for major source boilers that 

also regulates process heaters at major 

sources. EPA also recently finalized 

revised NESHAP for cement kilns (74 

FR 54970, September 9, 2010). Energy 

recovery units and waste-burning kilns 

subject to CISWI that cease burning 

solid waste, and thus cease being 

subject to this final rule, will be subject 

to the NESHAP for area source boilers, 

major source boilers and process 

heaters, or cement kilns, as appropriate. 

Today’s final rule includes provisions 

to address the situation where CISWI 

units cease burning solid waste, and 

where existing commercial and 

industrial facilities start burning solid 

waste. Units that cease burning solid 

waste remain subject to CISWI for at 

least 6 months after solid waste is no 

longer present in the combustion 

chamber. After 6 months, sources must 

either comply with any applicable 

section 112 standards or, if they intend 

to combust solid waste in the unit in the 

future, opt to remain subject to CISWI. 

Sources switching out of CISWI due to 

cessation of solid waste combustion 

must submit advance notification of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch 

consistent with new procedures in this 

rule. Units that begin combusting solid 

waste are considered existing sources 

under CISWI and must comply with the 

emissions guidelines set forth in the 

CISWI final rule at the time they begin 

burning solid waste. 

EPA acknowledges that sources may 

stop and start burning solid waste in 

their combustion units, and that 

regulatory procedures are necessary to 

guide sources through the changes in 

applicability that may result due to a 

switch in combustion materials. New 

provisions in the final rule account for 

the fact that facilities may start and stop 

burning solid waste and ensure that any 

resulting changes in applicability 

between section 129 and section 112 

rules do not occur with so much 

frequency that sources are unable to 

demonstrate continuing compliance 

with the applicable standards. 

To ensure that frequent switching 

does not impede our ability to 

determine continuous compliance and 

create undue permitting and testing 

burdens, sources remain subject to 

CISWI for a minimum of 6 months. The 

definition of CISWI unit has been 

revised to clarify that a CISWI unit 

includes a distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that 

combusts any solid waste in a 12-month 

period. This change accounts for 

sources that periodically burn solid 

waste throughout a given 12-month 

period, but that also has long periods in 

which no solid waste is combusted at 

all. We believe this change will reduce 

administrative and compliance costs to 

both the source and the regulatory 

agencies. For example, sources will not 

have to re-establish initial compliance 

with CISWI or revise their operating 

permit to reflect a switch out of and 

back into the CISWI regulations. 

Instead, facilities that combust solid 

waste would continue to be subject to 

the CISWI regulations at least 6 months 

after waste is no longer combusted. The 

regulations also allow facilities to 

remain subject to CISWI beyond 6 

months after cessation of solid waste 

combustion, at their own discretion, if 

the source determined that continued 

compliance with CISWI is appropriate 

because the source intends to combust 

solid waste in the future. Source owners 

or operators may, alternatively, choose a 

date at least 6 months after ceasing solid 

waste combustion on which they would 

no longer be subject to CISWI, and 

would instead be subject to any 

applicable section 112 standards. This 

date is called the effective date of the 

waste-to-fuel switch. 

Specifically, the new provisions 

direct a source owner or operator to 

select an effective date for the waste-tofuel, or fuel-to-waste switch, and that 

date becomes the date on which all of 

the newly applicable requirements 

apply. When a source begins 

combusting solid waste, the effective 

date of the fuel-to-waste switch must be 

the same as the actual date the unit 

begins combusting solid waste because 

by statute any source that combusts any 

solid waste is a solid waste incineration 

unit subject to standards under CAA 

section 129. See section 129(g)(1) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15715 

(defining ‘‘solid waste incineration 

unit’’). For sources that cease burning 

solid waste, they may pick an effective 

date for the waste-to-fuel switch that is 

at least 6 months after the last date on 

which solid waste is combusted. This 

allows sources that cease combusting 

solid waste to comply with an 

applicable NESHAP or opt to remain 

subject to CISWI at the discretion of the 

owner or operator. We allow the owner 

or operator of a CISWI unit the option 

of remaining subject to CISWI to 

account for sources that may want to 

retain the ability to burn waste 

intermittently without having to 

periodically switch between the section 

112 and section 129 regulatory 

programs. If a source wishes to end 

applicability of CISWI to its unit, the 

source must submit an advance 

notification of the effective date of the 

waste-to-fuel switch. The source must 

be in compliance with any NESHAP 

that applies as a result of ceasing the 

combustion of solid waste on the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch. The source must remain in 

continuous compliance with the CISWI 

regulations until that date. 

As stated above, boiler and process 

heaters that commence combustion of 

any solid waste and become solid waste 

incineration units as defined in section 

129(g)(1) are subject to CISWI standards 

applicable to ERUs as of the date they 

commence combusting solid waste. 

Likewise, cement kilns that begin 

combusting solid waste and become 

solid waste incineration units must 

comply with the CISWI standards 

applicable to waste-burning kilns at the 

time they begin combusting solid waste. 

The new waste-to-fuel switch 

provisions in the final rule include 

requirements to conduct performance 

testing that will assure compliance with 

all applicable standards. Specifically, 

performance tests must be conducted 

within 60 days of the date on which the 

unit begins combusting solid waste. In 

addition, the owner or operator must 

collect and report any PM CEMS and/ 

or PM parametric monitoring data for 

those monitors that are operated at the 

same time as the performance test to 

determine whether the existing 

calibrations and/or correlations are still 

applicable. After the testing is 

completed, and it is demonstrated that 

the source is operating in compliance 

with the applicable standards, the 

owner or operator should adjust any PM 

CEMS calibration and any correlation 

for PM to correspond to the performance 

test results and data. 

The new provisions also require 

advance notification of the effective date 

of the waste-to-fuel switch. The 

notification includes basic information 

that will enable the reviewing authority 

to determine the date on which CISWI 

will no longer apply to the facility and 

the date on which any newly applicable 

section 112 regulations may apply. 

Notification must be submitted to both 

the EPA Regional Office and the 

delegated state or local agency. 

To ensure that frequent switching 

does not impede our ability to 

determine continuous compliance, 

sources may not switch between 

applicable section 129 and section 112 

standards without completing the initial 

performance test. Therefore, sources 

that wish to start burning solid waste 

before they have demonstrated 

compliance with their existing section 

112 standard must complete the 

performance test for the 112 rule before 

switching to solid waste combustion. 

If a source switches back to a fuel or 

non-waste material for which a 

performance test was conducted within 

the 6 months preceding the effective 

date of the fuel-to-waste or waste-to-fuel 

switch, and if there are no changed 

conditions that would affect emissions, 

the source need not retest that source 

until 6 months from the effective date of 

the switch. 

If a source is subject to any emissions 

limits for which compliance is 

determined on an annual average or 

other averaging period that is for a 

period of time less than the period in 

which the source will be combusting the 

fuel or non-waste material, the source 

must comply with the emission limit in 

the shorter time period in which the 

fuel or material is combusted. For 

example, if a source chooses to 

demonstrate compliance with the Hg 

limits of the major source Boiler 

NESHAP through fuel analysis, which 

has a 12-month rolling average limit, 

and opts to start burning solid waste 

and become subject to CISWI after 

combusting the fuel under the Boiler 

NESHAP for only 9 months, the source 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

Hg limit based on a 9-month average 

instead of the annual average. The EPA 

believes this is necessary to assure that 

switching to solid waste combustion 

does not compromise our ability to 

determine compliance with standards 

under section 112. 

The rules do not allow for compliance 

extensions associated with changes to 

the fuels or materials that are 

combusted. After the first substantive 

compliance date (e.g., the effective date 

of the state program or 5 years after 

publication of the final CISWI rule for 

incineration units), sources must be in 

compliance with the standard that is 

applicable to the source based on the 

type of unit and the fuels or materials 

that are combusted. Sources that change 

fuels or materials are considered 

existing sources and, as such, they must 

be in compliance on the date they begin 

combusting the new fuel or material. 

For example, a waste-burning cement 

kiln that ceases burning solid waste 

becomes subject to and must comply 

with the Portland Cement NESHAP as of 

the date that it is no longer subject to 

CISWI. For all sources that commence 

combustion of solid waste, the CISWI 

requirements become applicable on the 

date that the fuel switch occurs. 

2. Homogeneous Waste 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that EPA reaffirm the 

exemption of qualifying small power 

production and cogeneration facilities 

as promulgated in the 2000 CISWI 

regulations. Several commenters 

requested that EPA clarify the term 

‘‘homogeneous waste.’’ Some 

commenters requested that certain 

mixtures or blends of fuels fall under 

the definition of homogeneous waste. 

Response: Homogeneous wastes are 

stable, consistent in formulation, have 

known fuel properties, have a defined 

origin, have predictable chemical and 

physical attributes, and result in 

consistent combustion characteristics 

and have a consistent emissions profile. 

Qualifying small power production and 

cogeneration facilities requesting an 

exemption from CISWI on the basis that 

they burn homogeneous waste may be 

asked to demonstrate, using defined test 

methods acceptable to EPA, that the 

physical and chemical characteristics of 

the waste are consistent throughout 

such that the emission profile of any 

sample of waste combusted is similar or 

identical to any other sample. Mixtures 

of different types of wastes are generally 

not homogeneous, unless the mixtures 

are from materials that are each 

individually determined to be 

homogeneous, are from known origin, 

are mixed in constant proportion, and 

are conditioned or processed, such as 

would occur in the gasification of the 

wastes. Gasification processes that 

incorporate clean up technologies in the 

production of synthesis gas would 

generally result in a homogeneous 

product, however a consistent waste 

input would still be necessary to ensure 

a consistent emissions profile of the 

synthesis gas. Whether a waste is 

homogeneous is a case-by-case 

determination. As such, EPA has added 

provisions to the CISWI rule that require 

source owners or operators seeking the 

exemption to submit a request for a 

homogeneous fuel determination to 

EPA, and that they support their request 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

with information describing the 

materials to be combusted and why they 

believe the waste is homogeneous. The 

determination of what constitutes a 

homogeneous waste is not delegable to 

the state or local agencies. 

3. Lab Analysis Units 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

they do not believe CAA section 129 is 

intended to regulate laboratory analysis 

units that involve combustion to 

generate analytical results. Commenters 

contend that samples are not solid waste 

and have definite purpose separate from 

disposal of sample material. They stated 

that it is physically impossible for 

many, if not all, of these uses to comply 

with CISWI requirements and therefore 

operations would likely cease. Several 

commenters indicated that it is unclear 

as to whether the material referenced in 

the existing definition of laboratory 

units in 40 CFR 60.2020(o) (subpart 

CCCC) and 40 CFR 60.2555(o) (subpart 

DDDD) is a solid waste. Several 

commenters stated that other CISWI 

requirements including operator 

certification, performance tests, and 

SSM requirements are not appropriate 

for laboratory units. If regulated, 

commenters requested that EPA clarify 

whether the rule is applicable to all 

laboratory units or limited to those at 

commercial and industrial facilities. 

Many argued that EPA underestimated 

the number of laboratory units affected 

by this regulation because the Phase I 

ICR was not clear that these units were 

included in the scope of the survey. 

Commenters also stated that EPA did 

not provide cost or impact analysis for 

these units. 

Response: EPA agrees that samples 

used in laboratory analysis units have a 

purpose separate from the disposal of 

material, and we believe based on the 

information available at this time, that 

the material that is combusted is likely 

not a solid waste as that term is defined 

in the Solid Waste Definition Rule. We 

have no information that refutes our 

conclusions, and we have no data from 

laboratory analysis units on which to 

establish section 129 standards in any 

case. We have determined that this final 

action will not subject laboratory 

analysis units to this standard. 

4. Asphalt Recycling 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA provide a clarification as to 

whether asphalt plants utilizing 

recycled asphalt would be subject to the 

CISWI rule. 

Response: EPA did not receive any 

information to indicate that recycled 

asphalt is a solid waste, or that the 

recycled asphalt or solid waste is being 

combusted in asphalt plants. Absent 

that information, we are not establishing 

separate standards regulating asphalt 

plants at this time. However, any 

combustion unit that combusts solid 

waste and meets the definition of a 

CISWI unit may be subject to the CISWI 

rule, including combustion units at 

asphalt plants. If the combustion unit is 

recovering useful heat (e.g., process 

heaters and boilers), the unit may be 

subject to standards applicable to ERUs 

and sources should contact EPA or their 

state for a specific determination. 

5. Chemical Recovery (SARUs) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that EPA provide a clear 

definition of a chemical recovery unit in 

the final rule. They requested that EPA 

specifically define chemical recovery 

units burning pulping liquors and kilns 

burning lime as not CISWI units. 

Commenters suggested that EPA 

include language that explicitly states 

SARUs are not subject to CISWI citing 

the CAA exemption for analogous 

processes. Some commenters argued 

that materials burned in SARUs are not 

‘‘solid wastes’’ because they are not 

burned for the purpose of being 

disposed of or discarded. Instead, 

commenters asserted that the primary 

purpose of SARUs is to combust 

materials to recover sulfur in order to 

produce virgin sulfuric acid. A few 

commenters also stated that SARUs are 

already regulated under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart H, Standards of Performance for 

Sulfuric Acid Plants. 

Response: The Solid Waste Definition 

Rule exempts materials pursuant to 

subtitle C of RCRA. Any SARU, 

chemical recovery unit, recovery 

furnace, or lime kiln that is exempt 

pursuant to subtitle C of RCRA is not a 

CISWI unit subject to this final rule 

unless the unit combusts material that is 

solid waste and is not specifically 

exempt from the definition pursuant to 

subtitle C of RCRA. We are currently not 

aware of any subtitle C exempt facilities 

burning such materials. We are also not 

aware of any lime kilns that are 

combusting solid waste as that term is 

defined in the Solid Waste Definition 

Rule. To the extent there are lime kilns 

or chemical recovery units combusting 

solid waste, those units may be subject 

to the final CISWI standards as 

incinerators, ERUs, or waste-burning 

kilns, as appropriate. Units discussed in 

this comment that are combusting solid 

waste should consult EPA or their state 

concerning applicability of this final 

rule to their combustion unit. 

6. Exemptions—Hazardous Waste 

Combustion Units 

Comment: Several commenters urged 

EPA to retain the exemption for 

hazardous waste combustion units or 

clarify that these units are not subject to 

the proposed rule and do not need an 

exemption. Commenters suggested that 

the removal of this exemption could 

shift certain RCRA provisions from a 

RCRA permit to a Title V permit. 

Response: Hazardous waste 

combustion units that are required to 

have a permit under section 3005 of the 

SWDA are exempt from CAA section 

129 rules per CAA section 129(g)(1). 

Thus, these hazardous waste 

combustion units would not be subject 

to the CISWI requirements. 

7. CISWI Promulgation Schedule and 

112(c)(6) Obligations 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that EPA delay issuing the 

CISWI standard until the Solid Waste 

Definition Rule is finalized. They 

argued that the court-ordered deadline 

does not apply to CISWI and that the 

lack of certainty in the outcome of the 

Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Definition 

Rule affects all aspects of the CISWI 

proposal including the number of 

facilities affected, the MACT floors, and 

the total anticipated compliance costs. 

Some commenters believe that this 

violates EPA’s duty to provide a full and 

fair opportunity to develop and submit 

comments on the proposal. They 

contend that this problem can only be 

addressed by promulgating the waste 

rule and then re-proposing CISWI 

standards based on the known 

population of units. 

One commenter suggests that EPA’s 

proposal to treat the proposed CAA 

section 129 standards as satisfying CAA 

section 112(c)(6) requirements is 

unlawful. They argue that EPA’s 

statement that its proposed CAA section 

129 standards ‘‘effectively control’’ 

emissions of POM and PCBs, identified 

in CAA section 112(c)(6) as pollutants 

for which EPA must regulate 90 percent 

of aggregate emissions under CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), is illegal. 

The commenter asserts that the CAA 

requires EPA to subject 90 percent of the 

emissions of the pollutants identified in 

CAA section 112(c)(6), including POM 

and PCBs, to CAA section 112(d)(2) or 

(d)(4) standards. The commenter argues 

that assuming EPA could meet CAA 

section 112(c)(6) requirements by taking 

credit for standards established under 

CAA section 129, EPA would have to set 

specific CAA section 129 standards for 

POM and PCBs. They suggest that 

although CAA section 129(a)(4) gives 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15717 

EPA authority to do just that, EPA has 

not proposed CAA section 129 

standards for POM or PCBs. The 

commenter believes that the proposed 

CISWI standards would not satisfy CAA 

section 112(c)(6) even if CAA section 

129 standards could do so. The 

commenter states that EPA cannot meet 

its obligations to regulate PCBs and 

POM under CAA section 112(c)(6) with 

the proposed CAA section 129 

standards for other pollutants. Another 

commenter claims that they cannot find 

documentation in the proposed 

rulemaking package to explain how and 

why coverage of CISWI sources is 

necessary to meet the 90 percent 

requirement. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters who suggest the Courtordered deadline does not apply to 

certain CISWI units. The EPA maintains 

that we are under a Court-ordered 

deadline to complete our CAA section 

112(c)(6) obligations by January 16, 

2011. Because we need certain CISWI 

units to comply with our 112(c)(6) 

obligations, the Court-ordered deadline 

requires EPA to promulgate the CISWI 

standards for certain subcategories by 

January 16, 2010. The EPA may 

therefore not postpone issuance of the 

final CISWI rules until after the Solid 

Waste Definition Rule is promulgated. 

Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires 

EPA to regulate sources accounting for 

not less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of each pollutant listed in 

CAA section 112(c)(6). EPA has 

historically interpreted CAA section 

112(c)(6) as allowing EPA to count CAA 

section 129 emission standards, such as 

CISWI, for the purpose of meeting its 90 

percent obligation under CAA section 

112(c)(6) (62 FR 33625, 33632, June 20, 

1997). For example, both municipal 

waste combustion units and medical 

waste incinerators are listed CAA 

section 112(c)(6) source categories, and 

they are regulated under CAA section 

129. 

As EPA stated in 1998, we need to 

issue emissions standards for all 

Portland Cement kilns that combust 

non-hazardous waste (both major and 

area sources) to meet our obligation 

under CAA section 112(c)(6) (63 FR 

17838, 17849, April 10, 1998). In 

addition, EPA must issue standards for 

commercial and institutional 

combustion units (e.g., boilers and 

process heaters) to comply with the 

section 112(c)(6) obligation (63 FR 

32006, June 4, 2010). We must set 

standards for all CAA section 112(c)(6) 

categories by the Court-ordered 

deadline, and that includes setting 

emission standards pursuant to CAA 

section 129 for those Portland Cement 

kilns and commercial and institutional 

boilers and process heaters that combust 

non-hazardous solid waste and are thus 

subject to CISWI as waste-burning kilns 

and ERUs, respectively. 

As we stated in section VI of the 

proposed rule, section 112(c)(6) of the 

CAA requires EPA to identify categories 

of sources of seven specified pollutants 

to assure that sources accounting for not 

less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of each such pollutant are 

subject to standards under CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). EPA has 

identified certain CISWI units as 

sources necessary to meet the 90 percent 

requirement under section 112(c)(6). In 

the Federal Register notice ‘‘Source 

Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2) 

Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 

112(c)(6) Requirements,’’ 63 FR 17838, 

17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA identified 

source categories that must be ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ for purposes of CAA 

section 112(c)(6). Included in that list 

are cement kilns and combustion units 

(e.g., major source boilers and process 

heaters). Cement kilns, boilers, and 

process heaters that combust solid waste 

are subject to the CAA section 129 

standards for CISWI as either wasteburning kilns or ERUs. These CISWI 

units emit five of the seven CAA section 

112(c)(6) pollutants: POM, dioxins, 

furans, Hg and PCBs. The POM emitted 

by CISWI is composed of 7–PAH, 16– 

PAH, and EOM. 

For purposes of CAA section 

112(c)(6), EPA has determined that 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 129 are substantively equivalent 

to those promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d). (63 FR 17845; 62 FR 

33625, 33632 (1997)). As discussed in 

more detail in response to comments on 

this issue, the CAA section 129 

standards effectively control emissions 

of the five identified CAA section 

112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since CAA 

section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from 

regulating CISWI units under CAA 

section 112(d), EPA cannot further 

regulate the emissions of 112(c)(6) 

pollutants from CISWI units under CAA 

section 112(d). As a result, EPA 

considers emissions of these five 

pollutants from waste-burning kilns and 

ERUs ‘‘subject to standards’’ for 

purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6). The 

remaining CISWI subcategories will be 

subject to MACT standards either in this 

action or in a future action, but 

regulation of the remaining 

subcategories is not required for EPA to 

complete its 112(c)(6) obligations. 

As required by the statute, the CAA 

section 129 CISWI standards include 

numeric emission limitations for the 

nine pollutants specified in CAA 

section 129(a)(4). The combination of 

waste segregation, good combustion 

practices, and add-on air pollution 

control equipment (sorbent injection, 

FF, wet scrubbers, or combinations 

thereof) effectively reduces emissions of 

the pollutants for which emission limits 

are required under CAA section 129: Hg, 

dioxins, furans, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2, HCl, 

CO, and NOX. Thus, the standards 

specifically require reduction in 

emissions of three of the CAA section 

112(c)(6) pollutants: dioxins, furans, 

and Hg. As explained below, the air 

pollution controls necessary to comply 

with the requirements of the CISWI 

standards also effectively reduce 

emissions of the following CAA section 

112(c)(6) pollutants that are emitted 

from waste-burning kilns and ERUs: 

POM and PCBs. Although the CAA 

section 129 CISWI standards do not 

have separate, specific emissions 

standards for POM and PCBs, emissions 

of these two CAA section 112(c)(6) 

pollutants are effectively controlled by 

the same control measures used to 

comply with the numerical emissions 

limits for the pollutants enumerated in 

CAA section 129(a)(4). Specifically, as 

by-products of combustion, the 

formation of POM and PCBs is 

effectively reduced by the combustion 

and post-combustion practices required 

to comply with the CAA section 129 

standards, primarily the standards for 

CO and D/F. In fact, EPA has used CO 

as a surrogate for organic HAP such as 

POM, and the controls for PCBs are the 

same controls that reduce emissions of 

dioxin and furans. Polycyclic Organic 

Matter and PCBs that do form during 

combustion are further controlled by the 

various post-combustion CISWI 

controls. The add-on PM control 

systems (either FF or wet scrubber) and 

ACI further reduce emissions of these 

organic pollutants and also reduce Hg 

emissions, as is evidenced by 

performance data for MWCs and another 

similar source category, HMIWI. 

Specifically, the post-MACT compliance 

tests at currently operating HMIWI that 

were also operational at the time of 

promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI MACT 

standards show that, for those units, the 

regulations reduced Hg emissions by 

about 60 percent and reduced dioxin 

and furans emissions by about 80 

percent from pre-MACT levels. Dioxin 

and furans have similar chemical 

composition and structure as PCBs and 

POM; moreover, similar controls have 

been demonstrated to reduce emissions 

of D/F, POM, and PCBs from MWCs. It 

is reasonable to conclude that POM and 

PCB emissions would be effectively 

controlled to a MACT level at all CISWI 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

units meeting the emission limits for the 

section 129 pollutants. Thus, while the 

rule does not identify specific numerical 

limits for POM and PCB, emissions of 

those pollutants are, for the reasons 

noted above, nonetheless ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ for purposes of CAA section 

112(c)(6). 

Finally, we disagree with comments 

that EPA should not finalize the CISWI 

standards until after the Solid Waste 

Definition Rule is final because EPA 

does not know the population of sources 

that will be subject to the CISWI 

standards. As stated above, we must 

finalize the CISWI standards for certain 

subcategories to comply with the Courtordered deadline; but, in any case, we 

would not postpone the standards 

absent the deadline based on the 

commenters’ issue. EPA must establish 

standards for all rules based on the best 

information available at the time of 

issuance. In this case, we have included 

those units that we believe combust 

solid waste as that term is defined in the 

final Solid Waste Definition Rule. We 

have no information at this time that 

allows us to determine that the units we 

have included are not combusting solid 

waste. Furthermore, sources in the 

waste-burning kilns and ERUs 

subcategories and their CAA section 112 

counterparts may start or stop 

combusting solid waste at any time and 

thus move between CAA sections 112 

and 129. Sources in any of the 

subcategories could also cease operation 

all together. For these reasons, we 

conclude it is not appropriate to 

postpone regulation in this case because 

we could never be certain that the list 

of units we identify is perfect. We 

maintain that the approach we have 

taken is reasonable because it is based 

on the best information available to EPA 

at the time of promulgation. 

8. CISWI Implementation Schedule 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the date for compliance 

should be set at 5 or 6 years, not 3 years. 

Several commenters raised concern that 

many facilities may not have sufficient 

time to engineer and design the 

emissions control systems, raise the 

amount of capital to purchase the 

equipment, and install the required 

equipment. In addition, there could be 

hardware backlogs, insufficient skilled 

labor, and gridlock in state permitting 

processes which could delay 

compliance. Further commenters stated 

that they need time to plan a shutdown 

of a unit when everything is properly 

staged to ensure minimal disruption of 

the facility’s operation. 

Response: The terms of CAA section 

129(b)(2), where state plan 

implementation schedules are specified, 

outline the maximum time available for 

implementation and enforcement of EG 

for solid waste incineration units. As 

CAA section 129(b)(2) states, the state 

plan ‘‘* * * 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.’’ 

This allows 2 years for state plans to be 

updated, modified, and approved by the 

Administrator, followed by a period of 

compliance not to exceed 3 years after 

the state plan has been approved. 

B. MACT Floor Analysis 

1. Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach and 

Alternative Approaches 

Comment: Many commenters objected 

to setting MACT floors on a pollutantby-pollutant basis. They argue that 

setting MACT floors on a pollutant-bypollutant basis is unlawful and results 

in MACT floors that bear no relation to 

emission limits that are being achieved 

at the best-performing existing sources 

pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2). The 

commenters suggested that EPA has 

misinterpreted many court cases 

involving CAA section 112(d) over the 

years and that the proposed MACT 

standards are inconsistent with the legal 

principles established under previous 

court decisions because emission 

standards must be ‘‘achieved in 

practice’’ before finalizing the 

regulation. Commenters continued by 

explaining that EPA applies the 

‘‘achieved in practice’’ standard on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis, which 

results in a final standard that they 

assert has never been achieved by any 

subject facility or best performer. Some 

commenters contended that this method 

violates the plain language and intent of 

the MACT process, and the result is a 

MACT floor that reflects a standard that 

no one plant in existence currently 

achieves. The commenters declared that 

the plain language of MACT process 

requires EPA to set a MACT floor for 

existing sources that is not less stringent 

than ‘‘the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of units in the category.’’ The 

commenters asserted that CAA sections 

129(a)(2) and 112(d) use of the terms 

‘‘best-performing’’ and ‘‘existing’’ clearly 

means that sources in a category or 

subcategory that are used to set the 

MACT floor are to be real, not 

theoretical or hypothetical sources. 

Some commenters maintained that CAA 

section 129(a)(2) instructs that the 

MACT floor ‘‘shall not be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source’’ and the 

phrase ‘‘achieved in practice’’ can only 

mean that Congress intended actual 

sources, performing under real-life 

conditions, to be the benchmark for 

determining the MACT floors. The 

commenters stated that in the CISWI 

rulemaking, EPA has chosen to establish 

the MACT floor by assessing the bestperforming sources on a pollutant-bypollutant basis, rather than by 

identifying the overall best-performing 

sources taking into account all 

pollutants. 

Some commenters insisted that if 

Congress wanted EPA to establish 

separate MACT floor levels for different 

pollutants, it would have worded CAA 

section 129(a)(2) to allow this result by 

referring to the best-performing sources 

‘‘for each pollutant’’ or ‘‘for each group 

of pollutants.’’ Further, they argued that 

EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

methodology is at odds with the 

legislative history underlying the MACT 

setting process. The commenters cited 

the Senate report on the 1990 

Amendments where Congress required 

‘‘the selection of emissions limitations 

which have been achieved in practice 

(rather than those which are merely 

theoretical) by sources of a similar type 

or character. An emissions limitation 

achieved in practice is one based on 

control technology that works 

reasonably well (doesn’t require 

frequent and extensive modification or 

repair) under realistic operating 

conditions.’’ See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st 

Cong., 1st Sess. 169 (1989). The 

commenters suggested that the focus on 

overall performance is not surprising 

because in the 1990 CAA Amendments, 

Congress abandoned the previous focus 

on individual pollutant standards, and 

adopted the technology-based multipollutant approach to regulating 

emissions in use under the CWA. A few 

commenters suggested that if one source 

can achieve a firm degree of control for 

one pollutant but not for another, there 

may be no justification for including it 

in the set of sources from which the 

floor is calculated. 

Several commenters recommended 

that EPA develop overall rankings for 

each unit in each subcategory based on 

their emissions of all nine pollutants 

and develop floors based on a common 

set of top performers. The commenters 

asserted that this approach would 

identify the overall best-performing 

sources taking into account all 

pollutants. The commenters argued that 

the statute unambiguously directs EPA 

to set standards based on the overall 

performance of ‘‘units.’’ They 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15719 

maintained that CAA section 129(a)(2) 

specifies that emissions standards must 

be established based on the performance 

of ‘‘units’’ in the category or subcategory, 

and that EPA’s discretion in setting 

standards for such units is limited to 

distinguishing among classes, types, and 

sizes of units. By setting floors based on 

the average of the top performing 12 

percent of units in a subcategory and 

also using a confidence limit to attempt 

to account for variability, one would 

assume that at least 6 percent of all 

units in each subcategory would be able 

to comply with the emission limits with 

no further controls. 

Several commenters argued that while 

an individual MACT floor for one 

pollutant might not appear costprohibitive, the total cost implications 

when combined with all of the other 

MACT floors for other pollutants, could 

become especially onerous, potentially 

forcing some regulated parties out of 

business, and barring the market entry 

for other potential entities. The 

commenters contended that this result 

is compounded when the proposed 

emission limits cannot be met even after 

the installation and proper operation of 

MACT hardware such as scrubbers and 

baghouses. The commenters stated that 

some facilities cannot operate certain 

types of control devices due to local 

operational constraints and feed 

material composition. The commenters 

declared that such a result violates the 

court’s declaration in National Lime 

Association 627 F.2d 416, 443 (DC Cir. 

1980), that under the CAA ‘‘EPA has a 

statutory duty to promulgate achievable 

standards.’’ A few commenters insisted 

that while the CAA was authored with 

the intent of reducing air pollution, 

Congress did not intend to disrupt the 

‘‘productive capacity’’ of the United 

States through the promulgation of 

economically unachievable standards. 

42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1). The commenters 

maintained that by setting MACT floors 

individually and ignoring the collective 

cost implications of the entire rule, EPA 

would effectively disregard the CAA 

requirement that air pollution control be 

advanced while promoting the nation’s 

‘‘productive capacity.’’ The commenters 

stated that emissions standards are to be 

established by taking costs into 

consideration. 42 U.S.C. 7429(a)(2). 

One commenter discussed that EPA 

previously used a pollutant-by-pollutant 

methodology to set MACT floors in the 

context of the Proposed National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

Waste Combustors (69 FR 21198, April 

20, 2004), hereinafter referred to as the 

HWC NESHAP. The commenter stated 

that several parties submitted public 

comments questioning EPA’s approach 

and pointed to the fact that EPA had 

failed to cite a single existing source 

which met the various MACT floor 

standards. They stated that EPA 

attempted to defend its practice of 

establishing pollutant-by-pollutant 

MACT standards by citing the Chemical 

Manufacturer Association v. EPA, 870 

F.2d 177, 239 1989), clarified 885 F.2d 

253, 264 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 

495 U.S. 910, (1990), a Fifth Circuit case 

where the court held that, under the 

CWA, ‘‘best available technology’’ 

referred to the single best-performing 

plant on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. 

The commenter asserts that EPA’s 

reliance on Chemical Manufacturer 

Association v. EPA is misplaced as the 

CAA’s procedure regarding the selection 

of MACT technologies differs on a 

textual basis from the CWA’s procedure 

for identifying BAT. The commenter 

argued that under the CWA, BAT 

standards are to be set based on ‘‘the 

best practicable control technology 

currently available.’’ The commenter 

suggested that the Court in Chemical 

Manufacturer Association v. EPA read 

this provision to allow for pollutant-bypollutant determinations finding no 

statutory requirement that all of the 

BATs actually be achieved by an 

existing plant, just that each technology 

be demonstrated available. 885 F.2d at 

264. The commenter continued that the 

CAA, on the other hand, more narrowly 

limits the basis for MACT designation to 

what has been achieved at existing 

sources, not what could be 

hypothetically achievable on a perpollutant basis. 

A few commenters also cited the 

HWC NESHAP as an example where 

EPA attempted to support its use of the 

pollutant-by-pollutant methodology by 

stating that ‘‘EPA believes that because 

all our standards are not technically 

interdependent (i.e., implementation of 

one emission control technology does 

not prevent the source from 

implementing another control 

technology), the fact that sources are not 

achieving all the standards 

simultaneously does not indicate a flaw 

in the methodology.’’ The commenters 

argued that EPA’s conclusion in the 

HWC NESHAP is inapplicable to the 

proposed CISWI rule. They provided an 

example problem that they claimed has 

been observed in the MSW industry 

using ACI (an EPA-identified 

technology to reduce Hg emissions) and 

could also occur in the cement industry 

could be the formation of additional 

solid-phase dioxins/furans, thus 

increasing the emissions of D/F (which 

are regulated under the MACT 

standards). The commenters suggested 

that these findings call into question 

EPA’s legal justification that control 

requirements for one pollutant do not 

impact another. Several commenters 

suggested that there is an inverse 

relationship between CO and NOX

where improving combustion to control 

CO may affect NOX. Finally, many 

commenters requested that EPA require 

work practice standards in lieu of 

emission limits for certain ERUs. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters who object to setting 

MACT floors on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. Contrary to the commenters’ 

suggestion, CAA section 129(a)(2) does 

not mandate a total facility approach. 

EPA previously has explained that 

although CAA section 129 does not 

unambiguously declare that MACT 

floors must be established on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying 

the requirement to set MACT floors 

based on what has been achieved by the 

best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 

is a reasonable interpretation of EPA’s 

obligation under that provision (62 FR 

48363–64). 

Commenters’ primary argument is 

premised on a reading of two clauses in 

CAA section 129(a)(2). Specifically, 

commenters cite the provision of CAA 

section 129 that, for new sources, states 

that MACT floors ‘‘shall not be less 

stringent than the emission control that 

is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar unit’’ and, for existing 

sources, states that MACT floors must 

be based on ‘‘the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of units in the 

category.’’ Commenters make the 

assumption that ‘‘achieved in practice’’ 

as applied to the best controlled ‘‘similar 

unit’’ and ‘‘best-performing 12 percent of 

units in the category’’ must be 

interpreted to mean the best-performing 

unit or units with respect to the entire 

suite of pollutants. 

EPA makes no such assumption, 

primarily because to do so would lead 

to the illogical result of basing 

emissions limitations on units that may 

not be the best-performing source for 

any single covered pollutant. Instead, 

EPA interprets the provision to support 

establishing emissions standards based 

on the actual emissions of ‘‘the best 

controlled similar unit’’ or ‘‘bestperforming 12 percent of units in the 

category’’ for each covered pollutant. 

Even if we were to conclude that the 

commenters’ interpretation is equally 

reasonable under the statute, which we 

do not, the commenters’ interpretation 

is certainly not compelled by the 

statute. We maintain that our 

interpretation is reasonable under the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

statute and appropriate given the 

problems associated with implementing 

the commenters’ approach. 

Commenters’ interpretation also 

ignores the rest of the CAA section 129. 

That provision requires EPA to 

‘‘establish performance standards and 

other requirements pursuant to section 

[111] of this title and this section [129] 

for each category of solid waste 

incineration units.’’ Pursuant to CAA 

section 129(a)(2), those standards ‘‘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 nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, determines is achievable 

for new or existing units in each 

category’’ (emphasis added). Subsection 

(a)(4) then states: ‘‘The performance 

standards promulgated under section 

[111] of this title and this section [129] 

and applicable to solid waste 

incineration units shall specify 

numerical emissions limitations for the 

following substances or mixtures: 

particulate matter (total and fine), 

opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, 

hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, 

carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, 

mercury, and dioxins and furans.’’ Thus, 

the statute requires EPA to set 

individual numeric (a) Performance 

standards; (b) based on the maximum 

degree of reduction in emissions 

actually achieved; (c) for each of nine 

listed pollutants. Based on this, EPA 

believes—and has long believed—the 

statute supports, if not requires, that 

MACT floors be derived for each 

pollutant based on the emissions levels 

achieved for each pollutant. 

Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA 

declared in 1997 rulemaking for medical 

waste incinerators: ‘‘The EPA does not 

agree that the MACT floors are to be 

based upon one overall unit’’ (62 FR 

48364). Pointing for instance to CAA 

section 129(a)(4), EPA explained: 

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified 

pollutant. Moreover, although the provisions 

do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress 

singled out these pollutants suggests that the 

floor level of control need not be limited by 

the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants well. 

Id. 

Since 1997, the courts have 

consistently acknowledged that EPA set 

emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. 

See, e.g., Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 

(DC Cir.) (‘‘[T]he Agency first sets 

emission floors for each pollutant and 

source category * * *’’). Accordingly, 

EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

has, as outlined above, been in place 

since 1997 for medical waste 

incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under 

section 129. See, e.g., 59 FR 48198 

(Sept. 20, 1994) (MWC). Commenters 

fail to cite to a single case even 

questioning EPA’s pollutant-bypollutant approach. In addition, such an 

approach has been upheld in other 

contexts. See, e.g., Chemical 

Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 870 

F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) 

(concluding that basing CWA BAT 

standards on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis was a rational interpretation of 

EPA’s obligations under that similar 

statute). Commenters maintain that the 

CWA BAT analogy is not apt due to 

differences in the statute. We disagree 

and note that the CAA MACT 

provisions were fashioned on that CWA 

program. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 

2d sess. 133–34. 

Further, utilizing the single-unit 

theory proffered by commenters would 

likely result in EPA setting the 

standards at levels that could, for some 

pollutants, actually be based on 

emissions limitations achieved by the 

worst-performing unit, rather than the 

best-performing unit, as required by the 

statute (61 FR 173687, April 19, 1996; 

62 FR 48363–64, September 15, 1997). 

For example, if the best-performing 12 

percent of facilities for metals did not 

control PCDD/PCDF as well as a 

different 12 percent of facilities, the 

floor for PCDD/PCDF and metals would 

end up not reflecting best performance. 

Moreover, a single-unit approach would 

require EPA to make value judgments as 

to which pollutant reductions are most 

critical in working to identify the single 

unit that reduces emissions of the nine 

pollutants on an overall best-performing 

basis. Such value judgments are 

antithetical to the command of the 

statute at the MACT floor stage. It would 

essentially require EPA to prioritize the 

nine pollutants based on the relative 

risk to human health of each pollutant, 

a criterion that has no place in the 

establishment of MACT floors. The idea 

is to set limits that, as an initial matter, 

require all sources in a category to at 

least clean up their emissions to the 

level that their best performing peers 

have shown can be achieved. Sierra 

Club v. EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 

976, 979–80 (DC Cir. 2004). 

Commenters’ argument that Congress 

could have mandated a pollutant-bypollutant result by using the phrase ‘‘for 

each pollutant’’ at appropriate points in 

CAA section 129(a)(2) misses the point. 

While doing so would have removed 

ambiguity from CAA section 129(a)(2), 

the fact that the statute does not contain 

the phrase does not compel any 

inference that Congress was sub silentio 

mandating a different result when it left 

the provision ambiguous on this issue. 

The argument that MACT floors set 

pollutant-by-pollutant are based on the 

performance of a hypothetical facility, 

so that the limitations are not based on 

those achieved in practice, just re-begs 

the question of whether CAA section 

129(a)(2) refers to whole facilities or 

individual pollutants. All of the 

limitations in the floors in this rule of 

course reflect sources’ actual 

performance and were achieved in 

practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level 

of control must be limited by the 

performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively 

‘‘guts the standards’’ by including worse 

performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes 

the evident Congressional objective of 

having the floor reflect the average 

performance of best-performing sources. 

Since Congress has not spoken to the 

precise question at issue, and EPA’s 

interpretation effectuates statutory goals 

and policies in a reasonable manner, its 

interpretation must be upheld. See 

Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 

The legislative history can sometimes 

be so clear as to give clear meaning to 

what is otherwise ambiguous statutory 

text, but that is not the case with the 

legislative history cited by the 

commenters: ‘‘The selection of 

emissions limitations which have been 

achieved in practice (rather than those 

which are merely theoretical) by sources 

of a similar type or character. An 

emissions limitation achieved in 

practice is one based on control 

technology that works reasonably well 

(doesn’t require frequent and extensive 

modification or repair) under realistic 

operating conditions.’’ See S. Rep. No. 

228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169 (1989). 

In fact, that language quoted equally 

supports EPA’s approach of establishing 

the standards based on actual emission 

data from existing sources, which we 

consider realistic operating conditions. 

We further consider whether all the 

MACT standards can be achieved 

simultaneously under realistic operating 

conditions by evaluating the 

compatibility of different control 

technologies for the various 129 

pollutants, as discussed below. 

Commenters also make much of the 

fact that no single facility is presently 

achieving all of the nine pollutant limits 

proposed. But this fact is irrelevant, and 

only shows that plants will need to 

reduce their emissions of certain 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15721 

pollutants to meet standards reflecting 

the average of best industry performers 

for that pollutant. We recognize that the 

pollutant-by-pollutant approach for 

determining the MACT floor can, as it 

does in this case, increase the overall 

cost of the regulation compared to the 

cost under a unit-based methodology. 

For example, the pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach for the CISWI regulation 

results in a stringent MACT floor for 

HCl based on control using a wet 

scrubber, and stringent MACT floors for 

PM and metals based on control using 

a FF. We interpret CAA section 129 to 

support determining the MACT floor in 

this manner, and we believe that 

Congress did in fact, intend that sources 

subject to regulations developed under 

CAA section 129 meet emissions limits 

that are achieved by the best controlled 

unit for each pollutant, as long as the 

control systems are compatible with 

each other. To our knowledge, there is 

no technical reason why these air 

pollution control systems cannot be 

combined. Regarding the inverse 

relationship between CO and NOX with 

regard to combustion control, it is 

incumbent upon the CISWI facility to 

determine whether combustion 

conditions can be adjusted to meet both 

standards and, if not, install add-on 

NOX controls as necessary, e.g., SNCR 

systems. 

All available data for cement kilns 

indicate that there is no technical 

problem achieving the floor levels for 

each pollutant simultaneously, using 

the MACT floor technology. For most 

kilns, compliance with the Hg limits 

will be accomplished using ACI 

followed by a second PM control 

consisting of a FF. There is no technical 

impediment to using this same system 

for control of PCDD/PCDF. We note that 

the ACI system would have to be 

installed downstream of the existing PM 

control, therefore, there would be no 

effect on the cement kiln dust collected 

in the existing PM control. One industry 

commenter claimed ACI increases 

dioxin emissions. Considering the fact 

that ACI can actually be used to remove 

dioxins from kiln exhaust gas, we see no 

basis for that statement. Regarding the 

commenter’s claim that ACI increases 

D/F in MWC, our experience with the 

MWC source category has shown that 

this technology has been demonstrated 

to be effective at reducing D/F emissions 

from these sources and is being used 

extensively by MWC units. 

Furthermore, we have not been 

provided information from either the 

commenter or the MWC industry that 

substantiates the commenter’s claim 

that ACI increases D/F emissions from 

these sources. 

After the ACI system, a wet scrubber 

can be used for HCl and SO2 control. We 

would expect the wet scrubber to be the 

downstream control because it creates a 

moisture laden exhaust that would 

require reheating to then apply ACI. 

Again, there is no technical impediment 

to adding a wet scrubber after the ACI 

system, and the two control devices 

should not interfere with each other’s 

performance. If the facility required an 

RTO to meet the CO limit, the RTO 

would be installed downstream of the 

wet scrubber in order to protect the RTO 

from any acid gases in the kiln exhaust. 

The wet scrubber/RTO combination has 

been demonstrated in cement kiln 

applications. 

In order to meet the PM and metals 

standards a facility could choose to 

modify their existing PM control to meet 

the revised limits, or design a new 

baghouse downstream of the ACI 

injection point to meet the PM and 

metals limits. 

Though we have described some 

fairly complicated control scenarios, 

there are simpler applications of control 

technology that would likely be used 

successfully. One example would be 

simultaneous injection of alkaline 

materials (lime or sodium compounds) 

and activated carbon downstream of the 

existing PM control device followed by 

collection with a FF. This type of 

injection scheme would potentially 

control acid gases (HCl and SO2), PCDD/ 

PCDF, Hg, and PM. 

Regarding the comment that EPA 

should consider work practice standards 

in lieu of emission limits for certain 

types of ERUs, we again point out that 

CAA section 129(a)(4) says that the 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 129 shall specify numerical 

emissions limitations for each pollutant 

enumerated in that provision. Section 

129(a)(4) requires MACT standards for, 

at a minimum, PM, SO2, HCl, NOX, CO, 

Pb, Cd, Hg, and PCDD/PCDF. Section 

129 does not contain a work practice 

standard provision similar to that 

contained in CAA section 112(h) and 

applicable to NESHAP. 

Finally, several commenters suggested 

that EPA must consider costs when 

establishing MACT standards. EPA is 

prohibited from considering costs when 

determining the minimum standards for 

each pollutant—the ‘‘MACT floor;’’ 

however, EPA is required to consider 

costs, among other things, when 

evaluating whether the MACT standards 

should be more stringent than the 

MACT floor, so called ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ standards. See section 129(a)(2). 

EPA did consider costs in its beyondthe-floor analysis consistent with the 

statute. 

2. MACT-on-MACT 

Comment: Several commenters argued 

that EPA’s recalculation of the 2000 

MACT floors using post-MACT 

compliance data results in so-called 

‘‘MACT-on-MACT’’ standards. They 

suggest that the limits are being set 

using a very small amount of data from 

a very small number of sources. The 

commenters argue that for the 

incinerator subcategory, the presumed 

reason a small number of units are being 

used to set the limits is that the existing 

standard caused many units to shut 

down. The commenters suggest that the 

remaining units likely installed or 

improved controls in order to comply 

with the original CISWI standards, 

effectively resulting in the new limits 

being set based on the top performers 

among the already top performers. One 

commenter asserted that these floors 

cannot be achieved and are contrary to 

the CAA and the intent of Congress. The 

commenter urged EPA to use the 

population of pre-2000 CISWI 

incinerators and their emissions data to 

establish the revised MACT floors. The 

commenter declares that the CAA never 

intended to impose technology every 5 

years with no consideration of costs and 

risk, and that it is not reasonable to 

assume that Congress intended for 

existing sources subject to CAA section 

129 to have their standards tightened up 

to levels comparable to those for new 

sources over time where their 

circumstances have not changed. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters’ assertions that we are 

employing a MACT-on-MACT approach 

to set limits that are not achievable by 

CISWI. The purpose of this action is not 

to force units who have complied with 

a lawfully adopted MACT standard to 

have to subsequently comply with 

another round of updated MACT 

standards, but to respond to the 

voluntary remand granted by the Court. 

As stated at proposal, we requested a 

voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI 

standards after Sierra Club filed a 

petition for review of the final CISWI 

standards, and the Court issued its 

Cement Kilns decision which called into 

question EPA’s procedures for 

establishing MACT floors for CISWI 

units. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition 

v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001). 

Specifically, EPA established the 2000 

CISWI MACT floors by identifying the 

MACT floor control technology and 

calculating the MACT floor using 

emissions information from all units, 

not only best-performing units, that 

used the MACT floor technology. EPA 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

recognized that the Court rejected this 

methodology in the Cement Kilns case 

in which the Court rejected EPA’s 

MACT floor approach under CAA 

section 112 and concluded that EPA 

may account for variability by setting 

the floor at a level that reasonably 

estimates the performance of the best 

controlled sources under the worst 

foreseeable conditions but not the worst 

foreseeable conditions faced by any unit 

in the source category. Id. at 865. The 

MACT processes under CAA sections 

112 and 129 are essentially the same, 

thus the decision identified a flaw in 

EPA’s 2000 CISWI standards. 

CAA section 129 requires EPA to set 

the MACT floor based on emissions 

limitations actually achieved by the 

best-performing solid waste incineration 

units. In addition, the Court has made 

it abundantly clear that in issuing 

revised MACT standards pursuant to 

remand, EPA may not ignore this 

Court’s intervening holdings: 

If the Environmental Protection Agency 

disagrees with the Clean Air Act’s 

requirements for setting emissions standards, 

it should take its concerns to Congress. If 

EPA disagrees with this court’s interpretation 

of the Clean Air Act, it should seek rehearing 

en banc or file a petition for a writ of 

certiorari. In the meantime, it must obey the 

Clean Air Act as written by Congress and 

interpreted by this court. 

Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick), 479 F.3d 875, 

884 (DC Cir. 2007). 

The best way to ascertain the actual 

emissions limitations achieved by the 

best-performing units, and thus comply 

with the Court’s dictates, is to use data 

reflecting the actual emissions of 

operating units. For that reason, EPA 

collected data from solid waste 

incineration units, including the 

existing units in the incinerator 

subcategory, pursuant to a CAA section 

114 ICR. In establishing the revised 

CISWI standards, we used the emissions 

information from the existing sources in 

each subcategory to set the MACT 

limits. For the incinerator subcategory, 

we determined that the information 

available from the 2000 rulemaking was 

insufficient and limited, and that it did 

not represent the current emissions 

limitations achieved by the sources in 

that subcategory since many of the units 

in that data set have since shut down. 

Notwithstanding that clear statutory 

mandate to establish the MACT floors 

based on the emission limitations 

actually achieved by the bestperforming sources, commenters assert 

that EPA’s promulgation of the CISWI 

standards for the incinerators 

subcategory conflicts with the intent of 

the statute. Commenters use the term 

‘‘MACT-on-MACT’’ to give the false 

impression that EPA’s resetting of the 

MACT floors pursuant to CAA section 

129(a)(2) somehow requires sources to 

constantly upgrade their control 

technologies. Commenters’ MACT-onMACT label is based on the faulty 

premise that the original MACT floors 

accurately reflected what the statute 

required. Although the units in the 

incinerators’ subcategory had to comply 

with the 2000 MACT floors, the 

standards were not established based on 

the performance of the best-performing 

units as the statute requires and, 

therefore, the limitations are likely 

considerably higher than the limits 

being achieved by the then existing best 

controlled incinerator units. 

Accordingly, a more accurate label for 

the MACT standards as EPA reproposed them in 2009 might be: 

‘‘MACT-on-Unsupportable-StandardsErroneously-Labeled-as-MACT.’’ 

We also disagree with commenters’ 

assertion that we should not use the 

new emissions information from units 

in the incinerator subcategory, and 

instead base the MACT standards for the 

incinerator subcategory on the 

population of pre-2000 CISWI 

incinerators and their emissions data to 

establish the revised MACT floors. The 

first problem with this approach is that, 

as commenters note, many of the then 

existing incinerator units are no longer 

in operation. Section 129(a)(2) of the 

CAA requires EPA to establish 

standards for new units based on the 

‘‘best controlled similar unit’’ and, for 

existing units, based on ‘‘the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of units in 

the category.’’ We fail to see how the 

statute would allow us to consider 

emissions limitations from sources no 

longer in existence or ignore the 

emissions information on which we 

based the revised standards, and instead 

rely on information that does not reflect 

what sources are actually achieving 

today. Furthermore, even if we believed 

we had the authority to ignore the new 

data and establish the standards based 

on the inventory of units in existence 

before the 2000 CISWI standards, we do 

not have sufficient data from those units 

on which to base MACT standards 

based on that pre-2000 universe of 

sources. Specifically, EPA has data on 

only 17 units out of an estimated 112 

units then in existence, and we have a 

complete data set for only 12 units. 

Because we do not have a complete data 

set, EPA cannot determine whether the 

then existing units for which we have 

data from that time period were bestperforming units at that time, such that 

we could develop MACT standards 

consistent with the statute, and there is 

no mechanism by which EPA could 

reconstruct the category at this time. 

Finally, we disagree with 

commenters’ assertion that the units in 

the incinerator subcategory are unable 

to meet the revised CISWI standards. As 

stated above, the emissions data upon 

which the revised standards rely comes 

directly from CISWI units that have 

achieved the resulting levels, and we 

accounted for variability in establishing 

the standards to account for the 

performance of sources over a period 

time and different operating conditions. 

We believe that together this 

demonstrates that the incinerator units 

can achieve the individual standards, 

though admittedly units may have to 

take additional steps to comply with the 

validly established MACT standards. 

3. Methodology (UL or UPL) 

Comment: At proposal, EPA requested 

comment on whether an alternate 

statistical interval should be used, the 

99 percent UPL. Some commenters 

supported the use of the 99 percent 

UPL, citing cases where this statistical 

interval had been used in other 

rulemakings for boilers and cement 

kilns. Several commenters stated that 

the statistical method used by EPA in 

setting the CISWI MACT floors is flawed 

due to the use of data sets that are not 

statistically significant. Commenters 

asserted that the 99 percent UL floor is 

calculated from data which 99 percent 

of units in MACT floor data population 

would fall below, which they argue sets 

up an automatic 1 percent failure rate 

for the top 12 percent sources. 

Commenters request that this be 

addressed by using a statistical 

approach which increases the allowance 

for variability of the data set. 

One commenter stated that since EPA 

is using a limited data set that in some 

cases contains predominantly nondetect 

values to set floors that units must meet 

at all times, consideration of variability, 

and use of the appropriate statistical 

approach is crucial to ensuring units 

can achieve the emission limits. The 

commenter argues that in cases of 

severely limited or censored data sets, 

EPA should use either the 99.9 percent 

UL or use the UTL, which is meant for 

use in situations where the amount of 

data available does not represent the 

entire population. The commenter 

maintains that EPA is inappropriately 

using the 99 percent UL statistic to 

calculate the proposed CISWI emission 

limits because this does not capture 

enough variability in emissions to 

ensure the limits will be met by the top 

performers 100 percent of the time. 

They argue that the approach is flawed, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15723 

given that the number of units the limits 

are based on is very small, and the 

limits are being developed on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis in a way 

that does not account for variability of 

the fuels and wastes being burned. The 

commenter asserts that EPA does not 

justify the appropriateness of the use of 

the 99 percent UL over the use of other 

statistical procedures typically used for 

censored or limited data. Further, the 

commenter argues that although this 

calculation methodology was used in 

the HMIWI standard, it is not consistent 

with statistical procedures used to 

develop other emission standards. For 

example, the commenters explain that 

EPA used a complicated statistical 

approach in the development of the 

HWC NESHAP standard to account for 

intra-unit variability as well as interunit variability among the units in the 

MACT floor. 

Response: In assessing sources’ 

performance, EPA may consider 

variability both in identifying which 

performers are ‘‘best’’ and in assessing 

their level of performance. Sierra Club 

v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F.3d 875, 

881–82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also 

Mossville Environmental Action Now v. 

EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 (DC Cir 

2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant 

factors and available data, to determine 

the level of emissions control that has 

been achieved by the best-performing 

sources considering these sources’ 

operating variability). The Brick MACT 

decision reiterated that EPA may 

account for variability in setting floors; 

however, the Court found that EPA 

erred in assessing variability because it 

relied on data from the worst performers 

to estimate best performers’ variability. 

The Court held that ‘‘EPA may not use 

emission levels of the worst performers 

to estimate variability of the best 

performers without a demonstrated 

relationship between the two.’’ 479 F.3d 

at 882. 

In determining the MACT limits, we 

first determine the floor, which, for 

existing sources, is the emissions 

limitation achieved in practice by the 

average of the top 12 percent of existing 

sources, or the level achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source for new sources. In this rule, EPA 

is using lowest emissions limitation as 

the measure of best performance. We are 

then assessing variability of the best 

performers by using a statistical formula 

designed to estimate a MACT floor level 

that can be met by the average of the 

best-performing sources based on the 

expected distribution of future 

compliance tests (or calculated inputs in 

the case of Hg for waste-burning kilns). 

Specifically, for ERUs and wasteburning kilns, the MACT floor limit is 

an UPL, and for incinerators and small 

remote incinerators, the UL calculated 

with the student’s t-test using the TINV 

function in Microsoft Excel®. The 

student’s t-test has also been used in 

other EPA rulemakings (e.g., NSPS for 

HMIWI, NESHAP for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters) in accounting for 

variability. 

As we discussed at proposal, the UL 

computation assumes that the data 

available represents the entire 

population of data from the bestperforming CISWI units used to 

establish the standards. We have 

concluded that this statement applies to 

the incinerator and small remote 

incinerator subcategories, since we 

believe our inventory of these units is 

more certain than is our inventory of 

ERUs and waste-burning kilns for 

several reasons. In the 2000 CISWI rule, 

EPA only regulated solid waste 

incineration units that operated for the 

sole purpose of disposing of waste. 

Many incinerators subject to the 2000 

CISWI rule ceased operation before the 

compliance date for those standards. 

Once the revised CISWI standards are 

finalized, these types of solid waste 

incineration units (i.e., incinerators and 

small remote incinerators) will either 

comply with the revised CISWI 

standards or cease operation, much as 

they did in response to the 2000 

standards. The same is not necessarily 

correct for units in the ERUs and wasteburning kilns subcategories. For those 

sources, once the CISWI standards are 

promulgated, they will likely either 

comply with the CISWI standards or 

cease burning solid waste and comply 

with the applicable NESHAP. We think 

units in those subcategories will 

generally not cease operation. 

Furthermore, because incinerator and 

small remote incinerator unit’s sole 

purpose is waste disposal, the only 

practical manner in which additional 

sources will be added to the inventory 

is through new construction. Again, this 

is different than for ERUs and wasteburning kilns because, for those 

subcategories, additional units may be 

added if existing boilers (and process 

heaters) and cement kilns begin 

combusting solid waste and thereby 

become ERUs and waste-burning kilns, 

respectively. For these reasons, we 

believe we have a complete inventory of 

units in the incinerators and small 

remote incinerators subcategories. 

We sent Phase II testing requests to all 

incinerator and small remote incinerator 

units that are in our inventory. We 

required testing for all incinerator and 

small remote incinerator units, making 

allowances for identical units from a 

facility to only test one unit, and not 

each identical unit. Therefore, our data 

represent the entire population of data 

for these two subcategories. For this 

reason, we believe the UL is the 

appropriate statistical approach for the 

incinerators and small remote 

incinerators subcategories. The 99 

percent UL represents a value that 99 

percent of the data in the MACT floor 

population would fall below, and 

therefore accounts for the run-to-run 

and test-to-test variability observed in 

the MACT floor data set. 

For ERUs and waste-burning kilns, 

however, we recognize that our data 

may not represent the entire population 

of units. As stated above, there is greater 

uncertainty involved in determining the 

universe of sources in these two source 

categories because we cannot be certain 

that we have identified all the units that 

would be considered to be burning solid 

waste, had the newly-adopted definition 

for solid waste been promulgated and 

effective at the time of testing. We also 

do not know whether the units we have 

identified will continue to burn waste 

after the final CISWI standards are 

issued. Unlike incinerators and small 

remote incinerators, the primary 

purpose of waste-burning kilns and 

ERUs is the production of a product or 

generation of energy, not the disposal of 

waste. Therefore, operators will decide 

whether it is economically feasible to 

continue or start combusting solid waste 

to support their industrial process and, 

if they decide that it is not, they will use 

traditional fuels or non-waste inputs 

instead of solid waste. For example, an 

ERU that is combusting solid waste that 

has little or no cost may decide that 

compliance with CISWI is an 

economically viable option compared to 

purchasing traditional fuels at market 

rates; but, if the costs of compliance 

with CISWI exceed the costs of 

traditional fuel, the source will likely 

cease burning solid waste. Conversely, a 

boiler that currently combusts only 

traditional fuels may be presented with 

a solid waste fuel option that makes it 

to their economic advantage to begin 

combusting solid waste. For these 

reasons, the population of units in the 

ERU and waste-burning kiln 

subcategories is inherently uncertain. 

We have for these reasons concluded 

that a prediction interval (e.g., UPL) is 

more appropriate for these two 

subcategories, and this approach is also 

consistent with the NESHAP statistical 

approach being used for the non-wasteburning counterparts of these units (i.e., 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

boilers/process heaters and cement 

kilns). 

A prediction interval for a future 

observation is an interval that will, with 

a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other prespecified) randomly selected 

observation from a population. In other 

words, the prediction interval estimates 

what the upper bound of future values 

will be, based upon present or past 

background samples taken. The UPL 

consequently represents the value 

which we can expect the mean of future 

observations (3-run average) to fall 

below within a specified level of 

confidence, based upon the results of an 

independent sample from the same 

population. In other words, if we were 

to select at random a future test 

condition from any of the top 12 percent 

(MACT floor pool) of sources (average of 

3 runs), we can be 99 percent confident 

that the reported level will fall at or 

below the UPL value. Use of the UPL is 

appropriate in this rulemaking for these 

two subcategories because it sets a limit 

any single or future source can meet 

based on the performance of members of 

the MACT floor pool. 

The UPL is calculated as shown in 

Equation 1: 

Where: 

x ̄ = Mean of the sample data set 

n = Number of test runs 

m = Number of test runs in the compliance 

average 

s2 = Observed variance 

t = Student t distribution statistic 

This calculation was performed using 

the following spreadsheet functions: 

Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL 

= AVERAGE (Test Runs in Top 12 

percent) + [STDEV (Test Runs in Top 12 

percent) × TINV (2 × probability, n-1 

degrees of freedom) * SQRT ((1/n) + (1/ 

m))], for a one-tailed t-value, probability 

of 0.01, and sample size of n. The value 

of ‘‘m’’ denotes the number of future 

observations, and it is used to calculate 

an estimate of the variance of the 

average of m-future observations. 

This formula uses a pooled variance 

(in the s2 term) that encompasses all the 

data-point to data-point variability of 

the best-performing sources comprising 

the MACT floor pool for each pollutant. 

Where variability was calculated using 

the UPL statistical approach, we used 

the average (or sample mean) and 

sample standard deviation, which are 

two statistical measures calculated from 

the data distributions for each pollutant. 

The average is a central value of a data 

set, and the standard deviation is the 

common measure of the dispersion of 

the data set around the average. We note 

here that the methodology accounts for 

both short-term and long-term 

variability and encompasses run-to-run 

and test-to-test variability. The formula 

also applies differently depending on 

how the underlying data set is 

distributed. To this end, EPA carefully 

evaluated the data sets for each HAP to 

ascertain whether the data were 

normally distributed, or distributed in 

some other manner (i.e., lognormal). 

After applying standard and rigorous 

statistical tests (involving the degree of 

‘‘skewness’’ of the data), we determined 

the distributions for each pollutant, 

which in turn determined the final form 

of the UPL equation. See ‘‘CISWI 

Emission Limit Calculations for Existing 

and New Sources’’ in the docket. 

The results are floors that reasonably 

estimate the performance over time of 

the best-performing sources, as do the 

standards based on those floors. It is 

true that many sources will need to 

install controls to meet these standards, 

and that these controls have significant 

costs (although EPA estimates that the 

rule’s costs are substantially outweighed 

by its benefits). See section VI of this 

preamble. This is part of the expected 

MACT process where, by definition, the 

averaged performance of the very best 

performers sets the minimum level of 

the standard. The EPA believes that it 

has followed the statute and applicable 

case law in developing its MACT floors. 

The summary of results of UL and UPL 

calculations and the MACT floor 

emission limits for each subcategory for 

existing and new sources are presented 

in Tables 4 through 9 of this preamble. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—PM, HG, CD AND PB

Subcategory Parameter PM 

(mg/dscm) 

Hg 

(mg/dscm) 

Cd 

(mg/dscm) 

Pb 

(mg/dscm) 

Incinerators ...................................... No. of sources in subcategory = ....................... 26 26 26 26 

No. in MACT floor = .......................................... 4 4 4 4 

Avg of top 12% .................................................. 4.571 0.0006 0.0004 0.0013 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = ........................... 33.6004 0.00533 0.00256 0.00352 

Limit = ................................................................ 34 0.0054 0.0026 0.0036 

ERUs—Solids .................................. No. of sources in subcategory = ....................... 30 30 30 30 

No. in MACT floor = .......................................... 4 4 4 4 

Avg of top 12% .................................................. 2.85061 0.0000520 0.0001713 0.0012704 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ......................... 246.9158 0.0003 0.0003(a) 0.0035(a) 

Limit = ................................................................ 250 0.00033 0.00051(a) 0.0036(a) 

ERUs—Liquid/Gas .......................... No. of sources in subcategory = ....................... 6 6 6 6 

No. in MACT floor = .......................................... 1 1 1 1 

Avg of top 12% .................................................. 18.588 0.001 0.001 0.005 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ......................... 101.7548 1.313 0.023 0.096 

Limit = ................................................................ 110 0.0013 0.023 0.096 

Waste-burning kilns ......................... No. of sources in subcategory = ....................... 12 12 12 12 

No. in MACT floor = .......................................... 2 2 2 2 

Avg of top 12% .................................................. 2.8378 N/A 0.0002 0.0012 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ......................... 6.1115 0.0079(b) 0.0005 0.0026 

Limit = ................................................................ 6.2 0.0079(b) 0.00048 0.0026 

Small, remote incinerators .............. No. of sources in subcategory = ....................... 14 14 14 14 

No. in MACT floor = .......................................... 2 2 2 2 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6ER21MR11.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15725 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—PM, HG, CD AND PB—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter PM 

(mg/dscm) 

Hg 

(mg/dscm) 

Cd 

(mg/dscm) 

Pb 

(mg/dscm) 

Avg of top 12% .................................................. 84.052 0.0012 0.027 0.238 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = ........................... 220.826 0.006 0.603 2.657 

Limit = ................................................................ 230 0.0057 0.61 2.7 

aA calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. For further explanation, see 

section V. of the preamble. bFor details on this calculation, see the memorandum ‘‘CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ in the Docket for this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—CO, NOX AND SO2

Subcategory Parameter CO 

(ppmvd) 

NOX

(ppmvd) 

SO2

(ppmvd) 

Incinerators ................................................ No. of sources in subcategory = ..................................... 26 26 26 

No. in MACT floor = ........................................................ 4 4 4 

Avg of top 12% ............................................................... 16.800 14.7 0.733 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......................................... 32.378 52.419 10.418 

Limit = .............................................................................. 36 53 11 

ERUs—Liquid/Gas ..................................... No. of sources in subcategory = ..................................... 6 6 6 

No. in MACT floor = ........................................................ 1 1 1 

Avg of top 12% ............................................................... 36.00 58.733 641.352 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ....................................... 36.00 75.6305 712.3156 

Limit = .............................................................................. 36 76 720 

ERUs—Biomass ........................................ No. of sources in subcategory = ..................................... 21 21 21 

No. in MACT floor = ........................................................ 3 3 3 

Avg of top 12% ............................................................... 247.3333 86.7595 1.4039 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ....................................... 485.3681 287.9536 6.1751 

Limit = .............................................................................. 490 290 6.2 

ERUs—Coal ............................................... No. of sources in subcategory = ..................................... 9 9 9 

No. in MACT floor = ........................................................ 2 2 2 

Avg of top 12% ............................................................... 40.3031 307.2352 624.0054 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ....................................... 58.0304 330.7464 641.9307 

Limit = .............................................................................. 59 340 650 

Waste-burning kilns ................................... No. of sources in subcategory = ..................................... 12 12 12 

No. in MACT floor = ........................................................ 2 2 2 

Avg of top 12% ............................................................... 70.4280 437.7682 15.6660 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ....................................... 105.0945 536.4268 37.9704 

Limit = .............................................................................. 110 540 38 

Small, remote incinerators ......................... No. of sources in subcategory = ..................................... 14 14 14

No. in MACT floor = ........................................................ 2 2 2 

Avg of top 12% ............................................................... 12.756 67.212 1.403 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......................................... 19.104 237.326 410.006 

Limit = .............................................................................. 20 240 420 

aA calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—HCL AND D/F 

Subcategory Parameter HCl 

(ppmvd) 

D/F (TMB) 

(ng/dscm) 

D/F (total TEQ 

basis) 

(ng/dscm) a

Incinerators ............................................ No. of sources in subcategory = ............................... 26 26 26 

No. in MACT floor = ................................................... 4 4 4 

Avg of top 12% .......................................................... 0.181 0.238 0.004302537 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = .................................... 28.045 4.504 0.1286 

Limit = ........................................................................ 29 4.6 0.13 

ERUs—Solids ........................................ No. of sources in subcategory = ............................... 30 30 30 

No. in MACT floor = ................................................... 4 4 4 

Avg of top 12% .......................................................... 0.16719 0.093487 .0088932 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ................................. 0.4456 0.3443 0.0586 

Limit = ........................................................................ 0.45 0.35 0.059 

ERUs—Liquid/Gas ................................ No. of sources in subcategory = ............................... 6 6 6 

No. in MACT floor = ................................................... 1 1 1 

Avg of top 12% .......................................................... 4.440 1.110 0.0463 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ................................. 4.927 13869.523 30.0133 

Limit = ........................................................................ (a)14 14,000 31 

Waste-burning kilns ............................... No. of sources in subcategory = ............................... 12 12 12 

No. in MACT floor = ................................................... 2 2 2 

Avg of top 12% .......................................................... 3.5665 0.0752 0.0005 

99% UPL of top% (test runs) = ................................. 24.8634 0.1909 0.0070 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—HCL AND D/F—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter HCl 

(ppmvd) 

D/F (TMB) 

(ng/dscm) 

D/F (total TEQ 

basis) 

(ng/dscm) a

Limit = ........................................................................ 25 0.2 0.007 

Small, remote incinerators .................... No. of sources in subcategory = ............................... 14 14 14 

No. in MACT floor = ................................................... 2 2 2 

Avg of top 12% .......................................................... 35.289 333.080 7.288 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = .................................... 214.233 1183.196 56.933 

Limit = ........................................................................ 220 1,200 57 

aA calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR PM AND METALS FOR NEW SOURCES

Subcategory Parameter PM 

(mg/dscm) 

Hg 

(mg/dscm) 

Cd 

(mg/dscm) 

Pb 

(mg/dscm) 

Incinerators ...................................... Avg of top performer .......................................... 3.0608 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ............................... 17.7867 0.000151 0.0023 (a)0.0015 

Limit = ................................................................ 18 0.00016 0.0023 (a)0.0019 

ERUs—Solids .................................. Avg of top performer .......................................... 2.640916 0.00003192 0.00013696 0.00045367 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................ 1094.5327 0.0028 2.8369 0.0030 

Limit = ................................................................ (b)250 (b)0.00033 (b)0.00051 0.0031 

ERUs—Liquid/Gas .......................... Avg of top performer .......................................... 18.588 0.001 0.001 0.005

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................ 101.7548 1.313 0.023 0.096 

Limit = ................................................................ 110 (d)0.00025 0.023 0.096 

Waste-burning kilns ......................... Avg of top performer .......................................... 1.2173 N/A 0.0001 0.0011 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................ 2.3591 (c)0.0062 0.0006 0.045852 

Limit = ................................................................ (a)2.5 (c)0.0062 (b)0.00048 (b)0.0026 

Small, remote incinerators .............. Avg of top performer .......................................... 83.534 0.001 0.011 0.086 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ............................... 733.5002 0.0013 0.6692 0.2589 

Limit = ................................................................ (b)230 (a)0.0035 (b)0.61 0.26 

aA calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

bThe NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit. 

c Hg limit was developed using material input data from CISWI kilns identified within the Portland Cement NESHAP database. See the memorandum ‘‘CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details on this calculation. d Dioxin/furan TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs—liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major source boilers. See ‘‘CISWI 

Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—CO, NOX, SO2

Subcategory Parameter CO 

(ppmvd) 

NOX

(ppmvd) 

SO2

(ppmvd) 

Incinerators ........................................................... Avg of top performer ............................................ 12.000 9.0333 0.2233 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ................................. 12.000 22.3685 39.5108 

Limit = ................................................................... 12 23 (a)11 

ERUs—Liquid/Gas ................................................ Avg of top performer ............................................ 36.000 58.733 641.352 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................... 36.000 75.6305 712.3156 

Limit = ................................................................... 36 76 720 

ERUs—Biomass ................................................... Avg of top performer ............................................ 153.0000 62.3233 1.0492 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................... 153.0000 344.7699 20.8889 

Limit = ................................................................... 160 (a)290 (a)6.2 

ERUs—Coal .......................................................... Avg of top performer ............................................ 35.4778 307.2352 624.0054 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................... 45.0280 330.7464 641.9307 

Limit = ................................................................... 46 340 650 

Waste-burning kilns .............................................. Avg of top performer ............................................ 58.57 1.4742 7.2187 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ............................... 89.7816 195.2522 124.3390 

Limit = ................................................................... 90 200 (a)38 

Small, remote incinerators .................................... Avg of top performer ............................................ 12.000 60.769 0.131 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ................................. 12.000 77.283 1.164 

Limit = ................................................................... 12 78 1.2 

aThe NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—HCL AND DIOXINS/FURANS

Subcategory Parameter HCl 

(ppmvd) 

D/F (TMB) 

(ng/dscm) 

D/F (Total TEQ 

basis) 

(ng/dscm) a

Incinerators .................................................. Avg of top performer ................................... 0.0413 0.0176 0.001266667 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ........................ 0.0901 0.0228 2.1464 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15727 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—HCL AND DIOXINS/FURANS—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter HCl 

(ppmvd) 

D/F (TMB) 

(ng/dscm) 

D/F (Total TEQ 

basis) 

(ng/dscm) a

Limit = .......................................................... 0.091 (a)0.052 (b)0.13 

ERUs—Solids .............................................. Avg of top performer ................................... 0.068133 0.0161 0.000501333 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ...................... 0.5435 0.0674 0.0103 

Limit = .......................................................... (b)0.45 0.068 0.011 

ERUs—Liquid/Gas ....................................... Avg of top performer ................................... 4.440 1.110 0.046335368 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ...................... (a)13.2107 13869.5228 30.0133 

Limit = .......................................................... (a)14 (no limit) (c)0.002 

Waste-burning kilns ..................................... Avg of top performer ................................... 0.3994 0.0562 0.000105 

99% UPL of top (test runs) = ...................... 0.3994 0.0895 0.0029 

Limit = .......................................................... (a)3 0.09 0.003 

Small, remote incinerators ........................... Avg of top performer ................................... 27.678 299.827 4.868700057 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ........................ 196.6311 1700.6082 30.0810 

Limit = .......................................................... 200 (d)1,200 31 

aA calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

bThe NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit. 

c Dioxin/furan TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs—liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major source boilers. See ‘‘CISWI 

Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details. 

The measurements for HCl from 

waste-burning kilns are very close to the 

detection limit for analytic Method 321 

actually calculated in the field for HCl. 

As discussed elsewhere, we have 

implemented a procedure for adjusting 

limits to account for measurement 

variability using data at the detection 

limit. This results in a floor of 3 ppmvd 

for the new waste-burning kilns for HCl, 

adjusted to a dry basis at 7 percent 

oxygen. This represents the lowest level 

that can be reliably measured using this 

test method, and we therefore believe 

that it is the lowest level we can set as 

the MACT limit taking the appropriate 

measurement variability into account. 

The Hg standard for waste-burning 

kilns reflects 30 days of data for all Hg 

inputs, reasonable estimates of control 

device performance (for the few 

controlled sources), plus a reasonable 

statistical methodology to account for 

variability (including variability of Hg 

content of kiln inputs). EPA also used 

a pooled variability factor (pooling 

variability for all kilns in the MACT 

floor pool), which increased variability 

estimates. This analysis is based upon 

data collected for development of the 

final Portland Cement NESHAP, but 

screened such that the CISWI analysis 

used only the data from kilns that 

would have been identified as CISWI 

units had the newly-adopted solid waste 

definition been promulgated and 

effective at the time of performance 

testing, and converted to a 

concentration basis for consistency with 

the CISWI standards. See ‘‘CISWI 

Emission Limits Calculations for 

Existing and New Sources.’’ 

4. Statistical Analysis (Lognormal vs. 

Normal Distribution) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that EPA’s data distribution 

designations are flawed and that EPA 

must default to non-normal 

distributions unless sufficient data are 

available to conduct robust analyses 

which unambiguously show the 

distribution can only be described by 

normal statistics. One commenter 

suggests that the non-normal 

distribution is consistent with both 

conventional wisdom and EPA’s own 

guidance in ‘‘Guidance for Data Quality 

Assessment: Practical Methods for Data 

Analysis’’, EPA/600/R–96/084, July 

2000, which holds that it is more likely 

that environmental data are distributed 

log-normally. Commenters state that 

where there is any uncertainty 

according to EPA’s criteria using Excel 

skewness and kurtosis, EPA biases its 

findings on distributions in favor of 

normality, the opposite of EPA’s own 

guidance. The commenter states that 

EPA’s Guidance for Data Assessment 

provides that the lognormal distribution 

is ‘‘a commonly met distribution in 

environmental work,’’ also stating 

‘‘Environmental data commonly exhibit 

frequency distributions that are nonnegative and skewed with heavy or long 

right tails,’’ and ‘‘The lognormal 

distribution is a commonly used 

distribution for modeling environmental 

contaminant data.’’ 

Response: EPA has revised the 

methodology to use the lognormal 

distribution when the normal 

distribution is not clearly indicated 

based on the skewness and kurtosis tests 

to be more consistent with EPA’s 

guidance in ‘‘Guidance for Data Quality 

Assessment: Practical Methods for Data 

Analysis’’ EPA/600/R–96/084, July 

2000. 

5. Treatment of Detection Levels 

Comment: Many commenters argued 

that EPA should not use data below 

detection limits to set standards. They 

contend that EPA’s use of data below 

MDLs to set standards invalidates EPA‘s 

analysis, creates emissions limits that 

are biased low, and sets emission 

standards that would not allow facilities 

to demonstrate compliance without 

taking undue risk of facing noncompliance. They suggested that no 

numerical emission standard for a 

pollutant should be set below the 

measurement ability of the reference test 

method. Some commenters stated that 

EPA does not appear to have 

systematically screened the emissions 

data for cases where a detection limit 

should be applied, and has erroneously 

recorded zero values for emissions 

where those are reported in the original 

test reports. The commenters further 

assert that in addition to failing to 

promulgate a method for measuring 

detection limits for air emission test 

methods, EPA has ignored the issue of 

errors associated with quantifying 

source emissions when they are low. 

At proposal, EPA requested comment 

on calculating a three times method 

detection limit in cases where the floor 

emissions limit did not adequately 

account for variability. While one 

commenter supports this method, 

another argues that this approach is 

unlawful and inconsistent with the 

CAA’s directive to set the MACT floor 

at the emissions level achieved by the 

best-performing sources because it 

allows for facilities to emit at far higher 

levels than the best-performing sources. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: Although we disagree with 

commenters on the use of nondetect 

values, we do agree that at very low 

emission levels where emissions tests 

result in nondetect values, the inherent 

imprecision in the pollutant 

measurement method has a large 

influence on the reliability of the data 

underlying the MACT floor emission 

limit. Because of sample and emission 

matrix effects, laboratory techniques, 

sample size, and other factors, MDLs 

normally vary from test to test for any 

specific test method and pollutant 

measurement. The confidence level that 

a value measured at the detection level 

is greater than zero is about 99 percent. 

The expected measurement imprecision 

for an emissions value occurring at or 

near the MDL is about 40 to 50 percent. 

Pollutant measurement imprecision 

decreases to a consistent level of 10 to 

15 percent for values measured at a 

level about three times the MDL. The 

approach EPA has used to account for 

measurement variability begins by 

defining a MDL that is representative of 

the data used in the data pool. The first 

step in the approach is to identify the 

highest test specific MDL reported in a 

data set that is also equal to or less than 

the average emission calculated for the 

data set. This approach has the 

advantage of relying on the data 

collected to develop the MACT floor 

emission limit, while to some degree, 

minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an 

inordinately high MDL (e.g., the sample 

volume was too small, the laboratory 

technique was insufficiently sensitive or 

the procedure for determining the 

detection level was other than that 

specified). The second step is to 

determine the value equal to three times 

the representative MDL and compare it 

to the calculated MACT floor emission 

limit. If three times the representative 

MDL were less than the calculated 

MACT floor emission limit, we 

concluded that measurement variability 

is adequately addressed, and we did not 

adjust the calculated MACT floor 

emission limit. If, on the other hand, the 

value equal to three times the 

representative MDL was greater than the 

calculated MACT floor emission limit, 

we concluded that the calculated MACT 

floor emission limit does not account 

entirely for measurement variability. We 

therefore used the value equal to three 

times the MDL in place of the calculated 

MACT floor emission limit to ensure 

that the MACT floor emission limit 

accounts for measurement variability 

and imprecision. 

6. Use of CEMS Data 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that EPA did not include CO, SO2, or 

NOX data from CEMS that was provided 

by companies and resides in EPA’s 

databases. Commenters claimed that 

after discussions with EPA rule writers 

in which affected sources were 

encouraged to gather CEMS data as an 

alternative to stack test data, facilities 

purposefully submitted such data and 

these data should be used. Some 

commenters suggested that it is 

important that the MACT floor data 

represent the real-world variability of 

emissions and that CEMS data is clearly 

superior to stack test data in this regard. 

Commenters suggested that EPA may 

believe it is not feasible to incorporate 

CEMS data along with stack test data in 

its MACT floor analyses due to the 

method it chose to rank and statistically 

analyze the data. The commenters 

recommended using the UPL in the 

statistical analysis to allow CEMS data 

to be used along with stack test to set 

standards. Further, one commenter 

suggested that EPA obtain hourly 

average CEMS data over a suitable 

period of time (several months or as 

much data as can be readily obtained) 

from each source it can identify that 

either has a permanent CEMS installed 

on the unit or provided data in its 

response to the ICR survey or testing 

program. 

Response: In response to the ICR 

survey, most facilities that reported 

CEMS data provided it as 24-hour block 

averages. We used these data to 

determine baseline emissions and to 

calculate costs and impacts of the final 

rule. EPA did not propose to use 24- 

hour block averages in setting emissions 

standards for NOX, SO2, and CO. We 

determined that to do so for these 

pollutants would be inconsistent with 

the sampling time for the stack test data 

and the test methods used to determine 

compliance with the final standards. For 

example, typical instrument stack test 

method test runs would be around 1 

hour or less for NOX, CO, or SO2 stack 

tests representing essentially 3-hour 

average of emissions. A 3-hour average 

is not comparable to data obtained over 

a 24-hour sampling with a CEMS. In 

response to comments, EPA has 

incorporated into the database hourly 

CEMS data that were voluntarily 

submitted by some units that are best 

performers within their subcategory, 

and where no stack test data are 

available, and used these data in 

conjunction with stack test data from 

other best performers to calculate the 

MACT floor emission limits. 

For a response to the comment on 

using the UPL in the statistical analysis 

to calculate emissions, see section V.B 

of this preamble. 

C. Control Technology Assumptions for 

the Floor and Beyond-the-Floor 

1. Control Technologies and Cost 

Assumptions 

Comment: Many commenters argued 

that EPA underestimated the total cost 

of controls and monitoring equipment 

required to comply with the emissions 

standards. Several commenters stated 

that PM concentrations will increase 

with the addition of SNCR and ACI 

systems and will require facilities to 

invest in baghouse systems. Some 

commenters asserted that there is no 

documentation to support that LBMS 

can control CO emissions from boilers 

to achieve the emission levels. 

Commenters also argued that biomassto-energy facilities required to install an 

oxidation catalyst to meet the CO 

emission limits may have space 

limitations or other engineering 

constraints and may not be able to 

achieve the emission limits. One 

commenter argued that packed bed 

scrubbers to control HCl and SO2 from 

boilers is impractical on units with high 

flow rates, high PM loading, and high 

inlet pollutant concentration. Some 

commenters suggested that EPA does 

not have an adequate understanding of 

how to reduce or control D/F emissions 

from cement kilns. Some commenters 

asserted that the cost memorandum 

assumes that for units requiring less 

than 10 percent improvement in NOX, 

‘‘minor adjustments were considered 

sufficient.’’ They stated that EPA further 

assumes that these adjustments (such as 

air handling and distribution 

adjustments in the firebox) could be 

made at no additional cost. The 

commenters contended however, that 

EPA provides no evidence in the record 

to support either of these assumptions 

and that there are no boiler adjustments 

of this type that are done at no cost. 

Response: EPA first notes that the rule 

does not specify particular controls that 

sources must install and operate. 

Sources may evaluate the emissions 

from their source and the emission 

limits that apply, and then judge for 

themselves which controls may be best 

suited for their particular unit to meet 

the emission limits. The control 

technology assumptions and cost 

estimates are assumptions of controls 

which may be required and an estimate 

of costs to retrofit and operate these 

controls. 

EPA has, however, revised the costing 

assumptions and methodology since 

proposal to address issues presented by 

commenters. For example, in cases 

where ACI is being required, we have 

assumed that FF will need to be 

installed to capture the spent carbon or, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15729 

if FF is already present, improvements 

will be required to the FF to ensure 

capture of the sorbent. For larger ERUs 

that require acid gas control, we have 

assumed that dry sorbent injection 

followed by DIFF will be the preferred 

technology rather than wet scrubbers. 

For NOX control, we acknowledge that 

small adjustments at no cost may not be 

feasible for all affected units to meet the 

limits and that sources may want to 

have some operational flexibility so that 

they have suitable margin of compliance 

with the emission limits. Therefore, we 

have used SNCR as the control 

technology if even small NOX

reductions are required to meet the 

limit. We have not quantified PM 

increases due to SNCR addition. PM 

increases are a function of flue gas 

characteristics of each unit, and we do 

not have data for our units that would 

allow us to determine whether 

secondary particulate formation would 

occur in certain units that an additional 

PM control device would be required for 

the unit. We note, however, that the 

units that require an SNCR to meet the 

limits are also anticipated to need a PM 

control device to meet the limits for 

other pollutants. Therefore, we expect 

that affected sources would account for 

potential secondary PM formation in 

designing their overall air pollution 

control system. 

2. Technology-Based Beyond-the-Floor 

Comments 

Comment: Some commenters argued 

that EPA’s decision to consider beyondthe-floor limits equal to the new source 

floors was arbitrary and unlawful. The 

commenters recommended that instead 

EPA should examine multiple control 

technologies to determine what level of 

emissions reductions are ‘‘achievable’’ 

based on cost and other factors. The 

commenters asserted that beyond-thefloor technologies should be evaluated 

for all pollutants in each subcategory of 

the CISWI rule. 

Response: We have revised our 

beyond-the-floor analysis from that set 

forth in the proposed rule to consider 

the performance of available technology. 

For existing units, rather than 

considering as the only beyond-the-floor 

option the potential of existing sources 

to meet the new source limits, we have 

considered the technologies available to 

control the various HAP and the 

reasonable control efficiencies of those 

technologies. As discussed at proposal, 

EPA may adopt emissions limitations 

and requirements that are more 

stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., 

beyond-the-floor). Unlike the MACT 

floor methodology, however, EPA must 

consider costs, nonair-quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements when considering beyondthe-floor alternatives. 

In developing this final rule, EPA first 

analyzed the controls available and 

being used for each subcategory and 

compared this to the controls necessary 

for units to meet the MACT floor limits. 

We then evaluated the different 

combinations of available emission 

control technologies and practices, addon controls different from those 

required to meet the MACT floor limits, 

that existing units would have to 

employ were we to require additional 

emissions reductions beyond-the-floor 

levels set forth above. If we determined 

that any of these additional control 

options were technically feasible for the 

units in a subcategory, we then analyzed 

the costs, nonair quality environmental 

impacts and benefits associated with 

adopting the identified control option to 

determine whether the beyond-the-floor 

control was reasonable. The following 

discussions detail this analysis for each 

subcategory. 

Incinerators. Existing units in this 

subcategory are equipped with 

afterburners, FFs, and wet scrubbers. 

We estimate that to comply with the 

existing source MACT floor limits units 

in this subcategory may require the 

addition of or improvement of an 

existing FF for the control of PM, Cd 

and Pb; wet scrubbers for the control of 

HCl and SO2 for many of the units that 

currently do not have wet scrubbers; 

ACI system with a FF for the control of 

D/F and Hg; and in several cases, 

afterburner retrofits for the control of 

CO; and SNCR for NOX in certain 

instances. These controls are effective 

and demonstrated on this subcategory of 

units for the pollutants they are 

intended to control (see ‘‘Revised CISWI 

Control Costs Memorandum’’ in the 

docket). We estimate that some 

incinerator units in this category will 

require retrofits of existing control or 

installation of additional control 

technologies as set forth above to 

comply with the MACT floor limits. 

Furthermore, as part of our costing 

and impacts analysis (discussed in 

section VI of this preamble), we 

evaluated whether existing facilities 

would choose to cease burning solid 

waste in incineration units after 

promulgation of the final CISWI 

standards if alternative disposal options, 

primarily diverting waste to a landfill, 

were less costly. Based on the analysis, 

we expect that all but three facilities 

with units in the incinerators 

subcategory will choose to cease 

operations once the proposed MACT 

floor limits are promulgated. The three 

units that we estimate to remain open 

will likely add ACI system/FF and one 

will add SNCR for NOX control to meet 

the MACT floor limits. There is no 

better control beyond the ACI system/FF 

for D/F, Hg, PM, Cd, and Pb control. The 

reductions these units will require for 

meeting the metals emissions will 

typically need to be greater than 95 

percent, therefore necessitating very 

efficient FF systems. One unit that is not 

currently meeting the NOX MACT floor 

limit must install SNCR to comply with 

the NOX floor limit. To achieve further 

reductions for NOX, the unit would 

require another control device, such as 

SCR, to comply with a beyond-the-floor 

limit, and would require the other 

remaining units to also install either 

SNCR or SCR. The cost of installing and 

operating the SCR is typically four to 

five times higher than a comparable 

SNCR (see ‘‘Revised CISWI Control Cost 

Memorandum’’), and would force this 

unit to close. In addition to cost 

considerations, SCR is typically used in 

combustion units such as industrial 

boilers and process heaters, gas 

turbines, and reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (Air Pollution 

Control Technology Fact Sheet, SCR, 

EPA–452/F–03–032), and we are not 

currently aware of any successful 

application of SCR technology to a 

waste-combustion unit. We therefore 

question whether SCR could be 

successfully applied to incineration 

units in any case. For acid gas 

performance, all three units are well 

below the MACT floor with their 

existing controls, and addition of wet 

scrubbers would only offer small 

incremental improvements in 

emissions. From a cost perspective, the 

likely result of requiring wet scrubbers 

on these units would be closure of these 

units and diversion of waste to a 

landfill. Considering these factors, we 

concluded that beyond-the-floor limits 

are unreasonable for the incinerator 

subcategory. 

Small remote incinerators. Existing 

units in this subcategory are typically 

equipped with an afterburner as the 

control device, with the facility 

sometimes employing waste segregation 

practices to a certain degree, usually to 

screen out recyclable materials and 

hazardous waste materials. We received 

several comments stating that this 

subcategory has unique climactic, 

geographic, and wildlife considerations 

that influence the applicable controls 

that are available, and commenters also 

stated that these small remote 

incinerators are the only viable waste 

disposal option in certain regions of 

Alaska. See section V of this preamble 

for more discussion from commenters 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

on these units. Of primary concern from 

a technical standpoint are controls that 

require water to operate or those that 

have a large space footprint. Waterbased controls such as wet scrubbers, 

SNCR, and even the evaporative cooling 

section of dry sorbent injection followed 

by DIFF may pose ice fogging and 

equipment freezing concerns that could 

prevent the use of the incinerator. 

To achieve the MACT floor limits, 

more than half of the units in this 

subcategory will require afterburner 

upgrades, about two-thirds of the units 

will require ACI system/FF or FF alone, 

and most will require a more robust 

materials segregation plan that removes 

chlorinated and non-ferrous metal 

components from the waste stream at 

these facilities. These controls are the 

best demonstrated technologies that are 

technologically feasible at these 

facilities, and they are sufficient to meet 

the MACT floor limits. One technology 

that is beyond-the-floor that is 

technically feasible would be higher 

efficiency FF or perhaps the addition of 

a second FF. However, considering the 

small amount of emissions that would 

remain after meeting the MACT floor, 

we expect the incremental cost 

effectiveness for a second FF or higher 

efficiency FF could be extraordinarily 

high, approaching $500,000/ton. 

We have also considered the costs of 

alternative disposal, and, based on new 

information obtained during the 

comment period, we have adjusted our 

estimates of those costs to be much 

higher than those we estimated at 

proposal. Based on the adjusted cost 

estimates, we have determined that the 

alternative disposal options exceed the 

costs of controls necessary to meet the 

MACT floor limits. In addition, there is 

still some uncertainty whether 

alternative disposal is an available 

option during severe climate events. 

Our assessment indicates that a beyondthe-floor limit would not be achievable 

to some facilities due to aforementioned 

technical issues associated with 

available controls and would 

significantly increase costs for others. In 

either case, we conclude that 

establishing beyond-the-floor standards 

would likely result in forced closure of 

some of the units in this subcategory, 

but we also believe that some units that 

would otherwise close due to cost 

related issues would be forced to 

operate at a loss because closure may 

not be an option due to other nonair 

quality environmental regulations 

aimed at protecting human health and 

wildlife. For both the technological and 

cost related issue discussed above, and 

because of nonair quality environmental 

issues, we conclude that there are no 

reasonable beyond-the-floor alternatives 

for the small remote incinerator 

subcategory. 

Waste-burning kilns. Existing kilns 

are currently equipped with various 

combinations of ESPs, FF, SNCR and 

DIFF controls. We estimate that kilns 

may need to add new controls or 

improve existing controls to meet the 

MACT floor limits. These include 

improved FFs to meet the reductions 

necessary to meet the Cd and Pb limits, 

activated carbon for D/F and Hg control, 

and some kilns may need to add RTO 

to meet the CO limits. 

As previously discussed, ACI system/ 

FF are the best technologies available 

for control of D/F, Hg, PM, Cd and Pb. 

To meet the floor, the FF will need to 

be high efficiency, 99 percent in some 

cases, to meet the MACT floor limit for 

Cd and Pb. The only further control 

available would be a second FF, which 

would result in less than an additional 

1 percent reduction of these pollutants. 

We estimate the cost effectiveness for 

this to be in the $500,000 per ton range 

at a minimum. Therefore, there are no 

further controls to consider as beyondthe-floor options for these pollutants. 

For waste-burning kilns, a significant 

amount of CO emissions can result from 

the presence of organic compounds in 

the raw materials (and not only from 

incomplete combustion). Therefore, 

good combustion controls and practices 

are not as effective for waste-burning 

kilns as for other types of combustion 

units, and may not be enough for units 

to meet the MACT floor CO limits. 

Oxidation catalysts have not been 

installed on waste-burning kilns, and 

we believe they may not be as effective 

on waste-burning kilns as they are on 

other sources due to plugging problems. 

Specifically, the catalyst bed can 

become plugged or blinded with dust, 

thereby covering up catalyst reactive 

sites necessary to oxidize CO, which 

reduces the effectiveness of the unit. To 

maintain the effectiveness of the 

catalyst, the unit may require shutting 

down more frequently to replace the 

catalyst, which reduces productivity of 

the unit and increases catalyst costs. To 

make an oxidation catalyst feasible, it 

may be necessary to also use multiple 

FF in series upstream of the catalyst 

which, as described above, is a very 

costly measure. The only effective CO 

control for significant CO reductions we 

could identify for waste-burning kilns is 

a RTO, and we expect over half of the 

units will need to install a RTO to meet 

the MACT floor limits. As a beyond-thefloor option, setting a CO limit at a level 

that most of the remaining wasteburning kilns would also require RTO 

could be considered, although we doubt 

that some of the units requiring RTO to 

meet the MACT floor emission limit for 

CO would be able to further reduce their 

emissions to that same extent. 

Furthermore, the cost and energy 

consumption for these additional RTO 

make this an impractical choice. 

Therefore, as there are no other controls 

which could be applied to further 

reduce CO emissions from these units 

and additional RTOs would be 

ineffective from a cost and energy 

impacts perspective, we could not 

identify a beyond-the-floor option for 

CO. 

We expect that waste-burning kilns 

will install scrubbers to meet the MACT 

floor emission limits for HCl and SO2. 

The floor limits for HCl are at the levels 

of quantification of the test method used 

to determine compliance. Therefore, 

there are no additional measures that 

could be employed to quantify any 

further reductions in HCl emissions 

beyond that of the MACT floor limit. 

The only other option for further HCl 

and SO2 control would be addition of a 

dry sorbent injection system in series 

with the wet scrubber. However, this 

would approximately double the costs 

for acid gas control, with only about a 

30 percent incremental reduction in SO2

emissions and no measurable reduction 

in HCl emissions. As a result, no 

beyond-the-floor options for acid gases 

from waste-burning kilns exist because 

we cannot quantify further HCl 

reductions, and the beyond-the-floor 

options for SO2 reductions are 

unreasonable due to the cost of the 

additional controls in conjunction with 

the limited benefits of such controls. 

The demonstrated control technology 

for NOX control on waste-burning kilns 

is SNCR. In fact, several of the kilns are 

already equipped with this technology 

and are able to comply with the NOX

MACT floor limit. We estimate that 

other kilns may require the addition of 

SNCR to meet the MACT floor limits for 

NOX. One kiln will require an SNCR 

that is optimized to the capabilities of 

the technology to meet the MACT floor 

limits for NOX. For this unit to be able 

to achieve an even lower NOX limit 

would likely require another 

technology. As discussed above, SCR is 

another technology that is used by some 

combustion sources to reduce NOX

emissions; however, SCR is a catalyst 

technology that has not been 

demonstrated to work effectively on 

cement kilns (or waste-burning kilns) in 

the United States. We believe that SCR 

is not effective on waste-burning kilns 

due to difficulties operating SCR in 

applications where there is significant 

PM or sulfur loading in the gas stream. 

These two gas stream constituents can 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15731 

reduce catalyst activity, and lower the 

resulting effectiveness of the SCR, 

through catalyst poisoning and 

blinding/plugging of active sites by 

ammonia sulfur salts (formed from 

sulfur in the flue gas with the ammonia 

reagent) and PM (Air Pollution Control 

Technology Fact Sheet, SCR, EPA–452/ 

F–03–032). We could not identify any 

other controls beyond SCR and SNCR, 

alone or in tandem, to reduce NOX

emissions from waste-burning kilns. We 

believe that SCR is not technically 

demonstrated on kilns currently and 

may not be technically feasible. For 

these reasons, we are not selecting a 

limit for NOX that is beyond-the-floor 

for the waste-burning kiln subcategory. 

Liquid waste ERUs. Existing units in 

this subcategory are equipped with flue 

gas recirculation in a couple cases, and 

some settling chambers for particulate 

control in a couple other units. We 

anticipate units within this subcategory 

may need to install FF, CO catalyst, and 

SNCR to meet the MACT floor limits. As 

discussed earlier, FFs are the best 

control available for PM, Cd, and Pb 

control. The only further control 

available would be a second FF or a 

very high efficiency FF. The metals 

emissions from these units are very low 

to begin with, so the only incremental 

reductions would be in PM. This would 

result in perhaps an additional 10 

percent reduction in emissions at almost 

double the cost of current particulate 

controls. As mentioned before, we 

anticipate cost effectiveness for this to 

be in the $500,000 per ton range at a 

minimum. Likewise, SNCR is the best 

demonstrated technology being applied 

to waste combustion units for NOX

control. As discussed earlier, SCR has 

been used in some boiler applications, 

but SCR costs are approximately four to 

five times those of SNCR, for only an 

additional 30 percent reduction from 

the baseline. Furthermore, we observe 

that SCR has not been demonstrated to 

work effectively on waste combustion 

units in the United States. Carbon 

monoxide control for liquid waste ERUs 

could also be achieved by using a RTO, 

but at a far greater energy requirement, 

notably in natural gas consumption, 

with comparable control efficiency as 

the CO catalysts that we expect some 

units will need to install to meet the 

MACT floor CO limits. Therefore, we 

conclude that additional beyond-thefloor CO control would be unreasonable 

for this subcategory. 

Additional D/F and Hg control could 

be achieved using ACI with another FF. 

However, the baseline emissions for 

these pollutants are already very small, 

with only marginal additional emissions 

reductions available if additional 

controls were being used. Therefore, 

beyond-the-floor limits for these 

pollutants will not be reasonable from a 

cost effectiveness perspective. 

We also considered whether it is 

reasonable to go beyond-the-floor with 

respect to SO2 for this subcategory. In 

this case, the DIFF control technology 

could be applied to these units to 

reduce SO2 emissions by about 70 

percent with co-control of HCl (90 

percent) as well as PM, Cd, and Pb. 

Most of these units will already require 

the addition of a FF to meet the MACT 

floor limits, so the cost of going beyondthe-floor for these units would entail the 

dry sorbent injection components of the 

control device. For the units that do not 

require FF to meet the floor, the 

additional costs would involve the 

entire DIFF control device. The total 

cost for applying the relevant controls to 

all the units is approximately $4.8 

million per year in annualized capital 

and operating costs for SO2 control 

beyond-the-floor. The reduction in 

emissions of SO2 is approximately 2,300 

tpy, based on the baseline emissions 

estimate and a 70 percent reduction and 

accounting for SO2 emissions from 

electricity generation needed to power 

the controls. It is worth noting that the 

baseline estimates and MACT floor 

calculations for this subcategory are 

based on data from the only unit for 

which we have SO2 data in this 

subcategory. This unit has a baseline 

SO2 concentration of 641 ppm, which 

has been applied to the other five liquid 

ERUs as an estimated baseline 

concentration. The HCl concentration 

for this unit is about 4 ppm, so cobenefit emission reductions are 

significantly less than the SO2 emission 

reductions. Because we are basing these 

analyses off of data from a single unit 

within the subcategory, we realize that 

there is a large margin of uncertainty on 

the control requirements within this 

source category and the potential for 

SO2 emissions reductions at the beyondthe-floor level. 

To get a better idea of the potential 

cost effectiveness for a beyond-the-floor 

limit for SO2, we also looked at the costs 

and emissions reductions solely for the 

unit which we have data for to 

determine the cost effectiveness of 

control for this unit. In this case, the 

additional cost of the dry injection 

system (the unit already requires a FF to 

meet the MACT floor limits) is about 

$567,000 per year, with an estimated 

emissions reduction of 103 tpy of SO2

(and minor HCl reduction) adjusted for 

SO2 emissions from electricity generated 

to power the controls. This results in an 

incremental cost effectiveness of $5,500 

per ton of SO2 control beyond-the-floor. 

While this number is generally within 

the cost effective range we find 

reasonable, we are not adopting a 

beyond-the-floor limit for SO2 given the 

uncertainty associated with this 

number, the fact that we cannot 

adequately estimate the costs for other 

units in the subcategory, and because 

the controls required for HCl may 

actually reduce SO2 more than is 

required based on the SO2 standard 

alone such that the actual cost 

effectiveness of the beyond-the-floor 

option is not in line with the estimate. 

Regarding co-control for PM, the fact 

that four of the six liquid waste ERUs 

will likely require FF to meet MACT 

floor limits for Cd and Pb means that 

going beyond-the-floor using DIFF 

controls would only net additional PM 

control on the two remaining units. The 

FF portion of the control costs for these 

two units is approximately $1.1 million 

per year with an estimated PM 

reduction of fewer than five tpy, which 

translates into an incremental costeffectiveness of about $230,000 per ton 

for additional PM control. Based on our 

analysis and realizing the high degree of 

uncertainty regarding costs, emissions 

reductions and resulting costeffectiveness for this particular CISWI 

subcategory, we have concluded that 

requiring beyond-the-floor controls on 

these units is unreasonable. 

Solid waste ERUs. Existing units in 

this subcategory are equipped with 

various combinations of ESPs, FF, 

scrubbers, SNCR spray towers, and 

DIFF. We anticipate units within this 

subcategory may need to install or 

improve different combinations of ACI 

system/FF, DIFF, FF, LBMS, CO 

catalysts, and wet scrubber control 

technologies to meet the MACT floor 

limits. As discussed earlier, a FF is the 

best control available for PM, Cd, and 

Pb control. The Cd and Pb reductions 

necessary are greater than 90 percent in 

many cases, indicating that units will 

likely require highly efficient FF to meet 

the limits for these pollutants and PM. 

Therefore, beyond-the-floor limits for 

PM, Cd, and Pb would likely necessitate 

a second FF, essentially doubling the 

cost for little additional reduction in 

emissions. Furthermore, the ACI system 

is the BAT for reducing D/F and Hg 

emissions. The D/F reduction necessary 

for some of these units approaches 99 

percent, indicating that beyond-the-floor 

limits that are more stringent than the 

MACT floor limits may not be 

achievable by the control technology. 

In certain cases, units may require 

DIFF and wet scrubbers in series to meet 

acid gas limits. There are no additional 

controls that could be implemented in 

these cases to further reduce acid gas 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15732 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

emissions. Carbon monoxide control for 

solid waste ERUs could also be achieved 

by using a RTO, but likely at a far 

greater energy requirement (specifically 

natural gas) with comparable control 

efficiency as the CO catalysts that we 

expect some units will need to install to 

meet the MACT floor CO limits. 

Therefore, we conclude that additional 

beyond-the-floor CO control would be 

unreasonable for this subcategory due to 

additional cost and energy impacts. 

The demonstrated control technology 

for NOX control on ERUs is SNCR. In 

fact, some of the ERUs are already 

equipped with this technology. A 

couple of the units appear to comply 

with the NOX MACT limit because they 

already have a SNCR in place. As 

mentioned earlier, SCR is another 

technology that is used by some 

combustion sources to reduce NOX

emissions. However, SCR costs can be 

about four to five times more costly than 

SNCR. Furthermore, we observe that 

SCR has not been demonstrated to work 

effectively on waste combustion units in 

the United States. We realize that the 

industrial sectors that use units within 

this CISWI subcategory are typically 

wood and forest product industries, 

sectors that have suffered particular 

economic hardship. We are attempting 

to make sure that the regulatory 

requirements are being satisfied, while 

minimizing adverse economic impact 

wherever possible. Since there remain 

some questions about a demonstrated 

control beyond the control used to meet 

the MACT floor limits, and some units 

are already utilizing SNCR to meet the 

MACT limit, coupled with the fact that 

the potential beyond-the-floor 

technology is significantly more 

expensive, we are not selecting a limit 

for NOX that is beyond-the-floor for the 

solid waste ERU subcategory. 

New Units. As discussed elsewhere, 

we have concluded that only two of the 

CISWI subcategories may see any new 

units within the immediate future, 

primarily due to replacement of old 

units. These two subcategories are the 

incinerator subcategory and the small 

remote incinerator subcategory. While 

facilities may find alternative disposal 

options are available, we are cognizant 

of the fact that, for these subcategories, 

there may be instances where 

alternative disposal options are 

unavailable, and a new incineration unit 

may be required. For incinerators, we 

estimate units may require a 

combination of the ACI system/FF, 

SNCR, and wet scrubbers to achieve the 

new source MACT floor limits. As 

discussed above for existing 

incinerators, there are no control 

technologies demonstrated or 

reasonably cost-effective that we could 

consider at this time that would perform 

better or be more cost-effective than 

those being used to meet the new source 

MACT floor limits. Therefore, we have 

concluded that no beyond-the-floor 

emission limits should be selected for 

new incinerators. For small remote 

incinerators, we anticipate new sources 

will have an afterburner installed to 

achieve the CO limit and that the 

afterburner will also be equipped with 

low NOX burners, require waste 

segregation for ferrous and non-ferrous 

metals and chlorinated plastics, and 

likely require ACI system/FF to meet the 

new source MACT floor limits. As 

discussed above for existing small 

remote incinerators, there are technical 

issues with any control technologies 

that require water for operation for this 

subcategory of unit. As a result, there 

are no additional or better control 

technologies available other than those 

being used to meet the new source 

MACT floor limits for the small remote 

incinerator subcategory. 

D. Rationale for Subcategories 

1. Incinerators 

Comment: Some commenters argue 

that EPA wrongly concluded that all 

incinerators are sufficiently similar to 

meet one emission limit. The 

commenters suggest that the variability 

of combusted materials necessarily 

means variability in emissions 

concentrations and that variability 

cannot be masked exclusively by 

emissions control performance or 

statistical analysis. One commenter 

claims that it will be extremely difficult 

for incinerators combusting materials 

other than what the best-performing 

incinerators are combusting to comply 

with the limits in the proposed rule if 

EPA does not refine the overly-broad 

incinerator subcategory. 

Response: EPA disagrees that 

incinerators should be further 

subcategorized. As stated at proposal, 

‘‘incinerators, which are the units 

currently regulated by the 2000 CISWI 

rule, are used to dispose of solid waste 

materials, and emissions are a function 

of the types of materials burned. 

Incinerators are designed without 

integral heat recovery (but may include 

waste heat recovery). While there are 

different designs, they all serve the same 

purpose: reduction in the volume of 

solid waste materials. Incinerators can 

be operated on a batch or continuous 

basis.’’ We note that the MACT floor 

pool of incinerators represents a wide 

variety of industrial sources, from 

pharmaceuticals to heavy equipment 

manufacturers. From the data available, 

these best-performing units also 

combust a wide variety of materials, 

including liquid waste streams, expired 

pharmaceutical products, and spent 

paint booth filters. Therefore, contrary 

to commenters’ arguments, there is a 

wide variety of materials being 

combusted in the best-performing units. 

As we also explained at proposal, the 

same types of add-on controls, 

including FF, wet scrubbers, SNCR and 

ACI, can be applied to most 

incinerators. Our estimates indicate that 

the reductions achieved by these 

controls will allow incinerator units to 

comply with the emission limits. 

Furthermore, the commenters have 

provided no information that indicates 

that the units in the incinerators 

subcategory are unable to retrofit and/or 

take other actions (e.g., waste 

segregation) to satisfy the standards in 

the final rule. Even if it were true that 

some sources will be unable to meet the 

final standards, which we dispute, we 

still believe it would not be reasonable 

to further subcategorize incinerators 

based on the waste stream because such 

subcategorization, taken to its logical 

conclusion, would lead to many 

subcategories with one or only a few 

sources. We presume that Congress 

recognized when it enacted CAA section 

129 that solid waste incineration units 

would be combusting a variety of waste 

and, in fact, CAA section 129 requires 

different standards based on the 

potential waste streams: MSW; HMI 

waste; and commercial and industrial 

waste. Congress provided additional 

discretion to further subcategorize solid 

waste incineration units, however, 

commenters have not provided 

compelling information that indicates 

these units, which are already 

complying with the 2000 CISWI 

standards, should be further 

subcategorized. For these reasons, we 

decline to further subcategorize the 

incinerators subcategory. 

2. Energy Recovery Units 

Comment: Many commenters 

suggested that the ERU subcategory is 

overly broad and should be 

subcategorized. The commenters stated 

that EPA has broad authority to 

distinguish among groups of sources 

within a source category or subcategory 

in setting a MACT standard. The 

commenters maintained that the statute 

provides that EPA ‘‘may distinguish 

among classes, types, and sizes of 

sources within a category or 

subcategory’’ when establishing MACT 

standards. Several commenters believed 

that Congress’ use of the broad terms 

‘‘class,’’ ‘‘type,’’ and ‘‘size’’ show that EPA 

is intended to have broad discretion in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15733 

the appropriate factors that warrant 

distinguishing among sources, and 

EPA’s proposed subcategories fall 

squarely within the meaning of ‘‘types’’ 

and ‘‘sizes.’’ The commenters argued 

that to the extent that EPA may 

distinguish among sources within a 

category or subcategory on the basis of 

‘‘any [reasonable] criterion of 

classification whatsoever,’’ and may 

create subcategories as appropriate, the 

CAA clearly grants EPA authority to 

create additional subcategories for 

ERUs. 

Many commenters suggested that the 

subcategorization of ERUs, where 

differences among sources affect the 

applicability of control technology, is 

consistent with MACT precedent. 

Commenters argued that EPA’s 

proposed inclusion of all types of ERUs 

(coal units, biomass units, combination 

boilers, liquid boilers, and even gas 

fired units) into one subcategory is 

inadequate. Several commenters 

suggested that EPA create separate 

subcategories as it proposed in the 

Boiler and Process Heater MACT. The 

commenters supported their suggestion 

by offering the following rationale: (1) 

Since the CAA requires EPA to set SO2

limits for CISWI units, and since coal 

contains significant concentrations of 

sulfur, and biomass generally would 

contain little or no sulfur, a subcategory 

for coal-fired boilers should be 

established; expensive control devices 

such as a spray dryer absorber could not 

reduce the outlet concentrations of SO2

to the single ppm levels equivalent to 

those of a biomass boiler; (2) 

observation of the proposed Boiler 

MACT floor standards proposed for 

biomass and coal units shows that there 

are significant differences in outlet 

emissions of HCl, Hg, and CO; (3) 

likewise, the NOxx emissions from the 

top performing biomass, coal, liquid, 

and gas-fired units would all be 

significantly different due to inherent 

differences in the design of these units. 

Response: The CAA allows EPA to 

divide source categories into 

subcategories based on differences in 

class, type, or size. For example, 

differences between given types of units 

can lead to corresponding differences in 

the nature of emissions and the 

technical feasibility of applying 

emission control techniques. The 

design, operating, and emissions 

information that EPA has reviewed 

indicates differences in unit design that 

distinguish different types of ERUs. Data 

indicate that there are generally 

significant design and operational 

differences between units that burn 

coal, biomass, liquid, and gaseous fuels. 

Energy Recovery Units are therefore 

designed for specific fuel types and will 

encounter problems if a fuel with 

characteristics other than those 

originally specified is fired. Many ERUs 

in the database are indicated to co-fire 

liquids or gases with solid fuels, but, in 

actuality, most of these boilers 

commonly use fuel oil or natural gas as 

a startup fuel only and then operate on 

solid fuel during the remainder of their 

operation. In contrast, some co-fired 

units are specifically designed to fire 

combinations of solids, liquids, and 

gases. Changes to the fuel type would 

generally require extensive changes to 

the fuel handling and feeding system 

(e.g., a stoker using wood as fuel would 

need to be redesigned to handle fuel oil 

or liquid wastes). Additionally, the 

burners and combustion chamber would 

need to be redesigned and modified to 

handle different fuel types and account 

for increases or decreases in the fuel 

volume. In some cases, the changes may 

reduce the capacity and efficiency of the 

ERU. An additional effect of these 

changes would be extensive retrofitting 

needed to operate using a different fuel; 

therefore, the design of the ERU impacts 

the degree of combustion. 

In our investigations resulting from 

commenters’ statements, we concluded 

that the data were sufficient for 

determining that a distinguishable 

difference in performance exists based 

on unit design type. Therefore, because 

different types of units have different 

emission characteristics which may 

influence the feasibility or effectiveness 

of emission control, they should be 

regulated separately (i.e., 

subcategorized) for affected pollutants. 

Accordingly, we have subcategorized 

ERUs based on unit design in order to 

account for these differences in 

emissions and applicable controls. The 

two primary ERU subcategories are 

units designed to burn solid wastes 

(solids) with other solid fuels, and units 

designed to burn liquid wastes with 

liquid or gaseous fuel (liquid/gas). The 

ERU solids subcategory is further 

subcategorized into units designed to 

burn coal and units designed to burn 

biomass for CO, NOX and SO2 to address 

design differences and feasibility or 

effectiveness of emission control 

between these types of units as 

commenters have suggested. The 

subcategorization for these pollutants is 

also compelled by the data available for 

the solid fuel sources. Specifically, coal 

fired ERUs submitted exclusively CEMS 

data for CO, NOX, and SO2, and biomass 

fired ERUs submitted almost exclusively 

stack test data for these pollutants. We 

are unable to convert the vast majority 

of CEMS data into equivalent stack test 

data and the converse is true as well. 

Pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA 

must establish emission standards for 

existing sources based on the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of sources. 

Because the data for CO, NOX, and SO2

from the biomass and coal fired ERUs 

are not in consistent formats, we would 

have to ignore a subset of the available 

data in establishing the floors for these 

pollutants if we did not further 

subcategorize solid fuel ERUs. We 

therefore think it is reasonable to further 

subcategorize these units for CO, NOX, 

and SO2 so the standards are reflective 

of the data available to EPA, and we are 

properly accounting for the different 

emissions characteristics associated 

with the different types of fuels. 

These subcategories are based on the 

primary fuel that the ERU is designed to 

burn. We are aware that some ERUs 

burn a combination of fuel types or burn 

a different fuel type as a backup fuel if 

the primary fuel supply is curtailed. 

However, ERUs are designed based on 

the primary fuel type (and perhaps to 

burn a backup fuel) and can encounter 

operational problems if another fuel 

type that was not considered in its 

design is fired at more than 10 percent 

of the heat input to the unit. Therefore, 

we subcategorized ERUs that burn at 

least 10 percent coal (on an annual heat 

input basis) as being in solid fuel/coal 

subcategory, with the remaining solid 

ERUs being in the biomass subcategory 

for ERUs. 

3. Cement Kilns 

Comment: One commenter states that 

waste-burning cement kilns differ 

among themselves significantly in terms 

of type, size, configuration, and other 

relevant factors that can influence 

emissions, and EPA should consider the 

further sub-categorization of kilns on 

this basis. The commenters provide the 

example that in its evaluation of organic 

emissions from kilns in support of the 

Portland Cement rulemaking, they 

found significant differences due to 

configuration and raw materials. The 

commenter did not develop specific 

recommendations for sub-categorization 

of cement kilns under the proposed 

CISWI rule citing the limited data and 

the limited time EPA has allowed for 

comment in this rulemaking. 

Response: The authority to 

subcategorize is discretionary, even 

where sources can otherwise be 

distinguished as a different class, type, 

or size. In evaluating the population of 

kilns that may be subject to CISWI and 

estimates of control technologies that 

may be required to meet the limits, we 

realize that most of the kilns in the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

CISWI population at proposal were 

subject to the standard solely due to tire 

combustion. Further investigation 

indicated that all of these kilns obtained 

the tires from established tire recycling 

programs. Based on the new definition 

in Section 241.3, these tires would not 

be considered to be solid wastes. 

Therefore, kilns that we considered as 

CISWI units at proposal solely due to 

tire combustion are not part of the 

CISWI category, and we removed them 

from the CISWI inventory. In addition, 

we obtained information on used oil, 

biomass, and wood waste being 

combusted by cement kilns. Based on 

the definition in 241.3, we determined 

which of these materials would be 

considered to be solid waste and 

removed any kilns from the CISWI 

inventory where we determined none of 

the fuels were solid waste. This resulted 

in the inventory of CISWI kilns being 

reduced to 12 kilns total. Of the 12 kilns 

in the current CISWI inventory, one is 

a wet kiln, four are preheater kilns, and 

the remainder are preheater/precalciner 

kilns. We recognize that differences in 

kiln design and configuration can effect 

emissions. These effects are most 

evident on emissions of NOX, CO, and 

SO2. However; all of these pollutants are 

also affected by the site specific raw 

materials fed to the kiln. We have 

insufficient data to differentiate between 

the raw material affects and the kiln 

design affects. Therefore, we decided 

not to develop separate subcategories for 

cement kilns. However, all of our 

information indicates that NOX, SO2 and 

CO are controllable to the level of the 

standard whether a kiln is wet or dry. 

The control devices that may be 

necessary to comply with the CISWI 

limits (including the standards for NOX, 

SO2 and CO) may be applied to both 

types of kiln, and there do not appear 

to be any feasibility or effectiveness 

issues that would necessitate 

subcategorization in order for units to 

achieve the limits. For example, the 

controls we estimate the wet kiln units 

may require in order to meet the CISWI 

limits, such as SNCR, wet scrubbers, 

and RTO, may be applied to all types of 

kilns. We are unaware of any design 

considerations that prevent FF or RTO 

use for either the wet type or preheater 

type of kiln. Therefore, EPA disagrees 

with this comment and is not 

subcategorizing among waste-burning 

kilns. 

4. Small Remote Incinerators 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA revise the definition 

of small remote incinerator. Some 

commenters suggested that the proposed 

definition would inadvertently exclude 

those incinerators that are within the 

spirit of the definition, but are located 

within 50 miles of a MSW landfill or 

units that burn more than 1 ton of waste 

per day. Other commenters specifically 

requested an exemption for small 

remote incinerators that are not 

accessible by the Federal Highway 

System. Several commenters explained 

that not all units are accessible by 

vehicle, the affected units may or may 

not be within 50 miles of a MSW 

landfill, and road access can be seasonal 

in Alaska. 

Commenters expressed particular 

concerns about small remote units 

operating in remote locations of Alaska. 

Commenters explained that waste 

accumulation due to unavoidable 

transportation delays could attract 

animals, in potential violation of state 

law and policy and the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. Several 

commenters explained that due to the 

location of facilities, increased fog 

conditions and harsh winters, it is 

unlikely that food waste can be 

transported off-site on a daily basis. In 

these circumstances, stored waste may 

attract wildlife to facility operations, 

which could in turn result in potentially 

dangerous interactions with personnel. 

Commenters argued that longer term onsite storage is not a safe option for either 

the wildlife or humans. Further 

commenters explained that operational 

areas, and areas where they can 

accumulate solid waste, are very small, 

such that the ability to store multiple 

days of solid waste could be 

problematic. The commenters asserted 

that the use of incinerators to manage 

food waste has proven to be a valuable 

tool for preventing human/wildlife 

interactions. 

Response: EPA has revised the 

definition of small, remote incinerator 

to apply to a unit combusting less than 

3 tons of waste per day and located 

more than 25 miles from the nearest 

landfill. The change to 25 miles and 3 

tons of waste combusted per day, 

instead of the parameters that were 

proposed, will help address the 

commenters’ concerns about 

applicability for intended units within 

this subcategory. 

5. Burn-Off Ovens 

Comment: Many commenters are 

opposed to regulating burn-off ovens 

under CISWI. They assert that EPA 

severely underestimated the universe of 

burn-off ovens and did not consider the 

potential subcategories of burn-off ovens 

(e.g., metal parts recovery, drum 

reclamation, and electric motor 

rewinding ovens). Several commenters 

argue that the units do not use 

incineration or combustion processes 

and instead play a vital role in the 

reclaiming and recycling process. Many 

commenters claim that regulation of 

these units will result in job loss and 

closure of businesses. 

Response: At proposal, we combined 

part, rack, and drum reclamation units 

into one burn-off oven subcategory. We 

estimated that there were approximately 

36 units in the burn-off oven 

subcategory. We received comments 

during the comment period that 

indicated that there may be more than 

15,000 units in the burn-off oven 

subcategory as we have defined it. 

Furthermore, we have no data on drum 

reclamation units. We also do not have 

data on all CAA section 129 pollutants 

for the burn-off ovens we identified at 

proposal. For all these reasons, and 

because we are not required to finalize 

standards for burn-off ovens to comply 

with our CAA section 112(c)(6) 

obligation, we have determined that this 

final action will not subject burn-off 

ovens to this standard. 

6. Soil Treatment Units 

Comment: EPA received a comment 

that soil treatment units are unique 

units and do not belong in the floor 

determination for kilns. The commenter 

stated that soil treatment units are 

‘‘treating’’ and not ‘‘combusting’’ soil and 

therefore should be considered in an 

alternative floor analysis. 

Response: Based on the information 

received during the comment period, 

EPA agrees that soil treatment units and 

kilns should be separate subcategories. 

In addition, information we have 

obtained since proposal indicates that 

there may be many more soil treatment 

units than the two we have identified; 

and, therefore, we do not have sufficient 

data to set emissions standards for soil 

treatment units. For these reasons, we 

have determined that this final action 

will not subject soil treatment units to 

this standard. We do not need to 

regulate soil treatment units at this time 

in order to comply with our CAA 

section 112(c)(6) obligation. 

E. Emission Limits 

1. Consistency Between Other 

Applicable NESHAP Limits 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that EPA should adopt MACT 

limitations of similar stringency for 

similar units, irrespective of whether 

the source is regulated as a kiln or ERU 

under CAA section 112 or a CISWI unit 

under CAA section 129. Commenters 

stated that for some emissions, the two 

rules apply to similar equipment 

burning similar fuels for similar 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15735 

purposes, but the emission limits are 

clearly different. They suggested that 

efforts be made by the EPA either to 

explain the differences or to develop 

more adequate and consistent limits in 

the regulations. One commenter stated 

that EPA should express standards for 

waste-burning cement kilns in a 

production-based form for a direct 

comparison of standards with the 

Portland Cement NESHAP. 

Response: As commenters note, we 

have subcategorized units to the extent 

we determined appropriate within the 

CISWI population, to reflect similar 

design considerations as subcategories 

for non-CISWI units, however, the fact 

that units are similar does not authorize 

EPA to set similar standards under CAA 

section 112 and section 129. As we have 

discussed elsewhere in our descriptions 

of the MACT floor analysis, we are 

calculating emission limits based on 

data from units that we believe are 

CISWI units based on the definition of 

solid waste and the currently available 

information. Solid waste incineration 

units may not be regulated under CAA 

section 112 once we have established 

CAA section 129 performance standards 

for the category or subcategory, and 

solid waste incineration units should 

not be included in the floor calculations 

for CAA section 112 standards once the 

units are identified as solid waste 

incineration units. The converse is also 

true. The requirements for setting CAA 

section 129 standards are different for 

new and existing units. For new units, 

EPA must base the standards on the 

best-performing similar unit for each 

subcategory, and, for existing units, we 

must base the standards on the average 

emissions limitation achieved in 

practice for the best-performing 12 

percent of units in the subcategory. See 

CAA section 129(a)(2). The statute, 

therefore, provides some discretion for 

EPA to establish new source standards 

based on the best controlled similar 

source, instead of the best controlled 

source in the subcategory. For this 

reason, EPA may consider CAA section 

112 sources to the extent they are 

similar to the CAA section 129 units 

when establishing the MACT floor for 

new sources. For existing units, 

however, EPA is required to use 

information from sources in the 

subcategory when establishing the 

MACT standards. Section 112 of the 

CAA contains similar requirements for 

establishing the MACT floors. See CAA 

section 112(d)(3). Because the existing 

sources subject to CAA section 112 will 

have different emissions information 

than the sources subject to CAA section 

129, we may not harmonize the existing 

source standards for similar units 

regulated under both CAA section 112 

and section 129. 

As to the comment that EPA should 

establish production based standards for 

waste-burning kilns to coincide with the 

Portland Cement NESHAP, we note that 

CAA section 129 solid waste 

incineration rules, including the 2000 

CISWI standards, have consistently 

presented numeric limits in stack gas 

concentration bases. We are maintaining 

in the final CISWI standards emission 

limits as stack gas concentrations; 

however, in response to the comments 

on this issue, we note that the kiln 

limits in Tables 1 and 2 of the preamble 

can be converted to lb/ton clinker or lb/ 

ton raw feed bases assuming 100,000 

dscf/ton clinker and 1.65 ton raw feed/ 

ton clinker. 

2. Opacity Limits 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed the setting of opacity limits for 

CISWI units. Commenters argued that 

opacity has long been considered a 

surrogate monitoring methodology for 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

with PM standards and that the 

proposed controls and monitoring 

techniques eliminate the need for 

opacity monitoring. Many commenters 

also suggested that a certified reader is 

only able to distinguish opacity in 

increments of 5 percent and that the 

proposed single digit limits are beyond 

the capabilities of Method 9. 

Commenters also asserted that the 

correlation between PM and opacity is 

not demonstrated based on a review of 

the data available at proposal. Several 

commenters stated that it is not 

appropriate to apply a ratio of PM to 

opacity based only on data from one 

facility in the incinerator category and 

apply it to all types of units regulated 

under this rule. 

Response: At proposal, we had 

opacity data for only one unit in the 

incinerator subcategory. We developed 

opacity standards for the CISWI 

subcategories by establishing a ratio of 

PM to opacity for the one incinerator 

and multiplying that ratio by the PM 

MACT standards for each of the 

subcategories to establish the opacity 

standards for the different subcategories. 

75 FR 31956. We requested comment on 

this approach. We also requested 

comment on whether it was appropriate 

to establish opacity standards for CISWI 

units at all. EPA is not required to 

establish opacity standards for 

incineration units pursuant to CAA 

section 129(a)(4), which requires EPA to 

set numeric emission limitations for 

nine pollutants plus ‘‘opacity (as 

appropriate).’’ 

EPA is not promulgating opacity 

limits for CISWI units at this time. As 

commenters note, opacity is often 

required in CAA rules as a surrogate for 

PM to assure compliance with PM 

standards when continuous PM 

monitoring is not required under the 

applicable standard. In this case, we are 

requiring PM stack testing in 

conjunction with continuous parametric 

monitoring; therefore, the need for an 

opacity limit is diminished with regards 

to CISWI units. In addition, we have 

determined it is not appropriate to set 

opacity standards given the lack of 

opacity data from all but one of the 

CISWI units. However, we continue to 

maintain that opacity serves as an 

indicator of PM, and we may in the 

future determine that it is appropriate to 

establish opacity limits for CISWI units; 

therefore, EPA is requiring opacity 

testing for units as part of their annual 

testing requirements. Opacity also 

serves as an indicator of good air 

pollution control practices, and as such, 

is a valuable tool for EPA in 

determining compliance with the 

general provision at 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

that sources maintain and operate their 

affected facility including associated air 

pollution control equipment in a 

manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. 

3. Limits for TMB and TEQ for D/F 

Comment: Some commenters suggest 

that EPA arbitrarily set floors for TEQ 

based on a 0.078 ratio between total 

mass and TEQ D/F data. Commenters 

believe that the data EPA used to 

calculate the multiplier was not limited 

to the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources and thus, the approach does not 

conform to the statute, which requires 

MACT floors to be set on the basis of the 

average of the emissions levels actually 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of sources. 

One commenter asserts that 

nondetected target compounds (i.e., the 

17 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDD/PCDF TEF 

congeners) were treated with a zero 

concentration in all of the stack test 

reports and that target compounds 

reported by the laboratory as an EMPC 

were treated with a zero concentration 

for TEQ calculations. The commenter 

further states that EPA used TEQs 

which treated both nondetected target 

compounds, as well as those reported as 

an EMPC, with a zero concentration 

(i.e., ND=0; EMPC=0). 

Response: EPA is no longer using a 

ratio of TMB to TEQ to calculate limits 

for D/F TEQ. EPA further reviewed the 

data, including data corrections 

submitted after proposal, and used 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

individual and total mass congener data 

to establish TEQ limits for all 

subcategories. The commenter’s 

assertion that EMPC and ND values 

were treated as zero concentration is 

incorrect. Estimated maximum possible 

concentration and ND values were not 

incorporated into the analysis unless a 

facility reported an actual value, 

including a reported value of zero. The 

TEQ limits were calculated using the 

same statistical approach used for the 

other regulated pollutants. See section 

V.B of this preamble for discussions on 

establishing MACT floors, incorporating 

nondetect values, and changes in the 

statistical approach used to set limits. 

F. New Data/Corrections to Existing 

Data 

1. Discussion of EPA Data Validation 

and Inclusion of New Data Received 

Since Proposal 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments on suggested data corrections 

or new data to incorporate into the 

analysis. 

Response: See ‘‘Data Amendments and 

Corrections Following Proposal’’ 

memorandum in the docket for a 

discussion on how data were 

incorporated to address comments. 

G. Testing and Monitoring 

1. Monitoring Alternatives (CEMS in 

Lieu of Testing or Parametric 

Monitoring, Decisions on PM CEMS and 

CO CEMS) 

Comment: While some commenters 

supported the use of CO and PM CEMS 

to monitor emissions, others argued that 

CEMS should not be required for all 

units due to unreasonable costs and 

impracticality. Several commenters 

suggested that EPA evaluate the 

feasibility and measurement capabilities 

of CEMS before requiring their use. 

Commenters stated that multi-metals 

and PM CEMS can be inadequate in 

indicating the complex nature of 

emissions and urged EPA not to remove 

any of the parametric monitoring 

requirements in lieu of CEMS. Further, 

some commenters suggested that 

compliance testing is not needed if 

CEMS is used to monitor emissions. 

Response: For the operations and 

facilities subject to the rule, we believe 

that the combination of periodic 

compliance emissions testing and 

continuous monitoring of operational 

and parametric control measure 

conditions is appropriate for assuring 

ongoing compliance. The rule allows a 

source owner or operator to install and 

operate CEMS in lieu of some testing 

and parametric monitoring 

requirements. This process requires 

source owners to propose site-specific 

monitoring plans for approval. These 

plans would include CEMS PS and 

periodic QA/QC steps to assure the 

quality of the alternative monitoring 

data. Currently, EPA has the requisite 

CEMS PS for Hg monitoring systems 

and not for multiple metals CEMS. 

The final rule will not require CO 

CEMS for existing ERUs, as proposed. 

The rule will require operational 

parametric monitoring, as the 

commenter suggests, for most units 

affected by the rule, with CO CEMS 

allowed as an option at the source 

owner’s discretion. 

We agree that a PM CEMS installed 

and operated in accordance with PS 11 

and the associated QA procedures can 

provide assurance of ongoing 

compliance without the need for 

additional periodic compliance testing. 

The final rule authorized the optional 

use of PM CEMS. We have retained the 

requirement for PM CEMS on existing 

ERUs greater than 250 mmBtu/hr to 

measure continuous compliance for 

these larger units. 

2. CEMS Data To Set Standards 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that any limit where CEMS 

are required, CEMS data must be used 

to develop the emission limits. The 

commenters discussed their experience 

with CEMS that shows variability is 

much higher than what a periodic stack 

test will show. The commenters 

suggested that 30 days of continuous 

emission monitoring is insufficient. 

They stated that biomass boilers have 

seasonal variability that would only be 

seen over the course of a year or more. 

Commenters also requested that EPA be 

aware that there may be sources that 

have installed for criteria pollutants 

under other permit requirements, 

particularly for NOX, CO, and SO2, and 

that sources would prefer to use the 

CEMS to demonstrate compliance but 

for the fact that the standards are 

established using stack test data. The 

commenters suggested that even if the 

standard only requires a stack test, there 

are sources that will be using 

continuous emission monitors for 

compliance purposes. 

Response: As noted earlier, we are not 

requiring CEMS for compliance for 

existing units, other than PM CEMS for 

ERUs greater than 250 mmBtu/hr. No 

ERUs submitted PM CEMS data for us 

to evaluate in our development of 

emission limits. Therefore, we were 

unable to establish limits based on 

CEMS data as the commenter suggests; 

however, we have included a longer 

averaging period to account for the 

variability in PM emissions for these 

sources. In any case, given the controls 

available for PM, we do not believe that 

the PM emissions should vary as much 

as they may for other pollutants. 

Also, as stated above, the rule allows 

sources to install and operate CEMS in 

lieu of some testing and parametric 

monitoring requirements at their 

discretion. This process requires source 

owners to propose site-specific 

monitoring plans for approval. These 

plans would include CEMS PS and 

periodic QA/QC steps to assure the 

quality of the alternative monitoring 

data. In allowing optional CEMS usage, 

we are providing facilities with 

compliance flexibility in case they wish 

to use existing CEMS to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards. 

Facilities that are concerned that they 

will not be able to continuously comply 

with the emissions limitations if they 

use CEMS for those limitations 

established based on stack test data 

should not avail themselves of the 

CEMS alternative. 

3. Reduced Testing Provisions 

Comment: Commenters contended 

that the proposed performance testing 

requirements are excessive and should 

be reduced to a reasonable and 

appropriate level. EPA proposed at 40 

CFR 63.2710(b) that all units conduct 

performance tests for PM, HCl, fugitive 

emissions, and opacity on an annual 

basis. EPA further proposed for ERUs 

that annual performance tests be 

conducted for PM, HCl, Cd, lead, Hg, 

dioxins/furans, opacity, fugitive 

emissions, NOX, and SO2 (unless a 

CEMS is used for either PM, HCl, Hg, 

NOX, and/or SO2). Thereafter, EPA 

proposed to reduce the frequency to 3 

years if there had been three tests in a 

row that had results of less than 75 

percent of the emission standard. 

Commenters recognized EPA has 

included a provision to skip to a 3-year 

frequency provided a source passes 

three tests in a row with at least a 25 

percent margin. However, commenters 

contended that with the very stringent 

limits EPA had proposed, very few units 

would likely to qualify for this 

provision and, therefore, they were not 

sure of its value. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters’ assertions that the 

performance testing requirements are 

excessive. As discussed earlier, the 

combination of periodic compliance 

emissions testing and continuous 

monitoring of operational and 

parametric control measure conditions 

is appropriate for assuring continuous 

compliance with the emissions 

limitations. Without recurring testing, 

we would have no way to know if 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15737 

parameter ranges established during 

initial performance testing remained 

viable in the future. The commenter 

correctly notes that CEMS may be used 

as an option and, if so, annual 

performance testing is not required for 

the pollutant being measured by a 

CEMS. 

Regarding the assertion that the 

margin for reduced testing is too high to 

be effective, we disagree and note that 

the intent of this provision is to provide 

an incentive for better performers. By 

specifying the less than 75 percent of 

the emission standard margin, we are 

providing such an incentive for good 

performance, and not rewarding units 

that just barely meet the standard for a 

pollutant. Performance testing is 

required for all pollutants rather than 

PM and HCl only. 

In addition, EPA is maintaining the 

reduced testing option for units that 

demonstrate emissions a specified 

percentage below the limits for 3 years. 

We have clarified and modified this 

option to state that performance testing 

for a given pollutant may be performed 

every 3 years, instead of annually, if 

measured emissions during 2 

consecutive annual performance tests 

are less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit. 

Also note that sources that switch 

fuels during the year following a 

performance test will not qualify for 

reduced testing. 

H. Start-Up, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters argued 

that emissions limits should not apply 

during SSM events while other 

commenters stated that SSM emissions 

should be included in calculations of 

emissions and standards. Several 

commenters suggested that in order to 

assure that SSM are appropriately 

accommodated, EPA must either assure 

that the data on which the standard is 

based include representative data from 

such periods or, alternatively, set a 

separate work practice standard to 

properly accommodate SSM. Several 

commenters contended that EPA did not 

consider enough data to adequately 

characterize emissions variability, as the 

standards were set based only on 3-run 

stack test data obtained under the best 

of operating conditions (and typically 

only one operating condition), no longterm CEMS data were used, no 

adjustment was made for fuel or feed 

pollutant content variability, and no 

data collected during periods of startup 

or shutdown were analyzed. Some 

commenters suggested that certain 

control devices take several hours to 

warm-up and that emissions during 

these startup periods will exceed the 

emissions standards and would never be 

able to recover to meet the average 

limitations. Further, several commenters 

stated that compliance with emissions 

standards during malfunction events 

will be difficult to gauge since 

emissions testing during such events is 

near impossible given the sporadic and 

unpredictable nature of malfunctions. 

The commenters contended that the rule 

could have the effect of forcing units to 

choose between safety and compliance 

with emissions requirements. The 

commenters stated that for some 

affected units, malfunctions by their 

very nature create unsafe conditions 

which can lead to excessive combustible 

mixtures that can result in explosions, 

equipment damage and personnel 

hazards. 

Response: The Court vacated portions 

of two provisions in EPA’s CAA section 

112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated 

the SSM exemption contained in 40 

CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), 

that are part of a regulation, commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions 

Rule,’’ that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When 

incorporated into CAA section 112(d) 

regulations for specific source 

categories, these two provisions exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standard during 

periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008), directly affects only the subset of 

CAA section 112(d) rules that 

incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) 

by reference and that contain no other 

regulatory text exempting or excusing 

compliance during SSM events, the 

legality of source category-specific SSM 

provisions such as those adopted in the 

2000 CISWI rule is questionable. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 

60.2). EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a 

distinct operating mode and therefore, 

any emissions that occur at such times 

do not need to be factored into 

development of CAA section 129 

standards, which, once promulgated, 

apply at all times. In Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 

F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 2004), the 

court upheld as reasonable standards 

that had factored in variability of 

emissions under all operating 

conditions. However, nothing in section 

129 or in case law requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the 

innumerable types of potential 

malfunction events in setting emission 

standards. See Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 

590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (‘‘In 

the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset 

provision can anticipate all upset 

situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused 

by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). 

It is reasonable to interpret section 

129 as not requiring EPA to account for 

malfunctions in setting performance 

standards. For example, we note that 

section 129 uses the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ and ‘‘best-performing’’ unit 

in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that section 129 performance 

standards must meet. Applying the 

concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ and ‘‘bestperforming’’ to a unit that is 

malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of a best controlled 

or best-performing unit is to operate in 

such a way as to avoid malfunctions of 

the unit. 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were 

considered a distinct operating mode, 

we believe it would be impracticable to 

take malfunctions into account in 

setting CAA section 129 standards for 

CISWI units. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and 

unexpected events, and it would be 

difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category. Moreover, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, 

degree, and duration, further 

complicating standard setting. 

In light of the Sierra Club decision, 

EPA proposed to require that sources be 

in continuous compliance with 

emissions limits at all times, even 

during SSM. 75 FR 31964. We proposed 

that these sources meet the same 

standards at all times. Id. We concluded 

that CISWI units would be able to meet 

the emissions limitations during periods 

of startup because most units used 

natural gas or clean distillate oil to start 

their incinerators and only add waste 

after the incinerator has reached 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15738 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

combustion temperatures. Id. We 

proposed that emissions from burning 

natural gas or distillate fuel oil would 

generally be significantly lower than 

from burning solid waste. Id. We further 

proposed that emissions during 

shutdown would also be generally 

significantly lower because the waste 

would be almost fully combusted before 

the unit began shutting down. Id. We 

proposed that these factors, in 

conjunction with the variability built 

into the MACT standards and the longer 

averaging periods, meant that sources 

would be able to comply with the 

standards during periods of startup and 

shutdown. Id. For violations caused by 

malfunction events, EPA stated at 

proposal that we would consider 

relevant factors in determining the 

appropriate action to take. 

We have eliminated the SSM 

exemption in this rule. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA has established 

standards in this rule that apply at all 

times. We have eliminated or revised 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

related to the SSM exemption. EPA has 

attempted to ensure that we have not 

included in the regulatory language any 

provisions that are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. 

In establishing the standards in this 

final rule, EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and have 

not established different standards for 

those periods. The standards that we are 

finalizing are based on short term stack 

tests for pollutants that generally are not 

expected to vary significantly at startup 

and shutdown. The possible exception 

here is CO, which in some subcategories 

such as ERUs, could vary at startup and 

shutdown. However, the percent oxygen 

operating limits will ensure that 

combustion conditions are optimized 

and the CO is minimized. Solid waste 

and fuel-fired ERUs do not normally 

startup and shutdown more the once per 

day. Thus, we are not establishing a 

separate emission standard for these 

periods because startup and shutdown 

are part of their routine operations and, 

therefore, are already addressed by the 

standards. Periods of startup, normal 

operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a 

source’s operation. We have evaluated 

whether it is appropriate to have the 

same standards apply during startup 

and shutdown as applied to normal 

operations, and as the rule is structured, 

well operated and controlled units 

should be able to meet the standards at 

all times. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. EPA would also consider 

whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 129 standard was, 

in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable’’ and was not 

instead ‘‘caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.’’ 40 

CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction). 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an 

exceedance of the relevant emission 

standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 

15, 1983)). EPA is therefore adding to 

the final rule an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. See 40 CFR 60.2265 and 

60.2875 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

to mean, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or 

defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which 

are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding.). We also have added other 

regulatory provisions to specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish 

this affirmative defense; the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 60.2120 and 

60.2685. See 40 CFR 22.24. The criteria 

ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that 

causes an exceedance of the emission 

limit meets the narrow definition of 

malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable 

and not caused by poor maintenance 

and/or careless operation). For example, 

to successfully assert the affirmative 

defense, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere caused by a 

sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner * * *’’ The 

criteria also are designed to ensure that 

steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with section § 60.11(d) and 

to prevent future malfunctions. For 

example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when the applicable emission 

limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken 

to minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health * * *’’ 

In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative 

defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, 

appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the 

CAA. See also 40 CFR part 22.77. 

I. Notification, Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

1. Electronic Reporting Tool 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA remove the 

mandatory requirement to use the ERT 

for submitting test results. They also 

suggest that EPA revise the provision for 

test reports, such that these reports be 

due no sooner than 90 days following 

completion of testing. One commenter 

stated that sources had requested in the 

ICR proposal stage that EPA not use the 

ERT, which was going through Beta 

testing, and informed EPA that the ERT 

had serious flaws including difficulty of 

use, content problems, and 

inaccessibility. Several commenters 

suggested that data submitted through 

the ERT is error-prone and imposes 

additional burdens on reporting sources. 

Some commenters asserted that EPA 

provides no insight or justification in 

the preamble or otherwise for requiring 

this form of data submittal and that the 

cost of this requirement, as compared to 

conventional reporting, is not evaluated 

or disclosed in discussion of the cost 

and impact of the proposed rule. 

Commenters state that many of the 

affected facilities have not had to 

participate in such reporting procedures 

in the past, and that these facilities will 

require additional staff time, equipment, 

and training to accomplish this 

requirement. Several commenters argue 

that it is also likely that implementation 

of the initial testing and most 

subsequent testing will be done under 

state authority and that unless state 

agencies are willing to use this same 

ERT, facilities will have a dual 

requirement for reporting. Further, 

commenters declare that the ERT 

bypasses the state, creating data quality 

issues. Commenters maintain that it is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15739 

important to look at the qualifiers, the 

test methods, the QA/QC plans, and the 

justifications before making any 

decisions on the validity of the 

numbers. The commenters explain that 

test results from testing companies can 

incorporate a number of ‘‘qualifiers’’ in 

their data reporting, and if the electronic 

tool cannot accommodate the use of 

textual explanation to explain 

‘‘qualifiers’’ for reported data, then the 

tool’s usefulness and accuracy is 

suspect and could cause additional 

burden on the facility to explain. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the use 

of ERT should not be required. The 

primary purpose of the emissions test is 

the demonstration that the facility meets 

the requirements of the rule. The ERT is 

designed to streamline, standardize, and 

incorporate QA/QC information for all 

the test reports and facilitate their 

submittal to EPA. The ERT will also 

make the process of developing 

emissions factors for rulemaking much 

more transparent. All the steps taken 

and data used to develop emissions 

factors for rulemaking will be much 

clearer with our new system. We 

understand that there will be little or no 

reduction in the effort needed to 

produce the test report initially, but as 

users gain expertise with the system and 

it improves over time, the time, 

resources, and consistency for review 

and evaluation will be improved. 

EPA agrees with the commenter on 

the length of time required to submit the 

ERT data. We plan to extend the period 

for entering data into the ERT and 

submitting these data to 90 days. 

EPA recognizes that there have been 

some issues with the use of the ERT, 

and we have worked closely with 

stakeholders to identify and correct 

these issues. As with all new systems, 

there are always transition problems as 

changes to those systems are 

implemented. EPA also disagrees with 

comments regarding the error-prone 

data resulting from the use of the ERT. 

Use of the ERT will help ensure that 

QA/QC requirements in the test 

methods are addressed. There are data 

fields in the ERT that clearly indicate to 

all users what information and data are 

required for each performance test. 

Thus, we believe that the ERT will 

improve data quality rather than 

provide ‘‘error-prone’’ data. The ERT 

was established to facilitate 

performance data collection. There are 

many performance tests conducted each 

year and, along with the associated 

pertinent data, it would be very timeconsuming and resource-intensive to 

compile, transfer, store, and analyze the 

tests and resultant data using a manual 

method. Electronic compilation, 

transfer, storage, and analysis are now 

our preferred ways to handle this 

amount and kind of information. EPA is 

committed to electronic compilation 

and submittal of data as demonstrated 

by the requirement to report data 

electronically in the TRI program. Other 

EPA programs, such as the acid rain and 

greenhouse gas reporting already also 

require electronic submittal of data. The 

ERT supplements the time-intensive 

manual preparation and transcription of 

stationary source emissions test plans 

and reports for emissions sources testing 

with an electronic alternative where the 

resulting data can be transmitted more 

easily and quickly to EPA and state, 

local, or tribal agencies who choose to 

use this system. The ERT provides a 

format and a process that: (1) 

Documents the key information and 

procedures required by the existing EPA 

Test Methods; (2) facilitates 

coordination among the source, the test 

contractor, and the regulatory agency in 

planning and preparing for the 

emissions test; (3) provides for 

consistent criteria to characterize 

quantitatively the quality of the data 

collected during the emissions test; (4) 

standardizes the form and content of 

test reports; and (5) calculates the 

emissions factor, and exports the 

emissions factor and associated data to 

WebFIRE. We expect the ERT to 

significantly reduce the monitoring and 

testing burden for testers, source owners 

or operators, state, local or tribal 

agencies, EPA, and other interested 

stakeholders in collecting, reviewing, 

storing, and accessing test data and 

reports. In addition, the ERT will 

produce a final report that we believe 

will satisfy test report requirements. 

Although the effort required to 

compile the performance test 

information using the ERT and 

submitting it to EPA is different from 

the existing procedures, we believe that 

once the test contractors and reviewers 

have experience with the ERT, the 

burden will be comparable to the 

existing cost and resources required for 

performance testing and reporting. As 

stated above, we worked closely with 

stack testing companies to set up the 

ERT and have the ERT process mimic 

most of their work when producing a 

final performance test report. We 

believe that there is a learning curve for 

using the ERT, and it will take a few 

tests and reports to become proficient in 

its use. However, as users continue to 

employ the ERT, the time, effort, and 

subsequent costs needed to produce, 

review, process, and extract information 

from the report will decrease. In 

addition, we are working on a fix for the 

ERT that would allow the ERT to extract 

data directly into the ERT data fields by 

‘‘tagging’’ the data from stack sampling 

or industry performance test 

spreadsheets. 

Regarding the assertion that potential 

lack of state acceptance, EPA agrees that 

states provide an important function in 

verifying the accuracy of performance 

tests. EPA has developed the ERT to 

include a module for an independent 

‘‘third party’’ review of test reports and 

data. In this third party review, EPA 

envisions an independent reviewer 

would evaluate the test reports and 

perhaps observe the performance test to 

provide an extra level of QA for the 

resultant data. EPA believes this step 

will help ensure quality tests are 

conducted and accurate data are 

obtained. State personnel would 

perform these reviews for each 

performance test before they submit the 

test reports to EPA. State personnel are 

more familiar with the sources and often 

observe the testing. EPA has attempted 

to address this issue by providing a 

third party review module to the ERT. 

In this ERT module, an independent 

reviewer would be given some questions 

to respond to regarding how the test was 

conducted and the quality of the 

resultant data. Where the third party 

reviewer provides negative responses to 

the conduct of a performance test, 

points will be deducted from the overall 

rating of the performance test. This, in 

turn, will impact the overall rating of 

the test. Thus, we believe that having an 

objective third party reviewer will 

improve performance tests and the 

resultant data by providing the 

incentive to conduct better performance 

tests. As mentioned above, states can be 

the third party reviewers, if they so 

choose. States routinely review 

performance tests conducted for 

permitting and compliance purposes, so 

they would be better suited to review 

the tests. EPA also recognizes the states 

as having an important role to play in 

ensuring that performance tests are 

conducted properly and provide quality 

data. EPA encourages states to continue 

to ensure that performance tests are 

conducted properly and subsequently 

provide the test reports and data to EPA. 

Where stack testers need to deviate 

from the test methods, there are 

narrative fields that allow the submittal 

of this type of information. We 

understand that there are conditions 

that warrant minor changes or 

deviations from the test methods, and in 

these cases, there are fields in the ERT 

to include this kind of information and, 

at the discretion of the responsible 

agency, approval of these minor changes 

to test methods may be approved in the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15740 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

course of approving the test plan. Major 

changes to test methods, however, must 

be approved in writing by official letter 

from the EPA. 

2. Records of Non-Waste Materials 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that EPA require facilities 

to notify appropriate regulatory agencies 

once they have determined that they 

comply with the requirements of the 

non-hazardous secondary materials 

legitimacy criteria and/or the processing 

requirements in the solid waste 

definition rule. The commenter 

suggested that notifications should 

include information on how the 

determination of a homogeneous fuel 

was made, and what methods will be 

employed to ensure that the fuel used 

will continue to comply with the 

‘‘homogeneous’’ requirements. The 

commenter suggested that clear 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements must be put in place to 

ensure that enforcement staff can 

determine compliance status. Several 

commenters suggested that regulating 

the use of recyclable nonhazardous 

secondary materials such as tires will 

encourage greater use of landfilling 

which they asserted is counter to longstanding EPA policy that promotes such 

activities. 

Response: EPA has added 

recordkeeping provisions for units that 

burn materials other than traditional 

fuels that document how each of those 

materials meet the non-waste criteria in 

the Solid Waste Definition Rule. The 

newly promulgated procedures for 

identification of non-hazardous 

secondary materials that are solid 

wastes when used as fuels in 

combustion units at 40 CFR 241.3 are 

self-implementing provisions that 

require each source owner or operator to 

determine whether the materials they 

are combusting meet certain legitimacy 

criteria, and/or whether the materials 

have been processed from a discarded 

non-hazardous secondary material. 

Materials that remain within the control 

of the generator and that meet the 

legitimacy criteria specified in 

§ 241.3(d), as well as materials that are 

produced from the processing of 

discarded non-hazardous secondary 

materials, and that meet the legitimacy 

are not considered solid wastes (see 

§ 241.3(b)). Traditional fuels are defined 

in the Solid Waste Definition Rule, and 

the rule exempts traditional fuels from 

being solid waste. 

To ensure that owners or operators of 

units combusting materials review and 

apply the non-waste provisions in the 

Solid Waste Definition Rule, EPA is 

requiring owners or operators that 

combust materials that are not clearly 

listed as traditional fuels document how 

the materials meet the legitimacy 

criteria and/or the processing 

requirements in the Solid Waste 

Definition Rule. Failure of a source 

owner or operator to correctly apply the 

non-waste criteria would result in 

incorrect self-assessments as to whether 

their combustion units are subject to 

CISWI. Requiring sources to document 

how the non-waste criteria apply to the 

materials combusted will both improve 

self-assessments of applicability, and 

will assist EPA and states in the proper 

identification of sources subject to 

CISWI. The definition of CISWI unit is 

amended to require that any material 

combusted that is not a traditional fuel 

will be treated as a solid waste unless 

the source makes and keeps the record 

documenting how the material meets 

non-waste criteria in the Solid Waste 

Definition Rule. 

If the material being combusted has 

received a non-waste determination 

pursuant to the petition process in the 

Solid Waste Definition Rule at 40 CFR 

241.3(c), the source owner or operator 

must keep a copy of the non-waste 

determination granted by EPA. If the 

combustion unit is being regulated 

under CAA section 112 regulations for 

boilers and process heaters at major 

sources (Subpart DDDDD National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants at Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters) or for boilers at 

area sources (Subpart JJJJJJ—National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers Area Sources), 

the recordkeeping requirements in those 

rules that require documentation of nonwaste criteria meet the non-waste 

recordkeeping requirements in CISWI. 

EPA has similarly added a 

recordkeeping requirement and 

amended the definition of CISWI unit to 

require that sources burning tires make 

and keep a certification that confirms 

that the tire is part of an established tire 

collection program. The Solid Waste 

Definition Rule does not include tires 

from established tire collection 

programs as solid waste. An established 

tire collection program is defined in the 

solid waste rule as a comprehensive 

collection system that ensures scrap 

tires are not discarded and are handled 

as valuable commodities in accordance 

with 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the 

point of removal from the automobile 

through arrival at the combustion 

facility. 

The source owner or operator 

combusting tires, who is not treating 

their tires as solid waste and is not 

subject to the CISWI emission limits, 

must keep a record which identifies the 

name, owner, and location of the tire 

collection program from which they 

obtained the tires, the quantity of tires 

received from that program and the date 

received, and they must document how 

the program handles the tires as 

valuable commodities consistent with 

40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of 

removal from the automobile through 

arrival at the combustion facility. The 

record may be generated and certified 

(signed) by the established tire 

collection program, or by the owner or 

operator of the unit combusting tires. A 

copy of the record must be retained by 

the owner or operator of the tire 

combustion unit, and produced upon 

request. The record must include a 

signed certification by either the owner 

or operator of the tire collection 

program, or the owner or operator of the 

combustion unit, that the tires from the 

program meet the EPA definition of an 

established tire collection program in 40 

CFR 241. All tires on-site will be treated 

as solid waste, unless this record is 

retained, and it is clear as to which tires 

each certification pertains. If tires onsite are from more than one collection 

program or generator, there must be a 

separate certification for each generator 

or collection program from which the 

tires were obtained, and the owner or 

operator of the combustion unit must 

keep records which clearly identify the 

on-site location of tires associated with 

each certification 

J. Air Curtain Incinerators 

Comment: Commenters requested that 

EPA remove the requirement for air 

curtain incinerators regulated under 

CISWI to obtain a Title V permit. They 

suggested that EPA instead require only 

those units at major sources or sources 

that took federally enforceable limits to 

become minor sources to obtain a Title 

V permit under CISWI. Some argued 

that an air curtain incinerator is 

excluded from the statutory definition 

of ‘‘solid waste incineration unit.’’ 

Commenters stated that although CAA 

section 129(e) requires a ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ to obtain a Title V 

permit, they suggested that the 

requirement does not extend to units 

that are excluded from the definition of 

‘‘solid waste incineration unit,’’ of which 

an air curtain incinerator is only one of 

several types of excluded units. One 

commenter suggested that that EPA 

allow permitting agencies flexibility in 

addressing the ACI system opacity 

limitation. This opacity requirement can 

be addressed through minor source 

permits, federally enforceable state 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15741 

operating permits, registration permits 

or Title V general permits. 

Response: We are not exempting air 

curtain incinerators located at area/ 

minor source facilities from the 

requirement to obtain a Title V permit 

in this final rule. Commenters appear to 

allege that the requirement to obtain a 

Title V requirement does not apply to 

them because they are not solid waste 

incineration units and the requirement 

in CAA section 129(e) applies only to 

solid waste incineration units. 

Commenters are correct that air curtain 

incinerators are not solid waste 

incineration units pursuant to CAA 

section 129(g)(1)(C), but that is only 

correct if the units ‘‘only burn wood 

wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber 

and [they] * * * comply with opacity 

limitations to be established by the 

Administrator by rule.’’ EPA has 

established opacity limitations for air 

curtain incinerators pursuant to sections 

111 and 129. 

Pursuant to CAA section 502(a), 

sources subject to standards or 

regulations under CAA section 111 must 

obtain a Title V permit; therefore, air 

curtain incinerators are required to 

obtain a Title V permit. As commenters 

note, EPA may exempt minor and area 

sources from the requirement to obtain 

a Title V permit, but EPA must first 

determine that compliance with Title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on the sources before 

exempting them (CAA section 502(a)). 

EPA has not made the necessary finding 

pursuant to CAA section 502(a) for air 

curtain incinerators in any of the CAA 

section 129 rulemakings, and we believe 

that air curtain incinerators exist at CAA 

section 129 facilities other than at the 

commercial and industrial facilities 

subject to this final rule. Because we 

think it is important to treat all air 

curtain incinerators in the same manner, 

we decline to consider a Title V 

exemption for minor and area source air 

curtain incinerators at commercial and 

industrial facilities. 

K. Role of States 

Comment: Several commenters 

believe that the states should retain as 

much authority as possible to 

implement and enforce the standards. 

Other commenters suggest that EPA 

allow states and local regulatory 

authorities an option for case-by-case 

determinations. Some commenters 

believe that the local permitting agency 

should retain the authority to approve 

alternate compliance approaches under 

CISWI rules. The commenters argue that 

the states are responsible for 

incorporating the EG into their own 

rules, for permitting and inspecting 

sources, for enforcing compliance with 

the rules, and can apply appropriate 

discretion when needed. Commenters 

assert that facilities have more frequent 

communication with their local 

permitting agency, and the permitting 

staff have been to the facility and have 

knowledge about how the facilities 

operate. They suggest that the local 

permitting agency can also be more 

timely in responding to facilities’ 

requests, due to their knowledge of the 

facility and the limited number of 

sources they cover, as opposed to the 

larger number of sources under an EPA 

regional office. 

Response: For previous rules, there 

has been some confusion about what 

authority can be delegated to and 

exercised by state, local, and tribal air 

pollution control agencies and what 

authority must be retained by EPA. In 

some cases, state, local, and tribal air 

pollution control agencies were making 

decisions, such as allowing waivers of 

some provisions of this subpart, which 

cannot be delegated to those agencies. 

We clarify the authorities retained by 

EPA in 40 CFR 60.2030(c), applicable to 

the EG and the NSPS. The following 

authorities, among others, must be 

retained by EPA for all NSPS and EG: 

Approval of alternatives to the emission 

limits; approval of major alternatives to 

test methods or monitoring; and 

approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting. The list 

also specifically includes establishment 

of operating limits for control devices 

other than those listed in the rule and 

review of status reports submitted when 

no qualified operators are available. 

EPA also retains sole authority for 

approval of performance test and data 

reduction waivers under 40 CFR 60.8(b), 

and preconstruction siting analyses. 

These authorities may affect the 

stringency of the emission standards or 

limitations, which can only be amended 

by federal rulemaking; EPA may not 

transfer these authorities to state, local, 

or tribal air pollution control agencies. 

L. Biased Data Collection From Phase II 

ICR Testing 

Comment: Many commenters 

suggested that EPA ‘‘cherry picked’’ the 

best data in setting each standard. 

Several commenters believe the data 

that EPA gathered to support the CISWI 

rule reflects bias, is incomplete, 

fundamentally flawed, and that the 

standards are arbitrary and capricious. 

Some commenters argued that EPA’s 

data collection efforts were biased 

toward so-called ‘‘top performing 

facilities’’ because EPA directed its 

information requests to units that it had 

reason to believe were the better 

performing units in each subcategory. 

The commenters suggested that the 

sample population is tainted and has 

resulted in proposed standards that are 

inordinately stringent, are not 

representative of the overall 

performance of the sources in 

subcategories to which they apply, and 

are not in accord with the legal 

standards. One commenter suggested 

that EPA based the standards on a 

relatively minute pool of relevant data 

despite the decade and a half long 

process that lead to the proposed rules. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertions that we obtained 

skewed data and that data collection 

efforts to support the CISWI rule were 

biased toward ‘‘top performing 

facilities.’’ EPA documents the 

procedures used for identifying CISWI 

units and collecting information in the 

CISWI Test Data Database memo for the 

proposed rule dated April 26, 2010. As 

explained in the memo, the initial 

database of CISWI units operating in the 

United States as of 1998 was obtained 

from the information collected to 

support EPA’s ICR and promulgate the 

2000 CISWI rule. In the 2000 CISWI 

rule, EPA only regulated solid waste 

incineration units at commercial and 

industrial facilities that combusted solid 

waste solely for the purpose of 

destroying the waste. Energy recovery 

units (i.e., boilers and process heaters) 

and waste-burning kilns (i.e., cement 

kilns) were exempt from the 2000 CISWI 

rule. In 2005, EPA issued the CISWI 

Definitions Rule, which confirmed that 

ERUs were exempt from CISWI and 

maintained the exemption for cement 

kilns. In 2006, the list of CISWI 

incinerator units initially identified 

based on the CISWI Definitions Rule 

was distributed to the 10 EPA Regional 

offices to confirm whether the units 

were operational. Based on the 

information supplied by the EPA 

regions, the initial CISWI database was 

revised to reflect the unit deletions/ 

additions provided by the regional 

contacts. In 2007, the Court vacated the 

CISWI Definitions Rule, concluding that 

the rule was flawed because CAA 

section 129 unambiguously regulates 

any commercial or industrial 

combustion unit combusting any solid 

waste and the CISWI Definitions Rule 

exempted units that combust waste if 

the units also recover energy in the 

process. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1260. 

While not explicitly addressed in the 

decision, the implication of the holding 

extended beyond ERUs to other 

commercial or industrial units 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15742 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

combusting solid waste, e.g., cement 

kilns. 

EPA developed a two phase 

information collection process to collect 

information from units that may be 

subject to CISWI in light of the vacatur 

of the CISWI Definitions Rule. ‘‘Phase I’’ 

survey requests were sent to all 

commercial and industrial facilities that 

we determined may have solid waste 

incineration units and for which EPA 

did not already have information. The 

Phase I surveys were reviewed and used 

to update the CISWI inventory for 

incinerators or ERUs. ‘‘Phase II’’ surveys 

were then sent out to all CISWI units 

where emissions test data was missing 

from the Phase I database, requesting 

these units test and report for the 

missing pollutants. Through this 

process, EPA requested information 

from all known CISWI units, not solely 

the best performers as commenters 

assert, and we used the data to 

determine the best-performing sources 

to set the standards for this rule. 

VI. Impacts of the Action 

A. What are the primary air impacts? 

We have estimated the potential 

emissions reductions from existing 

sources that may be achieved through 

implementation of the emission limits. 

However, we realize that some CISWI 

owners and operators are likely to 

determine that alternatives to waste 

incineration are viable, such as further 

waste segregation or sending the waste 

to a landfill or MWC, if available. In 

fact, sources operating incinerators, 

where energy recovery is not a goal, may 

find it cost-effective to discontinue use 

of their CISWI unit altogether. 

Therefore, we have estimated emissions 

reductions attributable to existing 

sources complying with the limits, as 

well as those reductions that would 

occur if the facilities with incinerators 

and small, remote incinerators decide to 

discontinue the use of their CISWI unit 

and use alternative waste disposal 

options. 

For units combusting wastes for 

energy production, such as ERUs and 

waste-burning kilns, the decision to 

combust or not to combust waste will 

depend on several factors. One factor is 

the cost to replace the energy provided 

by the waste material with a traditional 

fuel, such as natural gas. Another factor 

would be whether the owner or operator 

is purchasing the waste or obtaining it 

at no cost from other generators, or if 

they are generating the waste on-site 

and will have to dispose of the materials 

in another fashion, such as landfills. 

Lastly, these units would have to 

compare the control requirements 

needed to meet the CISWI emission 

limits with those needed if they stop 

burning solid waste and are then subject 

to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned 

before, we have attempted to align the 

monitoring requirements for similar 

non-waste-burning sources as closely as 

possible in an effort to make them 

consistent and to help sources make the 

cross-walk between waste and nonwaste regulatory requirements as simple 

as possible. 

The emissions reductions that would 

be achieved under this rule using the 

definition of solid waste under RCRA 

are presented in Table 10 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 10—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR MACT COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR EXISTING

CISWI USING THE EMISSION LIMITS

Pollutant 

Reductions achieved 

through meeting 

MACT 

(ton/yr) 

Reductions achieved 

assuming incinerators 

and small, remote 

incinerators use 

alternative 

disposal 

(ton/yr) a

HCl ................................................................................................................................................... 431 .2 443 .3 

CO .................................................................................................................................................... 23,449 23,414 

Pb ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 .52 4 .53 

Cd .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .902 0 .903 

Hg .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .106 0 .109 

PM (filterable) .................................................................................................................................. 1,671 1,674 

dioxin, furans ................................................................................................................................... 0 .000125 0 .000127 

NOX .................................................................................................................................................. 5,627 5,734 

SO2 .................................................................................................................................................. 5,208 5,259 

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 36,392 36,530 

aThe estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted ERU fuel. 

EPA expects that many existing 

CISWI owners and operators may find 

that alternate disposal options are 

preferable to complying with the 

standards for the incinerator and small, 

remote incinerator subcategories. Our 

experience with regulations for MWC, 

HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI, has shown 

that negative growth in the source 

category historically occurs upon 

implementation of CAA section 129 

standards. Since CISWI rules were 

promulgated in 2000 and have been in 

effect for existing sources since 2005, 

many existing units have closed. At 

promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated 

122 units in the CISWI population. In 

comparison, the incinerator subcategory 

in this rule, which contains any such 

units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, has 

28 units. EPA is not aware of any 

construction of new units since 2000, so 

we do not believe there are any units 

that are currently subject to the 2000 

CISWI NSPS. The revised CISWI rule is 

more stringent, so we expect this trend 

to continue. However, EPA does 

recognize that some facilities may opt to 

replace aging incinerator units with new 

units where it is cost effective or 

alternative disposal options are not 

feasible, as may be the case with some 

incinerators, or in very remote locations. 

We estimate that there could be one new 

incineration unit within the next 5 

years, and possibly five new small 

remote incinerators within that time. In 

these cases, we have developed model 

CISWI unit emissions reduction 

estimates for these subcategories using 

the existing unit baseline and the new 

source emission limits. Table 11 of this 

preamble presents the model plant 

emissions reductions that would be 

expected for new sources. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15743 

TABLE 11—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ON A MODEL PLANT BASIS

Pollutant 

Emission reduction for CISWI 

subcategory model units 

(tpy unless otherwise noted) 

Incinerator Small, remote 

incinerator 

HCl ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 .67 0 .0 

CO ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 .23 0 .25 

Pb ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .83 0 .0037 

Cd ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 .022 0 .0007 

Hg ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 .004 0 .000012 

PM (filterable) .............................................................................................................................................. 148 0 .5 

D/F (total mass) a ......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0018 0 .0 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 .3 0 .15 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 .6 0 .15 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 178 1 .05 

a D/F estimates are given in lb/yr. 

We do not anticipate that any new 

energy recovery or waste-burning kiln 

units will be constructed and will 

instead use alternative waste disposal 

methods or alternative fuels that will 

not subject them to the CISWI rule. For 

example, whole tires obtained from 

approved tire management programs 

and tire-derived fuel from which the 

metal has been removed is not 

considered solid waste under the 

definition of solid waste. Consequently, 

new cement kiln owners will assess 

their regulatory requirements under 

CISWI for burning whole tires or tirederived fuel that does not have metals 

removed against the costs associated 

with removing the metal or obtaining 

tires from an approved source and 

complying with the applicable NESHAP 

instead of the CISWI rule. Our research 

suggests that metal removal is routinely 

practiced and that several state waste 

tire management programs are already 

in place, and would most likely be a 

viable option for new kiln owners so 

that they would not be subject to the 

CISWI regulations. Indeed, we expect 

that all existing cement kilns that are 

classified as being waste-burning solely 

due to whole tires will, by the 

compliance date for the CISWI 

standards, find a way to obtain their 

tires through an approved tire 

management plan. Likewise, new 

sources could engineer their process to 

minimize waste generation in the first 

place, or to separate wastes so that the 

materials sent to a combustion unit 

would not meet the definition of solid 

waste to begin with. For waste that is 

generated, cost analyses have found that 

alternative waste disposal is generally 

available and less expensive. 

B. What are the water and solid waste 

impacts? 

In our analysis, we have selected the 

lowest cost alternative (i.e., compliance 

or alternative disposal) for each facility. 

We anticipate affected sources will need 

to apply additional controls to meet the 

emission limits. These controls may use 

water, such as wet scrubbers, which 

would need to be treated. We estimate 

an annual requirement of 103 billion 

gallons per year of additional water 

would be required as a result of 

operating additional controls or 

increased sorbent use. 

Likewise, the addition of PM controls 

or improvements to controls already in 

place will increase the amount of 

particulate collected that will require 

disposal. Furthermore, ACI may be used 

by some sources, which will result in 

additional solid waste needing disposal. 

The annual amounts of solid waste that 

would require disposal are anticipated 

to be approximately 19,23733,526 tpy 

from PM capture and 14,289,078 tpy 

from ACI. 

Perhaps the largest impact on solid 

waste would come from owners and 

operators who decide to discontinue the 

use of their CISWI unit and instead send 

waste to the landfill or MWC for 

disposal. Based on tipping fees and 

availability, we would expect most, if 

not all, of this diverted waste to be sent 

to a local landfill. As we discuss above, 

it may be that a good portion of the 

incinerators would determine that 

alternative disposal is a better choice 

than compliance with the standards. We 

estimate that approximately 110,417 tpy 

of waste would be diverted to a landfill. 

For new CISWI units, we estimate an 

annual requirement of 9102 million 

gallons per year of additional water 

would be required as a result of 

operating additional controls. The 

annual amounts of solid waste that 

would require disposal are anticipated 

to be approximately 7275.0 tpy from PM 

capture and 8173.0 tpy from ACI. 

C. What are the energy impacts? 

The energy impacts associated with 

meeting the emission limits would 

consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or 

improved air pollution control devices. 

For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases 

in electricity consumption and sorbent 

injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and 

motors. In our analysis, we have 

selected the lowest cost alternative (i.e., 

compliance or alternative disposal) for 

each facility. By our estimate, we 

anticipate that an additional 214,356 

MW-hours per year would be required 

for the additional and improved control 

devices. 

As discussed earlier, there could be 

instances where owners and operators 

of ERUs and waste-burning kilns decide 

to cease burning waste materials. In 

these cases, the energy provided by the 

burning of waste would need to be 

replaced with a traditional fuel, such as 

natural gas. Assuming an estimate that 

50 percent of the energy input to ERUs 

and kilns are from waste materials, an 

estimate of the energy that would be 

replaced with a traditional fuel if all 

existing units stopped burning waste 

materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr. 

For new CISWI units, we anticipate 

that 511 MW-hours per year would be 

required for additional and improved 

control devices. Since we do not 

anticipate any new energy recovery or 

waste-burning kiln units to be 

constructed, there would be no 

additional estimate for energy that 

would be replaced with a traditional 

fuel. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15744 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment 

Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. 

Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 

D. What are the secondary air impacts? 

For CISWI units adding controls to 

meet the emission limits, we anticipate 

minor secondary air impacts. The 

combustion of fuel needed to generate 

additional electricity and to operate 

RTO controls would yield slight 

increases in emissions, including NOX, 

CO, PM, and SO2 and an increase in CO2

emissions. Since NOX and SO2 are 

covered by capped emissions trading 

programs, and methodological 

limitations prevent us from quantifying 

the change in CO and PM, we do not 

estimate an increase in secondary air 

impacts for this rule from additional 

electricity demand. 

We believe it likely that the 

incinerators may elect to discontinue 

the use of their CISWI unit and send the 

waste to the landfill or other disposal 

means. As we discussed in the solid 

waste impacts above, this could result 

in approximately 110,417 tpy of waste 

going to landfills. By using EPA’s 

Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we 

estimate that, over the 20-year expected 

life of a CISWI unit, the resulting 

methane generated by a landfill 

receiving the waste would be about 

96,300 tons. If this landfill gas were 

combusted in a flare, assuming typical 

flare emission factors and landfill gas 

chlorine, Hg, and sulfur concentrations, 

the following emissions would be 

expected: 20 tons of PM; 8 tons of HCl; 

16 tons of SO2; 890 tons of CO; 46 tons 

of NOX; and 1.4 lbs of Hg. 

Similar to existing units, we 

anticipate minor secondary air impacts 

for new CISWI units adding controls as 

discussed above. 

E. What are the cost and economic 

impacts? 

We have estimated compliance costs 

for all existing units to add the 

necessary controls and monitoring 

equipment, and to implement the 

inspections, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to comply with 

the CISWI standards. We have also 

analyzed the costs of alternative 

disposal for the subcategories that may 

have alternative options to burning 

waste, specifically for the incinerators 

and the small, remote incinerators that 

may have an alternative to incineration. 

In our analysis, we have selected the 

lowest cost alternative (i.e., compliance 

or alternative disposal) for each facility. 

Based on this analysis, we anticipate an 

overall total capital investment of $652 

million with an associated total annual 

cost of $232 million ($2008). 

Under the rule, EPA’s economic 

model suggests the average national 

market-level variables (prices, 

production-levels, consumption, 

international trade) will not change 

significantly (e.g., are less than 0.02 

percent). 

EPA performed a screening analysis 

for impacts on small entities by 

comparing compliance costs to sales/ 

revenues (e.g., sales and revenue tests). 

EPA’s analysis found the tests were 

below 3 percent for five of the nine 

small entities included in the screening 

analysis. 

In addition to estimating this rule’s 

social costs and benefits, EPA has 

estimated the employment impacts of 

the final rule. We expect that the rule’s 

direct impact on employment will be 

small. We have not quantified the rule’s 

indirect or induced impacts. For further 

explanation and discussion of our 

analysis, see Chapter 4 of the RIA. 

For new CISWI units, we have 

estimated compliance costs for units 

coming online in the next 5 years. This 

analysis is based on the assumption that 

one new incinerator will come online 

over 5 years and one new small, remote 

incinerator will come online each year 

over the next 5 years. Additionally, it 

was assumed that each model unit will 

add the necessary controls, monitoring 

equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements to comply 

with NSPS limits. Based on our 

analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $8.4 million over 

5 years with an associated total annual 

cost (for 2015) of $2.6 million. 

F. What are the benefits? 

We estimate the monetized benefits of 

this regulatory action to be $340 million 

to $830 million (2008$), 3 percent 

discount rate) in the implementation 

year (2015). The monetized benefits of 

the regulatory action at a 7 percent 

discount rate are $310 million to $750 

million (2008$). These estimates reflect 

energy disbenefits valued at $3.8 

million. Using alternate relationships 

between PM2.5 and premature mortality 

supplied by experts, higher and lower 

benefits estimates are plausible, but 

most of the expert-based estimates fall 

between these two estimates.4 A 

summary of the monetized benefits 

estimates at discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent is in Table 12 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE CISWI NSPS AND EG IN 2015 

[Millions of 2008$] 1 2

Pollutant 

Estimated 

emission 

reductions 

(tpy) 

Total monetized 

benefits 

(3% discount rate) 

Total monetized 

benefits 

(7% discount rate) 

PM2.5 .................................................................................................................... 710 $160 to $400 ............. $150 to $360. 

PM2.5 Precursors: 

SO2 ............................................................................................................... 5,170 $150 to $370 ............. $140 to $340. 

NOX .............................................................................................................. 5,544 $27 to $66 ................. $24 to $59. 

Total ....................................................................................................... ........................ $340 to $830 ............. $310 to $750. 

1All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. All fine 

particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These estimates do not include the energy 

disbenefits valued at $3.8 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits were calculated using the social cost of carbon, 

which is discussed further in the RIA. 2The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to incorporate the final engineering 

costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15745 

5Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ‘‘The 

influence of location, source, and emission type in 

estimates of the human health benefits of reducing 

a ton of air pollution.’’ Air Qual Atmos Health 

(2009) 2:169–176. 

6Pope, et al., 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term 

Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal 

of the American Medical Association 287:1132– 

1141. 

7Laden, et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. October. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

ecas/ria.html. 

These benefits estimates represent the 

total monetized human health benefits 

for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 

2015 from controls installed to reduce 

air pollutants in order to meet these 

standards. These estimates are 

calculated as the sum of the monetized 

value of avoided premature mortality 

and morbidity associated with reducing 

a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions. To estimate human health 

benefits derived from reducing PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we used 

the general approach and methodology 

laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell 

(2009).5

To generate the benefit-per-ton 

estimates, we used a model to convert 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors into changes in ambient 

PM2.5 levels and another model to 

estimate the changes in human health 

associated with that change in air 

quality. Finally, the monetized health 

benefits were divided by the emission 

reductions to create the benefit-per-ton 

estimates. These models assume that all 

fine particles, regardless of their 

chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality 

because there is no clear scientific 

evidence that would support the 

development of differential effects 

estimates by particle type. Directly 

emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are the 

primary precursors affected by this rule. 

Even though we assume that all fine 

particles have equivalent health effects, 

the benefit-per-ton estimates vary 

between precursors because each ton of 

precursor reduced has a different 

propensity to form PM2.5. For example, 

SO2 has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate 

than direct PM2.5 because it does not 

directly transform into PM2.5, and 

because sulfate particles formed from 

SO2 emissions can transport many 

miles, including over areas with low 

populations. Direct PM2.5 emissions 

convert directly into ambient PM2.5, 

thus, to the extent that emissions occur 

in population areas, exposures to direct 

PM2.5 will tend to be higher, and 

monetized health benefits will be higher 

than for SO2 emissions. 

For context, it is important to note 

that the magnitude of the PM benefits is 

largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. Experts have advised EPA to 

consider a variety of assumptions, 

including estimates based on both 

empirical (epidemiological) studies and 

judgments elicited from scientific 

experts, to characterize the uncertainty 

in the relationship between PM2.5

concentrations and premature mortality. 

For this rule, we cite two key empirical 

studies, the American Cancer Society 

cohort study 6 and the extended Six 

Cities cohort study.7 In the RIA for this 

rule, which is available in the docket, 

we also include benefits estimates 

derived from expert judgments and 

other assumptions. 

EPA strives to use the best available 

science to support our benefits analyses. 

We recognize that interpretation of the 

science regarding air pollution and 

health is dynamic and evolving. After 

reviewing the scientific literature and 

recent scientific advice, we have 

determined that the no-threshold model 

is the most appropriate model for 

assessing the mortality benefits 

associated with reducing PM2.5

exposure. Consistent with this recent 

advice, we are replacing the previous 

threshold sensitivity analysis with a 

new ‘‘LML’’ assessment. While an LML 

assessment provides some insight into 

the level of uncertainty in the estimated 

PM mortality benefits, EPA does not 

view the LML as a threshold and 

continues to quantify PM-related 

mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related 

benefits in this rule would accrue to 

populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. Using the Pope, et al., (2002) 

study, 85 percent of the population is 

exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/ 

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

study, 40 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3. It 

is important to emphasize that we have 

high confidence in PM2.5-related effects 

down to the lowest LML of the major 

cohort studies. This fact is important, 

because as we estimate PM-related 

mortality among populations exposed to 

levels of PM2.5 that are successively 

lower, our confidence in the results 

diminishes. However, our analysis 

shows that the great majority of the 

impacts occur at higher exposures. 

This analysis does not include the 

type of detailed uncertainty assessment 

found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA 

because we lack the necessary air 

quality input and monitoring data to run 

the benefits model. In addition, we have 

not conducted any air quality modeling 

for this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis 8 provides an 

indication of the sensitivity of our 

results to various assumptions. 

It should be emphasized that the 

monetized benefits estimates provided 

above do not include benefits from 

several important benefit categories, 

including reducing other air pollutants, 

ecosystem effects, and visibility 

impairment. The benefits from reducing 

HAP have not been monetized in this 

analysis, including reducing 25,000 tons 

of CO, 470 tons of HCl, 4.1 tons of Pb, 

0.95 tons of Cd, 260 pounds of Hg and 

92 grams of total D/F each year. 

Although we do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to 

provide monetized estimates for this 

rulemaking, we include a qualitative 

assessment of the health effects of these 

air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, 

which is available in the docket. 

In addition, the monetized benefits 

estimates provided in Table 12 of this 

preamble do not reflect the disbenefits 

associated with increased electricity and 

fuel consumption to operate the control 

devices. We estimate that the increases 

in emissions of CO2 would have 

disbenefits valued at $3.8M at a 3 

percent discount rate. Carbon Dioxiderelated disbenefits were calculated 

using the social cost of carbon, which is 

discussed further in the RIA. However, 

these disbenefits do not change the 

rounded total monetized benefits. In the 

RIA, we also provide the monetized CO2

disbenefits using discount rates of 5 

percent (average), 2.5 percent (average), 

and 3 percent (95th percentile). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 

1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it 

will have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the OMB for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563, and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. In addition, EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15746 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards 

of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units.’’ A copy of the analysis is 

available in the Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0119 and the analysis is briefly 

summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. The net benefits table is also 

provided here. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE CISWI NSPS AND

EMISSIONS GUIDELINES IN 2015 

[Millions of 2008$] a d

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Option 1: MACT Floor: 

Total Monetized Benefits b ............. $340 to $830 ........................................................................................................ $310 to $750. 

Total Social Costs c ........................ $280 ..................................................................................................................... $280. 

Net Benefits ................................... $60 to $550 .......................................................................................................... $30 to $470. 

Non-monetized Benefits ................ 25,000 tons of CO.

470 tons of HCl.

260 pounds of Hg.

0.95 tons of Cd.

4.1 tons of lead.

92 grams of dioxins/furans.

Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure.

Ecosystem effects.

Visibility impairment.

Option 2: Beyond-the-Floor: 

Total Monetized Benefits b ............. $430 to $1,100 ..................................................................................................... $390 to $960. 

Total Social Costs c ........................ $300 ..................................................................................................................... $300. 

Net Benefits ................................... $130 to $770 ........................................................................................................ $90 to $660. 

Non-monetized Benefits ................ 25,000 tons of CO.

470 tons of HCl.

260 pounds of Hg.

0.95 tons of Cd.

4.1 tons of lead.

92 grams of dioxins/furans.

Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure.

Ecosystem effects.

Visibility impairment.

aAll estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. These results include units anticipated to 

come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption. bThe total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects 

associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all 

fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These estimates include energy disbenefits valued at 

$3.8 million. cThe methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs for 

both discount rates. dThe estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to incorporate the final engineering 

costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

The information collection requirements 

are not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. The ICR documents prepared by 

EPA have been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2384.02 for subpart CCCC, 40 

CFR part 60 and 2385.02 for subpart 

DDDD, 40 CFR part 60. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources 

must report them according to the 

applicable reporting requirements of 

these Subparts. An affirmative defense 

to civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions is available to a source if 

it can demonstrate that certain criteria 

and requirements are satisfied. The 

criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the 

event that causes an exceedance of the 

emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation) 

and where the source took necessary 

actions to minimize emissions. In 

addition, the source must meet certain 

notification and reporting requirements. 

For example, the source must prepare a 

written root cause analysis and submit 

a written report to the Administrator 

documenting that it has met the 

conditions and requirements for 

assertion of the affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an 

estimate of the relative magnitude of the 

burden associated with an assertion of 

the affirmative defense position adopted 

by a source, EPA provides an 

administrative adjustment to this ICR 

that shows what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records, including the root cause 

analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on 

the time and effort required of a source 

to review relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emission 

limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to EPA. EPA 

provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15747 

incurred if there has been a violation 

and a source chooses to take advantage 

of the affirmative defense. 

The requirements in this final rule 

result in industry recordkeeping and 

reporting burden associated with review 

of the amendments for all CISWI, and 

inspections of scrubbers, FFs, and other 

air pollution control devices that may be 

used to meet the emission limits for all 

CISWI. Ongoing parametric monitoring 

requirements for ESPs, SNCR, and ACI 

are also required of all CISWI units. 

Stack testing and development of new 

parameter limits would be necessary for 

CISWI that need to make performance 

improvements in order to meet the 

emission limits and for CISWI that, 

prior to this action, have not been 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with certain pollutants. Visual 

emissions tests would be required for all 

subcategories except waste-burning 

kilns on an annual basis. Energy 

recovery units would be required to 

continuously monitor percent oxygen, 

and units larger than 250 mmBtu/hr 

would be required to monitor PM 

emissions using a PM CEMS. Wasteburning kilns would be required to 

continuously monitor Hg emissions 

using a Hg CEMS and PM emissions 

using a PM CEMS. Any new CISWI 

would also be required to continuously 

monitor CO emissions. The annual 

average burden associated with 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the EG over the first 3 

years following promulgation is 

estimated to be 14,672 hours at a total 

annual labor cost of $522,323. The total 

capital and startup plus the O&M costs 

with the EG monitoring requirements, 

EPA Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 testing, initial stack 

testing, annual stack testing, storage of 

data and reports and photocopying and 

postage over the 3-year period of the ICR 

are estimated at $18,592,079 total and 

$6,197,360 per year. (The annual 

inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor 

costs.) The annual average burden 

associated with the NSPS over the first 

3 years following promulgation of this 

final rule is estimated to be 858 hours 

at a total annual labor cost of $30,527, 

since we anticipate only one new small 

remote incineration unit to be 

constructed per year. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 

approved by OMB, the Agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 

CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to 

display the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedures 

Act or any other statute unless the 

Agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small government organizations and 

small government jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the rule on small entities, small entity 

is defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; or (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise that 

is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

estimate that there are 88 entities 

subject to this regulation, of which 10 of 

them are considered to be small 

companies. The small entities directly 

regulated by the rule are facilities 

engaged in industrial or commercial 

operations, such as paper and 

paperboard manufacturing and utility 

providers. The average cost-to-sales 

ratios for small companies are below 3.5 

percent. The median ratio is 2.2 percent. 

Only four entities, which are in 3 

different industries, have a sales test 

that exceeds 3 percent. For the purposes 

of this rulemaking, four is not 

considered a ‘‘substantial number’’ of 

small entities. 

Although this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on state, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This rule contains a federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for state, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any 1 year. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared under 

section 202 of the UMRA a written 

statement, which is summarized below. 

1. Statutory Authority 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, the statutory authority for the 

final rule is CAA sections 129 and 111. 

CAA section 129 CISWI standards 

include numeric emissions limitations 

for the nine pollutants specified in CAA 

section 129(a)(4), and may include 

emission limitations for opacity. Section 

129(a)(2) of the CAA directs EPA to 

develop standards based on MACT, 

which require existing and new major 

sources to control emissions of the nine 

pollutants. 

In compliance with section 205(a) of 

the UMRA, we identified and 

considered a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives. The regulatory 

alternative upon which the rule is based 

is the least costly, most cost-effective 

alternative to achieve the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 129. 

2. Social Costs and Benefits 

The RIA prepared for the final rule, 

including the EPA’s assessment of costs 

and benefits, is detailed in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards 

of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units’’ in the docket. Based on estimated 

compliance costs on all sources 

associated with the final rule and the 

predicted change in prices and 

production in the affected industries, 

the estimated social costs of the final 

rule are $218 million (2008 dollars). In 

the year of full implementation (2015), 

EPA estimates the monetized PM2.5

benefits of the NSPS and EG are $340 

million to $830 million and $310 

million to $750 million, at 3 percent and 

7 percent discount rates respectively. 

All estimates are in 2008$. Using 

alternate relationships between PM2.5

and premature mortality supplied by 

experts, higher and lower benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these estimates. The benefits from 

reducing other air pollutants have not 

been monetized in this analysis, 

including reducing 23,450 tons of CO, 

431 tons of HCl, 4.5 tons of Pb, 0.9 tons 

of Cd, 210 pounds of Hg, and 110 grams 

of total dioxins and furans each year. In 

addition, ecosystem benefits and 

visibility benefits have not been 

monetized in this analysis. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15748 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Exposure to CO can affect the 

cardiovascular system and the central 

nervous system. Emissions of NOX can 

transform into PM, which can result in 

fatalities and many respiratory problems 

(such as asthma or bronchitis); and NOX

can also transform into ozone causing 

several respiratory problems to affected 

populations. 

The net benefits for the NSPS and EG 

are $60 million to $550 million and $30 

million to $470 million, at 3 percent and 

7 percent discount rates respectively. 

All estimates are in 2008$. 

3. Future and Disproportionate Costs 

The UMRA requires that we estimate, 

where accurate estimation is reasonably 

feasible, future compliance costs 

imposed by the rule and any 

disproportionate budgetary effects. Our 

estimates of the future compliance costs 

of the final rule are discussed 

previously in this preamble. We do not 

believe that there will be any 

disproportionate budgetary effects of the 

proposed rule on any particular areas of 

the country, state, or local governments, 

types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), 

or particular industry segments. 

4. Effects on the National Economy 

The UMRA requires that we estimate 

the effect of the final rule on the 

national economy. To the extent 

feasible, we must estimate the effect on 

productivity, economic growth, full 

employment, creation of productive 

jobs, and international competitiveness 

of the United States goods and services 

if we determine that accurate estimates 

are reasonably feasible and that such 

effect is relevant and material. The 

nationwide economic impact of the rule 

is presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units’’ in the docket. This 

analysis provides estimates of the effect 

of the rule on most of the categories 

mentioned above. The results of the 

economic impact analysis are 

summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. 

5. Consultation With Government 

Officials 

The UMRA requires that we describe 

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation 

with affected state, local, and tribal 

officials, summarize the officials’ 

comments or concerns and summarize 

our response to those comments or 

concerns. We have determined that this 

final rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, this final rule is not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA 

may not issue an action that has 

federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by state and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated 

expenditures of greater than $100 

million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the 

Executive Order, EPA consulted with 

elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national 

organizations, when developing 

regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state 

and local governments. Pursuant to 

Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the ‘‘Big 10’’ 

intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local 

government officials, as discussed in 

section VIII.D of the proposal preamble 

(75 FR 63260) to formally request their 

comments and input on the action. The 

Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on 

the proposed standards and EG for SSI 

units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule 

will not have federalism implications, 

as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due 

to the final rule’s direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than 

$100 million. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 

9, 2000). EPA is not aware of any CISWI 

in Indian country or owned or operated 

by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. EPA 

estimates that the requirements in this 

final rule would cause most CISWI in 

the ERU and waste-burning kiln 

subcategories to modify existing air 

pollution control devices (e.g., increase 

the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) 

or install and operate new control 

devices, resulting in approximately 

233,018 MW-hours per year of 

additional electricity being used. 

Given the negligible change in energy 

consumption resulting from this final 

rule, EPA does not expect any 

significant price increase for any energy 

type. The cost of energy distribution 

should not be affected by this final rule 

at all since the rule would not affect 

energy distribution facilities. We also 

expect that any impacts on the import 

of foreign energy supplies, or any other 

adverse outcomes that may occur with 

regards to energy supplies, would not be 

significant. We, therefore, conclude that 

if there were to be any adverse energy 

effects associated with this final rule, 

they would be minimal. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995), 

Public Law 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use VCS in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures and 

business practices) that are developed or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15749 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units’’ through the 

Enhanced NSSN database, which is a 

search engine that is defined as a 

National Resource for Global Standards, 

managed by the ANSI. We also 

contacted VCS organizations and 

accessed and searched their databases. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. EPA has decided to use 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus],’’ for its 

manual methods of measuring the 

oxygen or CO2 content of the exhaust 

gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] are 

acceptable alternatives to EPA Methods 

3B, 6, 7 and 7C. This standard is 

available from the ASME, 3 Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6735–01, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement 

of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides 

from Mineral Calcining Exhaust 

Sources—Impinger Method,’’ is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

26A. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784–02, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from 

Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method)’’ is an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 29. 

During the search, if the title or 

abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

EPA’s reference method, EPA ordered a 

copy of the standard and reviewed it as 

a potential equivalent method. All 

potential standards were reviewed to 

determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires 

significant method validation data 

which meets the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering and 

policy equivalence to procedures in 

EPA reference methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for particular 

VCS. 

The search identified 24 other VCS 

that were potentially applicable to this 

rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, 

EPA determined that 22 candidate VCS 

(ASTM D3154–00 (2006), ASME 

B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO10396:1993 

(2007), ISO12039:2001, ASTM D5835– 

95 (2007), ASTM D6522–00 (2005), 

CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 (1999), ISO 

9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC 38– 

1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M–98 

(2005), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, 

ASTM D1608–98 (2003), 

ISO11564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24– 

M1983, CAN/CSA Z223.21–M1978, 

ASTM D3162–94 (2005), EN 1948–3 

(1996), EN 1911–1,2,3 (1998), EN 

13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26– 

M1987), ASTM D6735–01 (2009) 

identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would 

not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation 

data, and other important technical and 

policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS 

General Provisions, a source may apply 

to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, PS, or procedures in 

the final rule and any amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on EJ. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make EJ part of 

their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations, lowincome, and tribal populations in the 

United States. 

This final action establishes national 

emission standards for new and existing 

CISWI units. Based on data amendments 

and corrections that were incorporated 

following public comment on the 

proposed rule, the EPA estimates that 

there are approximately 100 such units, 

including incinerators, cement kilns, 

and ERUs, covered by this rule. The 

final rule will reduce emissions of all 

the listed HAP emitted from this source. 

This includes emissions of Cd, HC1, 

lead, Hg, and chlorinated D/F. Adverse 

health effects from these pollutants 

include cancer, irritation of the lungs, 

skin, and mucus membranes; effects on 

the central nervous system, and damage 

to the kidneys), and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in 

substantial reductions of criteria 

pollutants such as CO, NOX, PM, and 

SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NO2 are 

precursors for the formation of PM2.5

and ozone. Reducing these emissions 

will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation 

and associated health effects, such as 

adult premature mortality, chronic and 

acute bronchitis, asthma, and other 

respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. 

The results of the demographic analysis 

are presented in RIA, a copy of which 

is available in the docket. 

Based on the fact that the rule does 

not allow emission increases, the EPA 

has determined that the rule will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low-income, or 

tribal populations. However, to the 

extent that any minority, low income, or 

tribal subpopulation is 

disproportionately impacted by the 

current emissions as a result of the 

proximity of their homes to these 

sources, that subpopulation also stands 

to see increased environmental and 

health benefit from the emissions 

reductions called for by this rule. 

EPA defines ‘‘Environmental Justice’’ 

to include meaningful involvement of 

all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To promote 

meaningful involvement, EPA 

developed a communication and 

outreach strategy to ensure that 

interested communities had access to 

the proposed rule, were aware of its 

content, and had an opportunity to 

comment during the comment period. 

During the comment period, EPA 

publicized the rulemaking via EJ 

newsletters, tribal newsletters, EJ 

listservs, and the Internet, including the 

Office of Policy’s Rulemaking Gateway 

Web site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ 

RuleGate.nsf/). EPA also provided 

general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why 

is this important for my community) for 

EJ community groups and conducted 

conference calls with interested 

communities. In addition, in 

implementing the final rule, state and 

federal permitting requirements will 

provide state and local governments and 

members of affected communities the 

opportunity to provide comments on the 

permit conditions associated with 

permitting the sources affected by this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15750 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 

effective May 20, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 21, 2011. 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

■ 2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(93). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

■ c. Adding paragraph (o). 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 

and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), 

approved April 1, 2008, IBR approved 

for §§ 60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 

6 and 8 to subpart CCCC, and tables 2, 

6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§ 60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), 

tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], IBR 

approved for § 60.56c(b)(4), § 60.63(f)(2) 

and (f)(4), § 60.106(e)(2), 

§§ 60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), 

(h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), 

and (j)(4), § 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), 

(g)(2), and (g)(4), § 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), 

(a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), 

and (a)(3)(v), and § 60.107a(a)(1)(ii), 

(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and 

(d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 

of subpart JJJJ, §§ 60.4415(a)(2) and 

(a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 

60.2710(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 

60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and 

(viii), 60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) 

and (viii), 60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 

2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 

to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 272– 

0167, http://www.epa.gov. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997, IBR approved 

for §§ 60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 

60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B). 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 3. Revise the heading for subpart 

CCCC to read as follows: 

Subpart CCCC—Standards of 

Performance for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 60.2005 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2005 When does this subpart become 

effective? 

This subpart takes effect on 

September 21, 2011. Some of the 

requirements in this subpart apply to 

planning the CISWI unit (i.e., the 

preconstruction requirements in 

§§ 60.2045 and 60.2050). Other 

requirements such as the emission 

limitations and operating limits apply 

after the CISWI unit begins operation. 

■ 5. Section 60.2015 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2015 What is a new incineration unit? 

(a) A new incineration unit is an 

incineration unit that meets any of the 

criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) 

through (a)(2) of this section. 

(1) A commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration unit that commenced 

construction after May 20, 2011. 

(2) A commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration unit that commenced 

reconstruction or modification after 

September 21, 2011. 

(b) This subpart does not affect your 

CISWI unit if you make physical or 

operational changes to your incineration 

unit primarily to comply with the EG in 

subpart DDDD of this part (Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units). Such changes do 

not qualify as reconstruction or 

modification under this subpart. 

■ 6. Section 60.2020 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text. 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c). 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(3), 

(g), (m) and (n). 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(j), (k), and (l). 

■ f. Removing paragraph (o). 

§ 60.2020 What combustion units are 

exempt from this subpart? 

This subpart exempts the types of 

units described in paragraphs (a), (c) 

through (i) and (n) of this section, but 

some units are required to provide 

notifications. Air curtain incinerators 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in 

§§ 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260. 

* * * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. 

Incineration units that are regulated 

under subpart Ea of this part (Standards 

of Performance for Municipal Waste 

Combustors); subpart Eb of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart 

Cb of this part (Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Time for Large Municipal 

Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Small 

Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or 

subpart BBBB of this part (Emission 

Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste 

Combustion Units). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) You submit a request to the 

Administrator for a determination that 

the qualifying cogeneration facility is 

combusting homogenous waste as that 

term is defined in § 60.2265. The 

request must include information 

sufficient to document that the unit 

meets the criteria of the definition of a 

small power production facility and that 

the waste material the unit is proposed 

to burn is homogeneous. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) You submit a request to the 

Administrator for a determination that 

the qualifying cogeneration facility is 

combusting homogenous waste as that 

term is defined in § 60.2265. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15751 

request must include information 

sufficient to document that the unit 

meets the criteria of the definition of a 

cogeneration facility and that the waste 

material the unit is combusting is 

homogeneous. 

(g) Hazardous waste combustion 

units. Units for which you are required 

to get a permit under section 3005 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

* * * * * 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) [Reserved] 

(l) [Reserved] 

(m) Sewage treatment plants. 

Incineration units regulated under 

subpart O of this part (Standards of 

Performance for Sewage Treatment 

Plants). 

(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. 

Incineration units combusting sewage 

sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter that are 

subject to subpart LLLL of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units) or subpart 

MMMM of this part (Emission 

Guidelines for Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units). Sewage sludge 

incineration unit designs include 

fluidized bed and multiple hearth. 

§ 60.2025 [Removed] 

■ 7. Section 60.2025 is removed. 

■ 8. Section 60.2030 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text. 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(5). 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through 

(c)(10). 

§ 60.2030 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) and (c)(6) through (10) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(8) Approval of alternative opacity 

emission limits in § 60.2105 under 

§ 60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8). 

(9) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 60.2125(j), 

60.8(b)(4) and (5). 

(10) Determination of whether a 

qualifying small power production 

facility or cogeneration facility under 

§ 60.2020(e) or (f) is combusting 

homogenous waste as that term is 

defined in § 60.2265. 

■ 9. Section 60.2045 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2045 Who must prepare a siting 

analysis? 

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you plan to commence construction of 

an incinerator after December 1, 2000. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis 

for CISWI units that commenced 

construction after June 4, 2010, or that 

commenced reconstruction or 

modification after September 21, 2011. 

(c) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you are required to submit an initial 

application for a construction permit 

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the 

reconstruction or modification of your 

CISWI unit. 

■ 10. Section 60.2070 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2070 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Actions to prevent and correct 

malfunctions or to prevent conditions 

that may lead to malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 60.2085 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2085 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

* * * * * 

(d) Prevention and correction of 

malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 60.2105 is revised to read 

as follows:. 

§ 60.2105 What emission limitations must I 

meet and by when? 

(a) You must meet the emission 

limitations for each CISWI unit, 

including bypass stack or vent, specified 

in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 

through 8 of this subpart by the 

applicable date in § 60.2140. You must 

be in compliance with the emission 

limitations of this subpart that apply to 

you at all times. 

(b) An incinerator unit that 

commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, but no later than 

June 4, 2010, or that commenced 

reconstruction or modification on or 

after June 1, 2001, but no later than 

September 21, 2011 must meet the more 

stringent emission limit for the 

respective pollutant in table 1 of this 

subpart or table 6 of subpart DDDD. 

■ 13. Section 60.2110 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text. 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through 

(a)(4). 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (g). 

§ 60.2110 What operating limits must I 

meet and by when? 

(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to 

comply with the emission limitations, 

you must establish operating limits for 

up to four operating parameters (as 

specified in table 2 of this subpart) as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(4) of this section during the initial 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(2) Minimum pressure drop across the 

wet particulate matter scrubber, which 

is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average pressure drop across the wet 

scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations; or minimum 

amperage to the fan for the wet 

scrubber, which is calculated as the 

lowest 1-hour average amperage to the 

wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations. 

(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, which is calculated as the lowest 

1-hour average liquid flow rate at the 

inlet to the wet acid gas or particulate 

matter scrubber measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limitations. 

(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, 

which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet 

acid gas scrubber measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the HCl 

emission limitation. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limitations, you must measure 

the (secondary) voltage and amperage of 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates during the particulate matter 

performance test. Calculate the average 

electric power value (secondary voltage 

× secondary current = secondary electric 

power) for each test run. The operating 

limit for the electrostatic precipitator is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

secondary electric power measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter emission limitations. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the 

performance testing. The operating limit 

for the carbon sorbent injection is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

sorbent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

mercury emission limitations. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

charge rate, the secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI 

unit), and the reagent flow rate during 

the nitrogen oxides performance testing. 

The operating limits for the selective 

noncatalytic reduction are calculated as 

the lowest 1-hour average charge rate, 

secondary chamber temperature, and 

reagent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limitations. 

(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, 

electrostatic precipitator, or fabric filter 

to comply with the emission limitations, 

and if you do not determine compliance 

with your particulate matter emission 

limitation with a particulate matter 

continuous emission monitoring system, 

you must maintain opacity to less than 

or equal to 10 percent opacity (1-hour 

block average). 

■ 14. Section 60.2115 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2115 What if I do not use a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, activated carbon 

injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, 

or an electrostatic precipitator to comply 

with the emission limitations? 

If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, 

activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, fabric filter, or 

an electrostatic precipitator or limit 

emissions in some other manner, 

including material balances, to comply 

with the emission limitations under 

§ 60.2105, you must petition the EPA 

Administrator for specific operating 

limits to be established during the 

initial performance test and 

continuously monitored thereafter. You 

must not conduct the initial 

performance test until after the petition 

has been approved by the 

Administrator. Your petition must 

include the five items listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Identification of the specific 

parameters you propose to use as 

additional operating limits. 

(b) A discussion of the relationship 

between these parameters and emissions 

of regulated pollutants, identifying how 

emissions of regulated pollutants 

change with changes in these 

parameters and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions 

of regulated pollutants. 

(c) A discussion of how you will 

establish the upper and/or lower values 

for these parameters which will 

establish the operating limits on these 

parameters. 

(d) A discussion identifying the 

methods you will use to measure and 

the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative 

accuracy and precision of these methods 

and instruments. 

(e) A discussion identifying the 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

■ 15. Section 60.2120 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2120 Affirmative Defense for 

Exceedance of an Emission Limit During 

Malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 60.2105, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter 

monitoring and systems, as well as 

control systems, were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, 

but no later than two business days after 

the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself 

of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The 

owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a 

written report to the Administrator 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in 

§ 60.2105 to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

■ 16. Section 60.2125 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c). 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2). 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to 

read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15753 

§ 60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and 

annual performance test? 

* * * * * 

(c) All performance tests must be 

conducted using the minimum run 

duration specified in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra-through octachlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octa-chlorinated) isomer 

measured in accordance with paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section, multiply the 

isomer concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in table 3 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part must be used 

to determine compliance with the 

fugitive ash emission limit in table 1 of 

this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart. 

(i) If you have an applicable opacity 

operating limit, you must determine 

compliance with the opacity limit using 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4 of this part, based on three 1-hour 

blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values, unless you are 

required to install a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, consistent with 

§§ 60.2145 and 60.2165. 

■ 17. Section 60.2130 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2130 How are the performance test 

data used? 

You use results of performance tests 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart. 

■ 18. Section 60.2135 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

and establish the operating limits? 

You must conduct a performance test, 

as required under §§ 60.2125 and 

60.2105 to determine compliance with 

the emission limitations in table 1 of 

this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart, to establish compliance with 

any opacity operating limit in 

§ 60.2110,and to establish operating 

limits using the procedures in 

§§ 60.2110 or 60.2115. The performance 

test must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 1 of this subpart 

or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and 

the procedures in § 60.2125. The use of 

the bypass stack during a performance 

test shall invalidate the performance 

test. You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system within 60 days of 

installation of the monitoring system. 

■ 19. Section 60.2140 is amended by 

designating the existing text as 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b) 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 60.2140 By what date must I conduct the 

initial performance test? 

* * * * * 

(b) If you commence or recommence 

combusting a solid waste at an existing 

combustion unit at any commercial or 

industrial facility, and you conducted a 

test consistent with the provisions of 

this subpart while combusting the solid 

waste within the 6 months preceding 

the reintroduction of that solid waste in 

the combustion chamber, you do not 

need to retest until 6 months from the 

date you reintroduce that solid waste. 

(c) If you commence combusting or 

recommence combusting a solid waste 

at an existing combustion unit at any 

commercial or industrial facility and 

you have not conducted a performance 

test consistent with the provisions of 

this subpart while combusting the given 

solid waste within the 6 months 

preceding the reintroduction of that 

solid waste in the combustion chamber, 

you must conduct a performance test 

within 60 days commencing or 

recommencing solid waste combustion. 

■ 20. Section 60.2141 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2141 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device 

inspection? 

(a) The initial air pollution control 

device inspection must be conducted 

within 60 days after installation of the 

control device and the associated CISWI 

unit reaches the charge rate at which it 

will operate, but no later than 180 days 

after the device’s initial startup. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless the owner or operator 

obtains written approval from the state 

agency establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the designated 

facility must be completed. 

■ 21. Section 60.2145 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2145 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and the operating limits? 

(a) Compliance with standards. 

(1) The emission standards and 

operating requirements set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(2) If you cease combusting solid 

waste, you may opt to remain subject to 

the provisions of this subpart. 

Consistent with the definition of CISWI 

unit, you are subject to the requirements 

of this subpart at least 6 months 

following the last date of solid waste 

combustion. Solid waste combustion is 

ceased when solid waste is not in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., the solid 

waste feed to the combustor has been 

cut off for a period of time not less than 

the solid waste residence time). 

(3) If you cease combusting solid 

waste, you must be in compliance with 

any newly applicable standards on the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch. The effective date of the wasteto-fuel switch is a date selected by you, 

that must be at least 6 months from the 

date that you ceased combusting solid 

waste, consistent with § 60.2145(a)(2). 

Your source must remain in compliance 

with this subpart until the effective date 

of the waste-to-fuel switch. 

(4) If you own or operate an existing 

commercial or industrial combustion 

unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste 

material, and you commence or 

recommence combustion of solid waste, 

you are subject to the provisions of this 

subpart as of the first day you introduce 

or reintroduce solid waste to the 

combustion chamber, and this date 

constitutes the effective date of the fuelto-waste switch. You must complete all 

initial compliance demonstrations for 

any section 112 standards that are 

applicable to your facility before you 

commence or recommence combustion 

of solid waste. You must provide 30 

days prior notice of the effective date of 

the waste-to-fuel switch. The 

notification must identify: 

(i) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(ii) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

(iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) 

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(iv) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(v) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

(i.e., the effective date of the waste-toVerDate Mar<15>2010 20:15 Mar 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21MRR6.SGM 21MRR6

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15754 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

fuel switch), consistent with paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (3)of this section. 

(5) All air pollution control 

equipment necessary for compliance 

with any newly applicable emissions 

limits which apply as a result of the 

cessation or commencement or 

recommencement of combusting solid 

waste must be installed and operational 

as of the effective date of the waste-tofuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. 

(6) All monitoring systems necessary 

for compliance with any newly 

applicable monitoring requirements 

which apply as a result of the cessation 

or commencement or recommencement 

of combusting solid waste must be 

installed and operational as of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and 

drift checks must be performed as of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy 

tests must be performed as of the 

performance test deadline for PM 

CEMS. Relative accuracy testing for 

other CEMS need not be repeated if that 

testing was previously performed 

consistent with Clean Air Act section 

112 monitoring requirements or 

monitoring requirements under this 

subpart. 

(b) You must conduct an annual 

performance test for the pollutants 

listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 

5 through 8 of this subpart and opacity 

for each CISWI unit as required under 

§ 60.2125. The annual performance test 

must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 1 of this subpart 

or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and 

the procedures in § 60.2125. Annual 

performance tests are not required if you 

use continuous emission monitoring 

systems or continuous opacity 

monitoring systems to determine 

compliance. 

(c) You must continuously monitor 

the operating parameters specified in 

§ 60.2110 or established under § 60.2115 

and as specified in § 60.2170. Use threehour block average values to determine 

compliance (except for baghouse leak 

detection system alarms) unless a 

different averaging period is established 

under § 60.2115. Operation above the 

established maximum, below the 

established minimum, or outside the 

allowable range of the operating limits 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

constitutes a deviation from your 

operating limits established under this 

subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission and 

operating limits or to establish new 

operating limits. Operating limits are 

confirmed or reestablished during 

performance tests. 

(d) You must burn only the same 

types of waste used to establish 

operating limits during the performance 

test. 

(e) For energy recovery units, 

incinerators, and small remote units, 

you must perform an annual visual 

emissions test for ash handling. 

(f) For energy recovery units, you 

must conduct an annual performance 

test for opacity (except where 

particulate matter continuous emission 

monitoring system or continuous 

opacity monitoring systems are used are 

used) and the pollutants listed in table 

6 of this subpart. 

(g) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emission limit using a carbon monoxide 

continuous emission monitoring system 

according to the following requirements: 

(1) You must measure emissions 

according to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. You must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emissions limit using a 30- 

day rolling average of these 1-hour 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part. 

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide 

continuous emission monitoring system 

in accordance with the requirements of 

performance specification 4A of 

appendix B of this part and quality 

assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of 

this part. 

(h) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than or equal 

to 250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning 

kilns, demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emissions limit using a particulate 

matter continuous emission monitoring 

system according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2165(n). 

(i) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than or equal 

to 10 MMBtu/hour, if you have an 

opacity operating limit, you must 

install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2165. 

(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must 

conduct an annual performance test for 

cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and 

hydrogen chloride as listed in table 7 of 

this subpart. You must determine 

compliance with hydrogen chloride 

using a hydrogen chloride continuous 

emission monitoring system if you do 

not use an acid gas wet scrubber. You 

must determine compliance with 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, and particulate matter using 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems. You must determine 

compliance with the mercury emissions 

limit using a mercury continuous 

emission monitoring system according 

to the following requirements: 

(1) Operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system in accordance with 

performance specification 12A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix B or a sorbent 

trap based integrated monitor in 

accordance with performance 

specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. The duration of the 

performance test must be a calendar 

month. For each calendar month in 

which the waste-burning kiln operates, 

hourly mercury concentration data, and 

stack gas volumetric flow rate data must 

be obtained. 

(2) Owners or operators using a 

mercury continuous emission 

monitoring system must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously measuring and 

recording the mercury mass emissions 

rate to the atmosphere according to the 

requirements of performance 

specifications 6 and 12A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B, and quality assurance 

procedure 6 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F. 

(3) The owner or operator of a wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial 

compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emission monitoring system 

while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/ 

raw mill is operating under normal 

conditions and while the raw mill of the 

in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating. 

(k) If you use an air pollution control 

device to meet the emission limitations 

in this subpart, you must conduct an 

initial and annual inspection of the air 

pollution control device. The inspection 

must include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation. 

(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring 

plan according to the requirements in 

paragraph (l) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you 

petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under 

§ 60.13(i). 

(l) For each continuous monitoring 

system required in this section, you 

must develop and submit to the EPA 

Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan according to 

the requirements of this paragraph (l) 

that addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(1) You must submit this site-specific 

monitoring plan at least 60 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your continuous monitoring system. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15755 

(i) Installation of the continuous 

monitoring system sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement 

location relative to each affected process 

unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 

emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the 

last control device). 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 60.11(d). 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system in accordance with 

your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

the continuous monitoring system in 

continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(m) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow monitoring 

system, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (l) and (m)(1) through (4) 

of this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of no greater 

than 2 percent of the expected process 

flow rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling 

flow or abnormal velocity distributions 

due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system 

performance evaluation in accordance 

with your monitoring plan at the time 

of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(n) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a 

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM 

scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters 

of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring 

system operating range, whichever is 

less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pressure monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured 

pressure exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure 

range, conduct a performance 

evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and confirm that the 

pressure monitoring system continues to 

meet the performance requirements in 

your monitoring plan. Alternatively, 

install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a pH monitoring system, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (l) and (o)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pH monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation 

(including a two-point calibration with 

one of the two buffer solutions having 

a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating 

limit) of the pH monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than quarterly. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a secondary electric power 

monitoring system for an electrostatic 

precipitator, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (p)(1) 

through (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure 

(secondary) voltage and current to the 

precipitator collection plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the electric power monitoring system 

in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance 

test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(q) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a monitoring system 

to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper 

flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) 

that provides a representative 

measurement of the total sorbent 

injection rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the sorbent injection rate monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each 

performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(r) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag 

leak detection system to comply with 

the requirements of this subpart, you 

must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a bag leak 

detection system as specified in 

paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of 

this section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

sensor(s) in a position(s) that will be 

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent, or 

compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter or 

less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

and consistent with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17). 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will sound 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located where it is observed readily 

by plant operating personnel. 

(s) For facilities using a continuous 

emission monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with 

the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be 

demonstrated by using the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and 

calculating a 30-day rolling average 

emission concentration using Equation 

19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–7 of this part. The sulfur 

dioxide continuous emission 

monitoring system must be operated 

according to performance specification 

2 in appendix B of this part and must 

follow the procedures and methods 

specified in this paragraph(s). For 

sources that have actual inlet emissions 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15756 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

less than 100 parts per million dry 

volume, the relative accuracy criterion 

for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous 

emission monitoring systems should be 

no greater than 20 percent of the mean 

value of the reference method test data 

in terms of the units of the emission 

standard, or 5 parts per million dry 

volume absolute value of the mean 

difference between the reference 

method and the continuous emission 

monitoring systems, whichever is 

greater. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix 

B of this part, collect sulfur dioxide and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) with both the 

continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

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

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference 

Method 6 or 6C, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) 

must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, or as 

an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 60.17), must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system at the inlet 

to the sulfur dioxide control device 

must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential sulfur 

dioxide emissions of the unit subject to 

this rule. The span value of the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide 

control device must be 50 percent of the 

maximum estimated hourly potential 

sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit 

subject to this rule. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations 

quarterly and calibration drift tests daily 

in accordance with procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(t) For facilities using a continuous 

emission monitoring system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the nitrogen oxides emission limit, 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit may be demonstrated by 

using the continuous emission 

monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides 

and calculating a 30-day rolling average 

emission concentration using Equation 

19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part. The nitrogen 

oxides continuous emission monitoring 

system must be operated according to 

performance specification 2 in appendix 

B of this part and must follow the 

procedures and methods specified in 

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

section. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, collect nitrogen oxides 

and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) with both the 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems and the test methods specified 

in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (t)(1)(ii) of 

this section. 

(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference 

Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4 must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3, or as an 

alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19– 

10.1981 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system must be 

125 percent of the maximum estimated 

hourly potential nitrogen oxide 

emissions of the unit. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations 

quarterly and calibration drift tests daily 

in accordance with procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(4) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If 

carbon dioxide is selected for use in 

diluent corrections, the relationship 

between oxygen and carbon dioxide 

levels must be established during the 

initial performance test according to the 

procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through (t)(4)(iv) of 

this section. This relationship may be 

re-established during performance 

compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 

30 minutes in each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 

1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be 

performed. 

(u) For facilities using a continuous 

emission monitoring system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with any of the emission limits of this 

subpart, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Demonstrate compliance with the 

appropriate emission limit(s) using a 30- 

day rolling average, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part. 

(2) Operate all continuous emission 

monitoring systems in accordance with 

the applicable procedures under 

appendices B and F of this part. 

(v) Use of the bypass stack at any time 

is an emissions standards deviation for 

particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, 

NOX, SO2, and dioxin/furans. 

■ 22. Section 60.2150 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2150 By what date must I conduct the 

annual performance test? 

You must conduct annual 

performance tests between 11 and 13 

months of the previous performance 

test. 

■ 23. Section 60.2151 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2151 By what date must I conduct the 

annual air pollution control device 

inspection? 

On an annual basis (no more than 12 

months following the previous annual 

air pollution control device inspection), 

you must complete the air pollution 

control device inspection as described 

in § 60.2141. 

■ 24. Section 60.2155 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2155 May I conduct performance 

testing less often? 

(a) You must conduct annual 

performance tests according to the 

schedule specified in § 60.2150, with 

the following exceptions: 

(1) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward, as 

specified in § 60.2160. The 

Administrator may request a repeat 

performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance 

test within 60 days of a process change, 

as defined in § 60.2265. 

(3) If the initial or any subsequent 

performance test for any pollutant in 

table 1 or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart, as applicable, demonstrates 

that the emission level for the pollutant 

is no greater than the emission level 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, 

and you are not required to conduct a 

performance test for the pollutant in 

response to a request by the 

Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section or a process change in paragraph 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15757 

(a)(2) of this section, you may elect to 

skip conducting a performance test for 

the pollutant for the next 2 years. You 

must conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant during the third year and no 

more than 37 months following the 

previous performance test for the 

pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both 

cadmium and lead must be emitted at 

emission levels no greater than their 

respective emission levels specified in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you 

to qualify for less frequent testing under 

this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead and 

dioxins/furans, the emission level equal 

to 75 percent of the applicable emission 

limit in table 1 or tables 5 through 8 of 

this subpart, as applicable, to this 

subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible 

emissions (of combustion ash from the 

ash conveying system) for 2 percent of 

the time during each of the three 1-hour 

observations periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent 

testing for a pollutant as provided in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section and a 

subsequent performance test for the 

pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit 

does not meet the emission level 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, 

you must conduct annual performance 

tests for the pollutant according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section until you qualify for less 

frequent testing for the pollutant as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(b) [Reserved] 

■ 25. Section 60.2165 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(6). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c). 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (p) 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.2165 What monitoring equipment 

must I install and what parameters must I 

monitor? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alert automatically an operator 

when an increase in relative particulate 

matter emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located 

where it is observed easily by plant 

operating personnel. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are using something other 

than a wet scrubber, activated carbon, 

selective non-catalytic reduction, or an 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limitations under 

§ 60.2105, you must install, calibrate (to 

the manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate the equipment 

necessary to monitor compliance with 

the site-specific operating limits 

established using the procedures in 

§ 60.2115. 

(d) If you use activated carbon 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must 

measure the minimum mercury sorbent 

flow rate once per hour. 

(e) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Following the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under 

§ 60.2125, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not 

operate above the maximum charge rate, 

or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to 

your CISWI unit) or the minimum 

reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour 

block averages at all times. 

(2) Operation of the affected facility 

above the maximum charge rate, below 

the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum 

reagent flow rate simultaneously 

constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit. 

(f) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limits of this subpart, you 

must monitor the secondary power to 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates and maintain the 3-hour block 

averages at or above the operating limits 

established during the mercury or 

particulate matter performance test. 

(g) For waste-burning kilns not 

equipped with a wet scrubber, in place 

of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA 

Method 321 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, an owner or operator must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

for monitoring hydrogen chloride 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the hydrogen chloride emissions 

limit for units other than waste-burning 

kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, 

a facility may substitute use of a 

hydrogen chloride continuous emission 

monitoring system for conducting the 

hydrogen chloride annual performance 

test, monitoring the minimum hydrogen 

chloride sorbent flow rate, and 

monitoring the minimum scrubber 

liquor pH. 

(h) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a particulate matter continuous 

emission monitoring system for 

conducting the particulate matter 

annual performance test and monitoring 

the minimum pressure drop across the 

wet scrubber, if applicable. 

(i) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the dioxin/furan annual 

performance test. You must record the 

output of the system and analyze the 

sample according to EPA Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 of this 

part. You may propose alternative 

continuous monitoring consistent with 

the requirements in § 60.13(i). The 

owner or operator who elects to 

continuously sample dioxin/furan 

emissions instead of sampling and 

testing using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7 must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system 

and must comply with the requirements 

specified in § 60.58b(p) and (q). 

(j) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the mercury emissions 

limit, a facility may substitute use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for the mercury annual performance 

test. You must record the output of the 

system and analyze the sample at set 

intervals using any suitable 

determinative technique that can meet 

performance specification 12B. The 

owner or operator who elects to 

continuously sample mercury emissions 

instead of sampling and testing using 

EPA Reference Method 29 or 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8 of this part, 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), 

or an approved alternative method for 

measuring mercury emissions, must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous automated sampling 

system and must comply with 

performance specification 12A and 

quality assurance procedure 5, as well 

as the requirements specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) and (q). 

(k) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous emission 

monitoring system for the nitrogen 

oxides annual performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for measuring 

nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to 

the atmosphere and record the output of 

the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

procedure one of appendix F of this part 

and the procedures under § 60.13 must 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

be followed for installation, evaluation, 

and operation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for nitrogen oxides is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.2125, compliance 

with the emission limit for nitrogen 

oxides required under § 60.52b(d) must 

be determined based on the 30-day 

rolling average of the hourly emission 

concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. 

The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be 

expressed in parts per million by 

volume (dry basis) and used to calculate 

the 30-day rolling average 

concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be calculated using the 

data points required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

(l) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the sulfur dioxide annual 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emissions limits. 

(1) 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. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

requirements of procedure one of 

appendix F of this part and procedures 

under § 60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation, and operation 

of the continuous emission monitoring 

system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for sulfur dioxide is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.2125, compliance 

with the sulfur dioxide emission limit 

may be determined based on the 30-day 

rolling average of the hourly arithmetic 

average emission concentrations using 

continuous emission monitoring system 

outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be expressed in parts per 

million corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(dry basis) and used to calculate the 30- 

day rolling average emission 

concentrations and daily geometric 

average emission percent reductions. 

The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be 

calculated using the data points 

required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

(m) For energy recovery units over 10 

MMBtu/hr design heat input that do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter with bag 

leak detection system, or particulate 

matter continuous emission monitoring 

system, you must install, operate, 

certify, and maintain a continuous 

opacity monitoring system according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (5) of this section by the 

compliance date specified in § 60.2105. 

Energy recovery units that use a 

particulate matter continuous emission 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

initial and continuing compliance 

according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2165(n) are not required to install a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

and must perform the annual 

performance tests for the opacity 

consistent with § 60.2145(f). 

(1) Install, operate, and maintain each 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

according to performance specification 

1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each continuous opacity monitoring 

system according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13 and according to PS–1 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B. 

(3) As specified in § 60.13(e)(1), each 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

must complete a minimum of one cycle 

of sampling and analyzing for each 

successive 10-second period and one 

cycle of data recording for each 

successive 6-minute period. 

(4) Reduce the continuous opacity 

monitoring system data as specified in 

§ 60.13(h)(1). 

(5) Determine and record all the 6- 

minute averages (and 1-hour block 

averages as applicable) collected. 

(n) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate 

matter testing with EPA Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3, an owner or 

operator must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a continuous 

emission monitoring system for 

monitoring particulate matter emissions 

discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system. The 

owner or operator of an affected facility 

who continuously monitors particulate 

matter emissions instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA Method 

5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous emission monitoring 

system and must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(n)(1) through (n)(14) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before stopping use of the system. 

(3) The monitor must be installed, 

evaluated, and operated in accordance 

with the requirements of performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this 

part and quality assurance requirements 

of procedure two of appendix F of this 

part and § 60.13. Use Method 5 or 

Method 5I of Appendix A of this part for 

the PM CEMS correlation testing. 

(4) The initial performance evaluation 

must be completed no later than 180 

days after the date of initial startup of 

the affected facility, as specified under 

§ 60.2125 or within 180 days of 

notification to the Administrator of use 

of the continuous monitoring system if 

the owner or operator was previously 

determining compliance by Method 5 

performance tests, whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility 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 must be established according to 

the procedures and methods specified 

in § 60.2145(s)(5)(i) through (s)(5)(iv). 

(6) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility must conduct an initial 

performance test for particulate matter 

emissions as required under § 60.2125. 

Compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit must be determined by 

using the continuous emission 

monitoring system specified in 

paragraph (n) of this section to measure 

particulate matter and calculating a 30- 

day rolling average emission 

concentration using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 

19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. 

(7) Compliance with the particulate 

matter emission limit must be 

determined based on the 30-day rolling 

average calculated using Equation 19–19 

in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference 

Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7 from the 1-hour arithmetic average 

continuous emission monitoring system 

outlet data. 

(8) At a minimum, valid continuous 

monitoring system hourly averages must 

be obtained as specified in § 60.2170(e). 

(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages 

required under paragraph (n)(7) of this 

section must be expressed in milligrams 

per dry standard cubic meter corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and must 

be used to calculate the 30-day rolling 

average emission concentrations. The 1- 

hour arithmetic averages must be 

calculated using the data points 

required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

(10) All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data must be used in 

calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum 

continuous emission monitoring system 

data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of 

this section are not met. 

(11) The continuous emission 

monitoring system must be operated 

according to performance specification 

11 in appendix B of this part. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15759 

(12) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 11 in 

appendix B of this part, particulate 

matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 

data must be collected concurrently (or 

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by 

both the continuous emission monitors 

and the following test methods. 

(i) For particulate matter, EPA 

Reference Method 5 must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, as 

applicable, must be used. 

(13) Quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration 

drift tests must be performed in 

accordance with procedure 2 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(14) When particulate matter 

emissions data are not obtained because 

of continuous emission monitoring 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero and span adjustments, 

emissions data must be obtained by 

using other monitoring systems as 

approved by the Administrator or EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 to provide, as necessary, 

valid emissions data for a minimum of 

85 percent of the hours per day, 90 

percent of the hours per calendar 

quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per 

calendar year that the affected facility is 

operated and combusting waste. 

(o) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emissions limit, you must use a 

continuous automated sampling system. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for measuring carbon 

monoxide emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere and record the output of the 

system. The requirements under 

performance specification 4B of 

appendix B of this part, the quality 

assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of 

this part and the procedures under 

§ 60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation, and operation 

of the continuous emission monitoring 

system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for carbon monoxide is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.2140, compliance 

with the carbon monoxide emission 

limit must be determined based on the 

30-day rolling average of the hourly 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. 

The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be 

expressed in parts per million corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used 

to calculate the 30-day rolling average 

emission concentrations. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be calculated 

using the data points required under 

§ 60.13(e)(2). 

(p) The owner/operator of an affected 

source with a bypass stack shall install, 

calibrate (to manufacturers’ 

specifications), maintain, and operate a 

device or method for measuring the use 

of the bypass stack including date, time 

and duration. 

■ 26. Section 60.2170 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of 

monitoring data I must obtain? 

For each continuous monitoring 

system required or optionally allowed 

under § 60.2165, you must collect data 

according to this section: 

(a) You must operate the monitoring 

system and collect data at all required 

intervals at all times compliance is 

required except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

out-of-control periods (as specified in 

60.2210(o) of this part), and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You are required to effect monitoring 

system repairs in response to 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods and to return the 

monitoring system to operation as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(b) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions 

or out-of-control periods, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions or out-of-control periods, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. You must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(c) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions or out-of-control 

periods, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments, 

failure to collect required data is a 

deviation of the monitoring 

requirements. 

■ 27. Section 60.2175 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text. 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e). 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c) and (d). 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (w). 

§ 60.2175 What records must I keep? 

You must maintain the items (as 

applicable) as specified in paragraphs 

(a), (b), and (e) through (u) of this 

section for a period of at least 5 years: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) For affected CISWI units that 

establish operating limits for controls 

other than wet scrubbers under 

§ 60.2110(d) through (f) or § 60.2115, 

you must maintain data collected for all 

operating parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Identification of calendar dates 

and times for which data show a 

deviation from the operating limits in 

table 2 of this subpart or a deviation 

from other operating limits established 

under § 60.2110(d) through (f) or 

§ 60.2115 with a description of the 

deviations, reasons for such deviations, 

and a description of corrective actions 

taken. 

* * * * * 

(o) Maintain records of the annual air 

pollution control device inspections 

that are required for each CISWI unit 

subject to the emissions limits in table 

1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 

of this subpart, any required 

maintenance, and any repairs not 

completed within 10 days of an 

inspection or the timeframe established 

by the state regulatory agency. 

(p) For continuously monitored 

pollutants or parameters, you must 

document and keep a record of the 

following parameters measured using 

continuous monitoring systems. 

(1) All 6-minute average levels of 

opacity. 

(2) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

(3) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of nitrogen oxides emissions. 

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of carbon monoxide emissions. 

(5) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of particulate matter emissions. 

(6) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of mercury emissions. 

(7) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of hydrogen chloride emissions. 

(q) Records indicating use of the 

bypass stack, including dates, times, 

and durations. 

(r) If you choose to stack test less 

frequently than annually, consistent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

with § 60.2155(a) through (c), you must 

keep annual records that document that 

your emissions in the previous stack 

test(s) were less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit and document 

that there was no change in source 

operations including fuel composition 

and operation of air pollution control 

equipment that would cause emissions 

of the relevant pollutant to increase 

within the past year. 

(s) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(t) Records of all required 

maintenance performed on the air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(u) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(v) For operating units that burn 

materials other than traditional fuels as 

defined in § 241.2, a description of each 

material burned, and a record which 

documents how each material that is not 

a traditional fuel meets each of the 

legitimacy criteria in § 241.3(d). If you 

combust a material that has been 

processed from a discarded nonhazardous secondary material pursuant 

to § 241.3(b)(4), you must keep records 

as to how the operations that produced 

the material satisfy the definition of 

processing in § 241.2. If the material 

received a non-waste determination 

pursuant to the petition process 

submitted under § 241.3(c), you must 

keep a copy of the non-waste 

determination granted by EPA. 

(w) For operating units that burn tires, 

(1) A certification that the shipment of 

tires that are non-waste per 40 CFR 

241.3(b)(2)(i), are part of an established 

tire collection program, consistent with 

the definition of that term in § 241.2. 

The certification must document that 

the tires were not discarded and are 

handled as valuable commodities in 

accordance with § 241.3(d), from the 

point of removal from the automobile 

through arrival at the combustion 

facility. The certification must identify 

the entity the tires were received from 

(for example, the name of the state or 

private collection program), the 

quantity, volume, or weight of tires 

received by you, and the dates received. 

The certification must be signed by the 

owner or operator of the combustion 

unit, or by a responsible official of the 

established tire collection program, and 

must include the following certification 

of compliance, ‘‘The tires from this tire 

collection program meet the EPA 

definition of an established tire 

collection program in 40 CFR section 

241.’’ and state the title or position of 

the person signing the certification. 

(2) You must also keep a record that 

identifies where on your plant site the 

tires from each tire collection program 

are located, and that accounts for all 

tires at the plant site. 

■ 27. Section 60.2210 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) and adding 

paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2210 What information must I include 

in my annual report? 

* * * * * 

(e) If no deviation from any emission 

limitation or operating limit that applies 

to you has been reported, a statement 

that there was no deviation from the 

emission limitations or operating limits 

during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(k) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction that occurred 

during the reporting period and that 

caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

(l) For each deviation from an 

emission or operating limitation that 

occurs for a CISWI unit for which you 

are not using a continuous monitoring 

system to comply with the emission or 

operating limitations in this subpart, the 

annual report must contain the 

following information. 

(1) The total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the deviation 

occurred during the reporting period. 

(2) Information on the number, 

duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the 

corrective action taken. 

(m) If there were periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system, including the continuous 

emission monitoring system, was out of 

control as specified in paragraph (o) of 

this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for 

each deviation from an emission or 

operating limitation occurring for a 

CISWI unit for which you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to 

comply with the emission and operating 

limitations in this subpart. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was inoperative, except for 

zero (low-level) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out-of-control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction or during 

another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the CISWI unit. 

(9) A brief description of the CISWI 

unit. 

(10) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(n) If there were periods during which 

the continuous monitoring system, 

including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was not out of 

control as specified in paragraph (o) of 

this section, a statement that there were 

not periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system was out 

of control during the reporting period. 

(o) A continuous monitoring system is 

out of control in accordance with the 

procedure in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F of this part, as if any of the following 

occur. 

(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable), or high-level calibration 

drift exceeds two times the applicable 

calibration drift specification in the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15761 

applicable performance specification or 

in the relevant standard. 

(2) The continuous monitoring system 

fails a performance test audit (e.g., 

cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy 

audit, relative accuracy test audit, or 

linearity test audit. 

(3) The continuous opacity 

monitoring system calibration drift 

exceeds two times the limit in the 

applicable performance specification in 

the relevant standard. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Section 60.2220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and removing 

paragraphs (e) and (f). 

§ 60.2220 What must I include in the 

deviation report? 

* * * * * 

(c) Durations and causes of the 

following: 

(1) Each deviation from emission 

limitations or operating limits and your 

corrective actions. 

(2) Bypass events and your corrective 

actions. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Section 60.2230 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2230 Are there any other notifications 

or reports that I must submit? 

(a) Yes. You must submit notifications 

as provided by § 60.7. 

(b) If you cease combusting solid 

waste but continue to operate, you must 

provide 30 days prior notice of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch, consistent with 60.2145(a). The 

notification must identify: 

(1) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(2) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

(3) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) 

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(4) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(5) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

(i.e., the effective date of the waste-tofuel switch), consistent with paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (3)of this section. 

■ 30. Section 60.2235 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2235 In what form can I submit my 

reports? 

(a) Submit initial, annual and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(b) As of January 1, 2012, and within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, as defined in 

§ 63.2, conducted to demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart, you must 

submit relative accuracy test audit (i.e., 

reference method) data and performance 

test (i.e., compliance test) data, except 

opacity data, electronically to EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert 

tool.html/) or other compatible 

electronic spreadsheet. Only data 

collected using test methods compatible 

with ERT are subject to this requirement 

to be submitted electronically into 

EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

■ 31. Section 60.2242 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2242 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a Title V operating permit for my 

unit? 

Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain 

incinerator subject to standards under 

this subpart must operate pursuant to a 

permit issued under Section 129(e) and 

Title V of the Clean Air Act. 

■ 32. Section 60.2250 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2250 What are the emission 

limitations for air curtain incinerators? 

Within 60 days after your air curtain 

incinerator reaches the charge rate at 

which it will operate, but no later than 

180 days after its initial startup, you 

must meet the two limitations specified 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 10 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values), except as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 35 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values) during the 

startup period that is within the first 30 

minutes of operation. 

■ 33. Section 60.2260 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for air curtain 

incinerators? 

* * * * * 

(d) You must submit the results (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values) of the initial 

opacity tests no later than 60 days 

following the initial test. Submit annual 

opacity test results within 12 months 

following the previous report. 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Section 60.2265 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding definitions for ‘‘Affirmative 

defense’’, ‘‘Burn-off oven’’, ‘‘Bypass 

stack’’, ‘‘Chemical recovery unit’’, 

‘‘Continuous monitoring system’’, 

‘‘Cyclonic burn barrel’’, ‘‘Energy recovery 

unit’’, ‘‘Energy recovery unit designed to 

burn biomass (Biomass)’’, ‘‘Energy 

recovery unit designed to burn coal 

(Coal)’’, ‘‘Energy recovery unit designed 

to burn solid materials (Solids)’’, 

‘‘Homogeneous wastes’’ ‘‘Incinerator’’, 

‘‘Kiln’’, ‘‘Laboratory analysis unit’’, 

‘‘Minimum voltage or amperage’’, 

‘‘Opacity’’, ‘‘Operating day’’, 

‘‘Performance evaluation’’, ‘‘Performance 

test’’, ‘‘Process change’’, ‘‘Raw mill’’, 

‘‘Small remote incinerator’’, ‘‘Soil 

treatment unit’’, ‘‘Solid waste 

incineration unit,’’ ‘‘Space heater’’ and 

‘‘Waste-burning kiln’’, in alphabetical 

order. 

■ b. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration (CISWI) unit’’, ‘‘dioxin/ 

furans’’, ‘‘Modification or modified 

CISWI unit’’, and ‘‘Wet scrubber’’. 

■ c. Removing paragraph (3) of the 

definition for ‘‘Deviation.’’ 

■ d. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Agricultural waste’’, ‘‘Commercial or 

industrial waste’’, ‘‘Contained gaseous 

material’’, and ‘‘Solid waste’’. 

§ 60.2265 What definitions must I know? 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Burn-off oven means any rack 

reclamation unit, part reclamation unit, 

or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off 

oven is not an incinerator, wasteburning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

* * * * * 

Chemical recovery unit means 

combustion units burning materials to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

recover chemical constituents or to 

produce chemical compounds where 

there is an existing commercial market 

for such recovered chemical 

constituents or compounds. The 

following seven types of units are 

considered chemical recovery units: 

(1) Units burning only pulping liquors 

(i.e., black liquor) that are reclaimed in 

a pulping liquor recovery process and 

reused in the pulping process. 

(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric 

acid used to produce virgin sulfuric 

acid. 

(3) Units burning only wood or coal 

feedstock for the production of charcoal. 

(4) Units burning only manufacturing 

byproduct streams/residue containing 

catalyst metals which are reclaimed and 

reused as catalysts or used to produce 

commercial grade catalysts. 

(5) Units burning only coke to 

produce purified carbon monoxide that 

is used as an intermediate in the 

production of other chemical 

compounds. 

(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon 

liquids or solids to produce hydrogen, 

carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or 

other gases for use in other 

manufacturing processes. 

(7) Units burning only photographic 

film to recover silver. 

* * * * * 

Commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration (CISWI) unit means 

any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that 

combusts, or has combusted in the 

preceding 6 months, any solid waste as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. 

If the operating unit burns materials 

other than traditional fuels as defined in 

§ 241.2 that have been discarded, and 

you do not keep and produce records as 

required by § 60.2175(v), the material is 

a solid waste and the operating unit is 

a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI units 

will include all of the following 

components, a CISWI unit includes, but 

is not limited to, the solid waste feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, 

waste heat recovery equipment, if any, 

and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit 

does not include air pollution control 

equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit 

boundary starts at the solid waste 

hopper (if applicable) and extends 

through two areas: The combustion unit 

flue gas system, which ends 

immediately after the last combustion 

chamber or after the waste heat recovery 

equipment, if any; and the combustion 

unit bottom ash system, which ends at 

the truck loading station or similar 

equipment that transfers the ash to final 

disposal. The CISWI unit includes all 

ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. 

* * * * * 

Continuous monitoring system means 

the total equipment, required under the 

emission monitoring sections in 

applicable subparts, used to sample and 

condition (if applicable), to analyze, and 

to provide a permanent record of 

emissions or process parameters. 

* * * * * 

Cyclonic burn barrel means a 

combustion device for waste materials 

that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead 

drum. The device consists of a lid, 

which fits onto and encloses the drum, 

and a blower that forces combustion air 

into the drum in a cyclonic manner to 

enhance the mixing of waste material 

and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an 

energy recovery unit or a small, remote 

incinerator under this subpart. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emission limitation, operating limit, or 

operator qualification and accessibility 

requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through 

octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

dibenzofurans. 

* * * * * 

Energy recovery unit means a 

combustion unit combusting solid waste 

(as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR 

240) for energy recovery. Energy 

recovery units include units that would 

be considered boilers and process 

heaters if they did not combust solid 

waste. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

biomass (Biomass) means an energy 

recovery unit that burns solid waste and 

at least 10 percent biomass, but less 

than 10 percent coal, on a heat input 

basis on an annual average, either alone 

or in combination with liquid waste, 

liquid fuel or gaseous fuels. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

coal (Coal) means an energy recovery 

unit that burns solid waste and at least 

10 percent coal on a heat input basis on 

an annual average, either alone or in 

combination with liquid waste, liquid 

fuel or gaseous fuels. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

liquid waste materials and gas (Liquid/ 

gas) means an energy recovery unit that 

burns a liquid waste with liquid or 

gaseous fuels not combined with any 

solid fuel or waste materials. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

solid materials (Solids) includes energy 

recovery units designed to burn coal 

and energy recovery units designed to 

burn biomass. 

* * * * * 

Homogeneous wastes are stable, 

consistent in formulation, have known 

fuel properties, have a defined origin, 

have predictable chemical and physical 

attributes, and result in consistent 

combustion characteristics and have a 

consistent emissions profile. 

Incinerator means any furnace used in 

the process of combusting solid waste 

(as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR 

part 240) for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the waste by removing 

combustible matter. Incinerator designs 

include single chamber and twochamber. 

Kiln means an oven or furnace, 

including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, used for processing 

a substance by burning, firing or drying. 

Kilns include cement kilns that produce 

clinker by heating limestone and other 

materials for subsequent production of 

Portland Cement. 

Laboratory analysis unit means units 

that burn samples of materials for the 

purpose of chemical or physical 

analysis. A laboratory analysis unit is 

not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, 

an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 

90 percent of the lowest test-run average 

voltage or amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitator measured during the most 

recent particulate matter or mercury 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits. 

Modification or modified CISWI unit 

means a CISWI unit that has been 

changed later than June 1, 2001, and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes 

over the life of the unit exceeds 50 

percent of the original cost of building 

and installing the CISWI unit (not 

including the cost of land) updated to 

current costs (current dollars). To 

determine what systems are within the 

boundary of the CISWI unit used to 

calculate these costs, see the definition 

of CISWI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the CISWI 

unit or change in the method of 

operating it that increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted for which 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15763 

section 129 or section 111 of the Clean 

Air Act has established standards. 

Opacity means the degree to which 

emissions reduce the transmission of 

light and obscure the view of an object 

in the background. 

Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12:00 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

amount of solid waste is combusted at 

any time in the CISWI unit. 

* * * * * 

Performance evaluation means the 

conduct of relative accuracy testing, 

calibration error testing, and other 

measurements used in validating the 

continuous monitoring system data. 

Performance test means the collection 

of data resulting from the execution of 

a test method (usually three emission 

test runs) used to demonstrate 

compliance with a relevant emission 

standard as specified in the performance 

test section of the relevant standard. 

Process change means a significant 

permit revision, but only with respect to 

those pollutant-specific emission units 

for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited 

to a change in the air pollution control 

devices used to comply with the 

emission limits for the affected CISWI 

unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for 

activated carbon injection). 

* * * * * 

Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, 

vertical roller mill or other size 

reduction equipment, that is not part of 

an in-line kiln/raw mill, used to grind 

feed to the appropriate size. Moisture 

may be added or removed from the feed 

during the grinding operation. If the raw 

mill is used to remove moisture from 

feed materials, it is also, by definition, 

a raw material dryer. The raw mill also 

includes the air separator associated 

with the raw mill. 

* * * * * 

Small, remote incinerator means an 

incinerator that combusts solid waste 

(as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR 

part 240) and combusts 3 tons per day 

or less solid waste and is more than 25 

miles driving distance to the nearest 

municipal solid waste landfill. 

Soil treatment unit means a unit that 

thermally treats petroleum 

contaminated soils for the sole purpose 

of site remediation. A soil treatment 

unit may be direct-fired or indirect 

fired. A soil treatment unit is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an 

energy recovery unit or a small, remote 

incinerator under this subpart. 

Solid waste incineration unit means a 

distinct operating unit of any facility 

which combusts any solid waste (as that 

term is defined by the Administrator 

under RCRA in 40 CFR part 240) 

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 facilities (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 refusederived 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. 

Space heater means a usually portable 

appliance for heating a relatively small 

area. These units are not subject to the 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, or 

small, remote subcategories. 

* * * * * 

Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that 

is heated, in whole or in part, by 

combusting solid waste (as that term is 

defined by the Administrator pursuant 

to Subtitle D of RCRA). 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air 

pollution control device that uses an 

aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to 

collect particulate matter (including 

nonvaporous metals and condensed 

organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Table 1 of subpart CCCC is revised 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CISWI UNITS FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS

COMMENCED AFTER NOVEMBER 30, 1999, BUT NO LATER THAN JUNE 4, 2010, OR FOR WHICH MODIFICATION OR

RECONSTRUCTION IS COMMENCED ON OR AFTER JUNE 1, 2001, BUT NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.004 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon Monoxide .......................... 157 parts per million by dry volume.30 day rolling average .................. Carbon Monoxide CEMS (Performance Specification 4A of 

this part, use a span value of 

300 ppm.). 

Dioxin/Furan (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.41 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 of 

appendix A–7 of this part). 

Hydrogen Chloride ......................... 62 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 0.04 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CISWI UNITS FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS

COMMENCED AFTER NOVEMBER 30, 1999, BUT NO LATER THAN JUNE 4, 2010, OR FOR WHICH MODIFICATION OR

RECONSTRUCTION IS COMMENCED ON OR AFTER JUNE 1, 2001, BUT NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 21, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Mercury .......................................... 0.47 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008),b collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard 

cubic meter per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum 

sample as specified in Method 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008).b

Nitrogen Oxides ............................. 388 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 7 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 800 ppm or less. 

Opacity ........................................... 10 percent ..................................... Three 1-hour blocks consisting of 

ten 6-minute averages opacity 

values.

Performance test (Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Particulate matter ........................... 70 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or A–8). 

Sulfur Dioxide ................................ 20 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (For Method 6, collect a minimum volume of 200 

liters per run. For Method 6C, 

collect sample for a minimum 

duration of 1 hour per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. Use a span gas with a concentration of 50 ppm or less. 

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

■ 36. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Annual Report’’ and ‘‘Emission 

limitation or operating limit deviation 

report.’’ 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a

Report Due date Contents Reference 

*******

Annual report ............. No later than 12 months following the submission of the initial test report. Subsequent reports are to be submitted no 

more than 12 months following the previous report.

• Name and address ...................................

• Statement and signature by responsible 

official.

• Date of report ...........................................

• Values for the operating limits ..................

§§ 60.2205 and 60.2210. 

• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded for 

the calendar year being reported.

• If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the 

test.

• If a performance test was not conducted 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that the requirements of § 60.2155(a) 

were met.

• Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but less than 

2 weeks.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15765 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• If you are conducting performance tests 

once every 3 years consistent with 

§ 60.2155(a), the date of the last 2 performance tests, a comparison of the 

emission level you achieved in the last 2 

performance tests to the 75 percent 

emission limit threshold required in 

§ 60.2155(a) and a statement as to 

whether there have been any operational 

changes since the last performance test 

that could increase emissions.

* * * * * * * 

Emission limitation or 

operating limit deviation report.

By August 1 of that year for data collected 

during the first half of the calendar year. 

By February 1 of the following year for 

data collected during the second half of 

the calendar year.

• Dates and times of deviation ....................

• Averaged and recorded data for those 

dates.

• Duration and causes of each deviation 

and the corrective actions taken.

• Copy of operating limit monitoring data 

and any test reports.

• Dates, times and causes for monitor 

downtime incidents.

§ 60.2215 and 60.2220. 

* * * * * * * 

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

■ 37. Table 5 to Subpart CCCC is added 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION

AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.0023 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

of this part). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical finish. 

Carbon Monoxide .......................... 12 parts per million by dry volume 30 day rolling average .................. Carbon Monoxide CEMS (Performance Specification 4A of 

this part, using an RA of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 ppm as specified in section 13.2. For the cylinder gas audit, +/¥ 15% or 0.5 

ppm, whichever is greater.) Use 

a span gas with a concentration 

of 20 ppm or less. 

Dioxin/furan (Total Mass Basis) ..... 0.052 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxin/furan (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.13 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Fugitive ash ................................... Visible emissions for no more 

than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

7). 

Hydrogen Chloride ......................... 0.091 part per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 

200 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 3 dry standard cubic meter 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

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

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 of 

appendix A–8 at 40 CFR part 

60). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION

AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 2011— 

Continued 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Mercury .......................................... 0.00016 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect enough volume to meet a detection limit 

data quality objective of 0.03 

μg/dry standard cubic meter).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008) b. 

Nitrogen Oxides ............................. 23 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 50 ppm or less. 

Particulate matter ...........................

(filterable) .......................................

18 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8 at 40 CFR 

part 60). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 11 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. Use a span gas with a concentration of 20 ppm or less. 

aAll emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the 

Total Mass Limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

■ 38. Table 6 to Subpart CCCC is added 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS THAT COMMENCED

CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

For the air pollutant 

You must meet this emission limitation a

Using this averaging 

time 

And determining compliance using this method Liquid/gas Solids 

Cadmium .................... 0.023 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic 

meter.

0.00051 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect 

a minimum volume 

of 4 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish. 

Carbon monoxide ...... 36 parts per million 

dry volume.

Coal—46 parts per 

million dry volume.

Biomass—160 parts 

per million dry volume.

30 day rolling average Carbon Monoxide CEMS (Performance 

Specification 4A of this part, using a RA of 

0.5 ppm instead of 5 ppm as specified in 

section 13.2. For the cylinder gas audit, +/ 

¥15% or 0.5 ppm, whichever is greater. 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 

100 ppm or less for a liquid/gas or coalfed boiler. Use a span gas with a concentration of 300 ppm or less for a biomass-fed boiler. 

Dioxins/furans (Total 

Mass Basis).

No Total Mass Basis 

limit, must meet the 

toxic equivalency 

basis limit below.

0.068 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter.

3-run average (collect 

a minimum volume 

of 4 dry standard 

cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis).

0.002 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter.

0.011 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter.

3-run average (collect 

a minimum volume 

of 4 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run).

Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A– 

7 of this part). 

Fugitive ash ............... Visible emissions for 

no more than 5 percent of the hourly 

observation period.

Visible emissions for 

no more than 5 percent of the hourly 

observation period.

Three 1-hour observation periods.Visible emission test (Method 22 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15767 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS THAT COMMENCED

CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant 

You must meet this emission limitation a

Using this averaging 

time 

And determining compliance using this method Liquid/gas Solids 

Hydrogen chloride ...... 14 parts per million 

dry volume.

0.45 parts per million 

dry volume.

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect a 

minimum volume of 

200 liters per run. 

For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Lead ........................... 0.096 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic 

meter.

0.00313 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect 

a minimum volume 

of 4 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish. 

Mercury ...................... 0.00025 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter.

0.00033 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect 

enough volume to 

meet an in-stack 

detection limit data 

quality objective of 

0.03 ug/dscm).

Performance test (Method 29 or 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008).b. 

Oxides of nitrogen ..... 76 parts per million 

dry volume.

Biomass—290 parts 

per million dry volume.

Coal—340 parts per 

million dry volume.

3-run average (1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run).

Performance test (Method 7E at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–4). Use a span gas with a 

concentration of 150 ppm or less for liquid/ 

gas fuel boilers. Use a span gas with a 

concentration of 700 ppm or less for solid 

fuel boilers. 

Particulate matter (filterable).110 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic 

meter.

250 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic 

meter.

3-run average (collect 

a minimum volume 

of 1 dry standard 

cubic meter per run).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–3 or appendix A–8) if 

the unit has a design capacity less than 

250 MMBtu/hr; or PM CEMS (performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this part) 

if the unit has a design capacity equal to 

or greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. Use Method 5 or 5I of Appendix A of this part and 

collect a minimum sample volume of 1 

dscm per test run for the PM CEMS correlation testing. 

Sulfur dioxide ............. 720 parts per million 

dry volume.

Biomass—6.2 parts 

per million dry volume.

Coal—650 parts per 

million dry volume.

3-run average (1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4. Use a span 

gas with a concentration of 20 ppm or less 

for a biomass-fed boiler. Use a span gas 

with a concentration of 1500 ppm or less 

for a liquid/gas boiler or coal-fed boiler. 

aAll emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the 

Total Mass Basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

■ 39. Table 7 to Subpart CCCC is added 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR WASTE-BURNING KILNS THAT COMMENCED

CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation a

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.00048 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR WASTE-BURNING KILNS THAT COMMENCED

CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation a

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using this method 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 90 parts per million dry volume .... 30-day rolling average .................. Carbon monoxide CEMS (Performance Specification 4A of 

this part, using an RA of 1 ppm 

instead of 5 ppm as specified in 

section 13.2. For the cylinder 

gas audit, +/¥ 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is greater). Use a 

span gas with a concentration 

of 200 ppm or less. 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 0.090 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.0030 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 3.0 parts per million dry volume ... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run) or 30-day 

rolling average if HCl CEMS are 

used.

Performance test (Method 321 at 

40 CFR part 63, appendix A) or 

HCl CEMS if a wet scrubber is 

not used. 

Lead ............................................... 0.0026 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0062 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.30-day rolling average .................. Mercury CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system (performance specification 12A or 12B, 

respectively, of appendix B of 

this part.) 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 200 b parts per million dry volume 30-day rolling average .................. NOX Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (performance 

specification 2 of appendix B of 

this part). Use a span gas with 

a concentration of 400 ppm or 

less. 

Particulate matter (filterable) .......... 2.5 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

30-day rolling average .................. PM Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (performance 

specification 11 of appendix B 

of this part). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 38 parts per million dry volume .... 30-day rolling average .................. Sulfur dioxide Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part). Use a 

span gas with a concentration 

of 100 ppm or less. 

aAll emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total 

mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. b NOX limits for new waste-burning kilns based on data for best-performing similar source, Portland Cement kilns. See ‘‘CISWI Emission Limit 

Calculations for Existing and New Sources’’ for details. 

■ 40. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR SMALL, REMOTE INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER

SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation a

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.61 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15769 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR SMALL, REMOTE INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010, OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER

SEPTEMBER 21, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation a

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 12 parts per million dry volume .... 24 hour block average .................. Carbon monoxide CEMS (Performance Specification 4A of 

this part, using a RA of 0.5 ppm 

instead of 5 ppm as specified in 

section 13.2. For the cylinder 

gas audit, +/¥ 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is greater.). Use a 

span gas with a concentration 

of 25 ppm or less. 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 1,200 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

31 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Fugitive ash ................................... Visible emissions for no more 

than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 200 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 0.26 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60,appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0035 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) b, collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum volume as specified in Method 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008)b. 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 78 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 7E at 

40 CFR part 60,appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 150 ppm or less. 

Particulate matter (filterable) .......... 230 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 1.2 parts per million dry volume ... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. Use a span gas with a concentration of 5 ppm or less. 

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must 

meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

■ 41. Revise the heading for subpart 

DDDD to read as follows: 

Subpart DDDD—Emissions Guidelines 

and Compliance Times for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units 

* * * * * 

■ 42. Section 60.2500 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2500 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes emission 

guidelines and compliance schedules 

for the control of emissions from 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration (CISWI) units. The 

pollutants addressed by these emission 

guidelines are listed in table 2 of this 

subpart and tables 6 through 9 of this 

subpart. These emission guidelines are 

developed in accordance with sections 

111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act and 

subpart B of this part. 

■ 43. Section 60.2505 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2505 Am I affected by this subpart? 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an 

air quality program in a state or United 

States protectorate with one or more 

existing CISWI units that meets the 

criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of 

this section, you must submit a state 

plan to EPA that implements the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(b) You must submit a state plan to 

EPA by December 3, 2001 for 

incinerator units that commenced 

construction on or before November 30, 

1999 and that were not modified or 

reconstructed after June 1, 2001. 

(c) You must submit a state plan that 

meets the requirements of this subpart 

and contains the more stringent 

emission limit for the respective 

pollutant in table 6 of this subpart or 

table 1 of subpart CCCC of this part to 

EPA by March 21, 2012 for incinerators 

that commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, but no later than 

June 4, 2010, or commenced 

modification or reconstruction after 

June 1, 2001 but no later than 

September 21, 2011. 

(d) You must submit a state plan to 

EPA that meets the requirements of this 

subpart and contains the emission limits 

in tables 7 through 9 of this subpart by 

March 21, 2012 for CISWI units other 

than incinerator units that commenced 

construction on or before June 4, 2010. 

■ 44. Section 60.2525 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2525 What if my state plan is not 

approvable? 

(a) If you do not submit an approvable 

state plan (or a negative declaration 

letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA will 

develop a federal plan according to 

§ 60.27 to implement the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart. 

Owners and operators of CISWI units 

not covered by an approved state plan 

must comply with the federal plan. The 

federal plan is an interim action and 

will be automatically withdrawn when 

your state plan is approved. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable 

state plan (or a negative declaration 

letter) to EPA that meets the 

requirements of this subpart and 

contains the emission limits in tables 6 

through 9 of this subpart for CISWI 

units that commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, but on or before by 

June 4, 2010, then EPA will develop a 

federal plan according to § 60.27 to 

implement the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. Owners and 

operators of CISWI units not covered by 

an approved state plan must comply 

with the federal plan. The federal plan 

is an interim action and will be 

automatically withdrawn when your 

state plan is approved. 

■ 45. Section 60.2535 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text. 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as 

paragraph (c). 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b). 

§ 60.2535 What compliance schedule must 

I include in my state plan? 

(a) For CISWI units in the incinerator 

subcategory that commenced 

construction on or before November 30, 

1999, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require 

CISWI units to achieve final compliance 

as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later 

than the earlier of the two dates 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(b) For CISWI units in the incinerator 

subcategory that commenced 

construction after November 30, 1999, 

but on or before June 4, 2010, and for 

CISWI units in the energy recovery 

units, waste-burning kilns, and small 

remote incinerators subcategories that 

commenced construction before June 4, 

2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require 

CISWI units to achieve final compliance 

as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later 

than the earlier of the two dates 

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

of this section. 

(1) March 21, 2016. 

(2) 3 years after the effective date of 

state plan approval. 

* * * * * 

■ 46. Section 60.2540 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.2540 Are there any state plan 

requirements for this subpart that apply 

instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

* * * * * 

(a) State plans developed to 

implement this subpart must be as 

protective as the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. State plans 

must require all CISWI units to comply 

by the dates specified in § 60.2535. This 

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

and longer compliance schedules in 

§ 60.24(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 47. Section 60.2541 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2541 In lieu of a state plan submittal, 

are there other acceptable option(s) for a 

state to meet its Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129(b)(2) obligations? 

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 obligations by 

submitting an acceptable written request 

for delegation of the federal plan that 

meets the requirements of this section. 

This is the only other option for a state 

to meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/ 

129 obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan 

delegation request must include the 

following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate 

resources and legal authority to 

administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under § 60.2515(a)(1), 

(2) and (7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on 

the state delegation request, similar to 

the hearing for a state plan submittal, 

was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, 

appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or 

written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Regional Administrator who sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date 

of the delegation and that serves as the 

mechanism for the transfer of authority. 

Additional guidance and information is 

given in EPA’s Delegation Manual, Item 

7–139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/ 

129(b)(3) federal plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved 

CISWI Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation 

request for the revised federal plan, 

providing the requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section are met, and at the 

time of the delegation request, the state 

also requests withdrawal of EPA’s 

previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations are separate from 

its obligations under Title V of the Clean 

Air Act. 

■ 48. Section 60.2542 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2542 What authorities will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies? 

The authorities listed under 

§ 60.2030(c) will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies. 

■ 49. Section 60.2545 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect 

CISWI unit owners and operators in my 

state? 

* * * * * 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable 

plan to implement and enforce the 

guidelines contained in this subpart for 

CISWI units that commenced 

construction before November 30, 1999 

by December 2, 2002, EPA will 

implement and enforce a federal plan, 

as provided in § 60.2525, to ensure that 

each unit within your state reaches 

compliance with all the provisions of 

this subpart by December 1, 2005. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15771 

(c) If you do not submit an approvable 

plan to implement and enforce the 

guidelines contained in this subpart by 

March 21, 2012 for CISWI units that 

commenced construction after 

November 29, 1999, but on or before 

June 4, 2010, EPA will implement and 

enforce a federal plan, as provided in 

§ 60.2525, to ensure that each unit 

within your state that commenced 

construction after November 29, 1999, 

but on or before June 4, 2010, reaches 

compliance with all the provisions of 

this subpart by March 21, 2016. 

■ 50. Section § 60.2550 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2550 What CISWI units must I address 

in my state plan? 

(a) * * * 

(1) Incineration units in your state 

that commenced construction on or 

before June 4, 2010. 

* * * * * 

■ 51. Section § 60.2555 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text. 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b). 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c), (e)(3), 

(f)(3), and (g). 

■ d. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(j), (k) and (l). 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n). 

■ f. Removing paragraph (o). 

§ 60.2555 What combustion units are 

exempt from my state plan? 

This subpart exempts the types of 

units described in paragraphs (a), (c) 

through (i), (m), and (n) of this section, 

but some units are required to provide 

notifications. Air curtain incinerators 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in 

§§ 60.2805, 60.2860, and 60.2870. 

* * * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. 

Incineration units that are regulated 

under subpart Ea of this part (Standards 

of Performance for Municipal Waste 

Combustors); subpart Eb of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart 

Cb of this part (Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Time for Large Municipal 

Combustors); AAAA of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Small 

Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or 

subpart BBBB of this part (Emission 

Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste 

Combustion Units). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) You submit a request to the 

Administrator for a determination that 

the qualifying cogeneration facility is 

combusting homogenous waste as that 

term is defined in § 60.2875. The 

request must include information 

sufficient to document that the unit 

meets the criteria of the definition of a 

small power production facility and that 

the waste material the unit is proposed 

to burn is homogeneous. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) You submit a request to the 

Administrator for a determination that 

the qualifying cogeneration facility is 

combusting homogenous waste as that 

term is defined § 60.2875. The request 

must include information sufficient to 

document that the unit meets the 

criteria of the definition of a 

cogeneration facility and that the waste 

material the unit is proposed to burn is 

homogeneous. 

(g) Hazardous waste combustion 

units. Units for which you are required 

to get a permit under section 3005 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

* * * * * 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) [Reserved] 

(l) [Reserved] 

(m) Sewage treatment plants. 

Incineration units regulated under 

subpart O of this part (Standards of 

Performance for Sewage Treatment 

Plants). 

(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. 

Incineration units combusting sewage 

sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter that are 

subject to subpart LLLL of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units) or subpart 

MMMM of this part (Emission 

Guidelines for Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units). Sewage sludge 

incineration unit designs may include 

fluidized bed and multiple hearth. 

§ 60.2558 [Removed] 

■ 52. Section 60.2558 is removed. 

■ 53. Section 60.2635 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2635 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Actions to prevent and correct 

malfunctions or to prevent conditions 

that may lead to malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

■ 54. Section 60.2650 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2650 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

* * * * * 

(d) Prevention and correction of 

malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

* * * * * 

■ 55. Section 60.2670 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2670 What emission limitations must I 

meet and by when? 

(a) You must meet the emission 

limitations for each CISWI unit, 

including bypass stack or vent, specified 

in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 

through 9 of this subpart by the final 

compliance date under the approved 

state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. The emission limitations 

apply at all times the unit is operating 

including and not limited to startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. 

(b) Units that do not use wet 

scrubbers must maintain opacity to less 

than or equal to the percent opacity 

(three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6- 

minute average opacity values) specified 

in table 2 of this subpart, as applicable. 

■ 56. Section 60.2675 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text and paragraphs (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b). 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and 

(g) to read as follows: 

§ 60.2675 What operating limits must I 

meet and by when? 

(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to 

comply with the emission limitations, 

you must establish operating limits for 

up to four operating parameters (as 

specified in table 3 of this subpart) as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(4) of this section during the initial 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(2) Minimum pressure drop across the 

wet particulate matter scrubber, which 

is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average pressure drop across the wet 

scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations; or minimum 

amperage to the fan for the wet 

scrubber, which is calculated as the 

lowest 1-hour average amperage to the 

wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations. 

(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, which is calculated as the lowest 

1-hour average liquid flow rate at the 

inlet to the wet acid gas or particulate 

matter scrubber measured during the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limitations. 

(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, 

which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet 

acid gas scrubber measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the HCl 

emission limitation. 

* * * * * 

(b) You must meet the operating 

limits established during the initial 

performance test on the date the initial 

performance test is required or 

completed (whichever is earlier). You 

must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system and continuous 

parameter monitoring system within 60 

days of installation of the monitoring 

system. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limitations, you must measure 

the (secondary) voltage and amperage of 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates during the particulate matter 

performance test. Calculate the average 

electric power value (secondary voltage 

× secondary current = secondary electric 

power) for each test run. The operating 

limit for the electrostatic precipitator is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

secondary electric power measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter emission limitations. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the 

performance testing. The operating limit 

for the carbon sorbent injection is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

sorbent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

mercury emission limitations. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

charge rate, the secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI 

unit), and the reagent flow rate during 

the nitrogen oxides performance testing. 

The operating limits for the selective 

noncatalytic reduction are calculated as 

the lowest 1-hour average charge rate, 

secondary chamber temperature, and 

reagent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limitations. 

(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, 

electrostatic precipitator, or fabric filter 

to comply with the emission limitations, 

and if you do not determine compliance 

with your particulate matter emission 

limitation with a particulate matter 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system, you must maintain opacity to 

less than or equal to ten percent opacity 

(1-hour block average). 

■ 57. Section 60.2680 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2680 What if I do not use a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, activated carbon 

injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, 

or an electrostatic precipitator to comply 

with the emission limitations? 

(a) If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, 

activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, fabric filter, or 

an electrostatic precipitator or limit 

emissions in some other manner, 

including mass balances, to comply 

with the emission limitations under 

§ 60.2670, you must petition the EPA 

Administrator for specific operating 

limits to be established during the 

initial performance test and 

continuously monitored thereafter. You 

must not conduct the initial 

performance test until after the petition 

has been approved by the 

Administrator. Your petition must 

include the five items listed in 

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

section. 

(1) Identification of the specific 

parameters you propose to use as 

additional operating limits. 

(2) A discussion of the relationship 

between these parameters and emissions 

of regulated pollutants, identifying how 

emissions of regulated pollutants 

change with changes in these 

parameters and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions 

of regulated pollutants. 

(3) A discussion of how you will 

establish the upper and/or lower values 

for these parameters which will 

establish the operating limits on these 

parameters. 

(4) A discussion identifying the 

methods you will use to measure and 

the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative 

accuracy and precision of these methods 

and instruments. 

(5) A discussion identifying the 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

(b) [Reserved] 

■ 58. Section 60.2685 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2685 Affirmative Defense for 

Exceedance of an Emission Limit During 

Malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 60.2670 you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 

§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter 

monitoring and systems, as well as 

control systems, were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15773 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, 

but no later than two business days after 

the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself 

of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The 

owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a 

written report to the Administrator 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in 

§ 60.2670 to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedances. 

■ 59. Section 60.2690 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (g)(1) and (2) 

and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.2690 How do I conduct the initial and 

annual performance test? 

* * * * * 

(c) All performance tests must be 

conducted using the minimum run 

duration specified in tables 2 and 6 

through 9 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra- through octa-isomer 

emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octa-chlorinated) isomer 

measured in accordance with paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section, multiply the 

isomer concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in table 4 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 must be used to 

determine compliance with the fugitive 

ash emission limit in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this 

subpart. 

(i) If you have an applicable opacity 

operating limit, you must determine 

compliance with the opacity limit using 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4, based on three 1-hour blocks 

consisting of ten 6-minute average 

opacity values, unless you are required 

to install a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, consistent with 

§ 60.2710 and § 60.2730. 

■ 60. Section 60.2695 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2695 How are the performance test 

data used? 

You use results of performance tests 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this 

subpart. 

■ 61. Section 60.2700 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2700 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the amended emission 

limitations and establish the operating 

limits? 

You must conduct a performance test, 

as required under §§ 60.2690 and 

60.2670, to determine compliance with 

the emission limitations in table 2 of 

this subpart and tables 6 through 9 of 

this subpart, to establish compliance 

with any opacity operating limits in 

§ 60.2675, and to establish operating 

limits using the procedures in § 60.2675 

or § 60.2680. The performance test must 

be conducted using the test methods 

listed in table 2 of this subpart and 

tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and 

the procedures in § 60.2690. The use of 

the bypass stack during a performance 

test shall invalidate the performance 

test. You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system within 60 days of 

installation of the monitoring system. 

■ 62. Section 60.2705 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2705 By what date must I conduct the 

initial performance test? 

(a) The initial performance test must 

be conducted no later than 180 days 

after your final compliance date. Your 

final compliance date is specified in 

table 1 of this subpart. 

(b) If you commence or recommence 

combusting a solid waste at an existing 

combustion unit at any commercial or 

industrial facility and you conducted a 

test consistent with the provisions of 

this subpart while combusting the given 

solid waste within the 6 months 

preceding the reintroduction of that 

solid waste in the combustion chamber, 

you do not need to retest until 6 months 

from the date you reintroduce that solid 

waste. 

(c) If you commence combusting or 

recommence combusting a solid waste 

at an existing combustion unit at any 

commercial or industrial facility and 

you have not conducted a performance 

test consistent with the provisions of 

this subpart while combusting the given 

solid waste within the 6 months 

preceding the reintroduction of that 

solid waste in the combustion chamber, 

you must conduct a performance test 

within 60 days commencing or 

recommencing solid waste combustion. 

■ 63. Section 60.2706 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2706 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device 

inspection? 

(a) The initial air pollution control 

device inspection must be conducted 

within 60 days after installation of the 

control device and the associated CISWI 

unit reaches the charge rate at which it 

will operate, but no later than 180 days 

after the final compliance date for 

meeting the amended emission 

limitations. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless the owner or operator 

obtains written approval from the state 

agency establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the designated 

facility must be completed. 

■ 64. Section 60.2710 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2710 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the amended 

emission limitations and the operating 

limits? 

(a) Compliance with standards. 

(1) The emission standards and 

operating requirements set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(2) If you cease combusting solid 

waste you may opt to remain subject to 

the provisions of this subpart. 

Consistent with the definition of CISWI 

unit, you are subject to the requirements 

of this subpart at least 6 months 

following the last date of solid waste 

combustion. Solid waste combustion is 

ceased when solid waste is not in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., the solid 

waste feed to the combustor has been 

cut off for a period of time not less than 

the solid waste residence time). 

(3) If you cease combusting solid 

waste you must be in compliance with 

any newly applicable standards on the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch. The effective date of the wasteto-fuel switch is a date selected by you, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

that must be at least 6 months from the 

date that you ceased combusting solid 

waste, consistent with § 60.2710(a)(2). 

Your source must remain in compliance 

with this subpart until the effective date 

of the waste-to-fuel switch. 

(4) If you own or operate an existing 

commercial or industrial combustion 

unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste 

material, and you commence or 

recommence combustion of solid waste, 

you are subject to the provisions of this 

subpart as of the first day you introduce 

or reintroduce solid waste to the 

combustion chamber, and this date 

constitutes the effective date of the fuelto-waste switch. You must complete all 

initial compliance demonstrations for 

any Section 112 standards that are 

applicable to your facility before you 

commence or recommence combustion 

of solid waste. You must provide 30 

days prior notice of the effective date of 

the waste-to-fuel switch. The 

notification must identify: 

(i) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(ii) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

(iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) 

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(iv) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(v) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

(i.e., the effective date of the waste-tofuel switch), consistent with paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (3) of this section. 

(5) All air pollution control 

equipment necessary for compliance 

with any newly applicable emissions 

limits which apply as a result of the 

cessation or commencement or 

recommencement of combusting solid 

waste must be installed and operational 

as of the effective date of the waste-tofuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. 

(6) All monitoring systems necessary 

for compliance with any newly 

applicable monitoring requirements 

which apply as a result of the cessation 

or commencement or recommencement 

of combusting solid waste must be 

installed and operational as of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and 

drift checks must be performed as of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy 

tests must be performed as of the 

performance test deadline for PM 

CEMS. Relative accuracy testing for 

other CEMS need not be repeated if that 

testing was previously performed 

consistent with section 112 monitoring 

requirements or monitoring 

requirements under this subpart. 

(b) You must conduct an annual 

performance test for the pollutants 

listed in table 2 of this subpart or tables 

6 through 9 of this subpart and opacity 

for each CISWI unit as required under 

§ 60.2690. The annual performance test 

must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 2 of this subpart 

or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and 

the procedures in § 60.2690. Annual 

performance tests are not required if you 

use continuous emission monitoring 

systems or continuous opacity 

monitoring systems to determine 

compliance. 

(c) You must continuously monitor 

the operating parameters specified in 

§ 60.2675 or established under § 60.2680 

and as specified in § 60.2735. Operation 

above the established maximum or 

below the established minimum 

operating limits constitutes a deviation 

from the established operating limits. 

Three-hour block average values are 

used to determine compliance (except 

for baghouse leak detection system 

alarms) unless a different averaging 

period is established under § 60.2680. 

Operating limits are confirmed or 

reestablished during performance tests. 

(d) You must burn only the same 

types of waste used to establish 

operating limits during the performance 

test. 

(e) For energy recovery units, 

incinerators, and small remote units, 

you must perform annual visual 

emissions test for ash handling. 

(f) For energy recovery units, you 

must conduct an annual performance 

test for the pollutants listed in table 7 

of this subpart. 

(g) For facilities using a continuous 

emission monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emission limit may be demonstrated by 

using the continuous emission 

monitoring system according to the 

following requirements: 

(1) You must measure emissions 

according to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. You must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emissions limit using a 30- 

day rolling average of the 1-hour 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. 

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of performance 

specification 4A of appendix B and the 

quality assurance procedures of 

appendix F of this part. 

(h) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the particulate matter emissions 

limit using a particulate matter 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2730(n). 

(i) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than or equal 

to 10 MMBTU/hour, if you have an 

opacity operating limit, you must 

install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2730. 

(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must 

conduct an annual performance test for 

the pollutants (except mercury and 

particulate matter, and hydrogen 

chloride if no acid gas wet scrubber is 

used) listed in table 8 of this subpart. If 

your waste-burning kiln is not equipped 

with a wet scrubber, you must 

determine compliance with the 

hydrogen chloride emission limit using 

a continuous emission monitoring 

system as specified in § 60.2730. You 

must determine compliance with the 

mercury emissions limit using a 

mercury continuous emission 

monitoring system according to the 

following requirements: 

(1) Operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system in accordance with 

performance specification 12A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix B or a sorbent 

trap based integrated monitor in 

accordance with performance 

specification 12B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. The duration of the 

performance test must be a calendar 

month. For each calendar month in 

which the waste-burning kiln operates, 

hourly mercury concentration data and 

stack gas volumetric flow rate data must 

be obtained. 

(2) Owners or operators using a 

mercury continuous emissions 

monitoring systems must install, 

operate, calibrate and maintain an 

instrument for continuously measuring 

and recording the mercury mass 

emissions rate to the atmosphere 

according to the requirements of 

performance specifications 6 and 12A at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15775 

40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality 

assurance procedure 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix F. 

(3) The owner or operator of a wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial 

compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emission monitor while the 

raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

operating under normal conditions and 

while the raw mill of the in-line 

kiln/raw mill is not operating. 

(k) If you use an air pollution control 

device to meet the emission limitations 

in this subpart, you must conduct an 

initial and annual inspection of the air 

pollution control device. The inspection 

must include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation. 

(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring 

plan according to the requirements in 

paragraph (l) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you 

petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under 

§ 60.13(i). 

(l) For each continuous monitoring 

system required in this section, you 

must develop and submit to the EPA 

Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan according to 

the requirements of this paragraph (l) 

that addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(1) You must submit this site-specific 

monitoring plan at least 60 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your continuous monitoring system. 

(i) Installation of the continuous 

monitoring system sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement 

location relative to each affected process 

unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 

emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the 

last control device). 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 60.11(d). 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b),(c), 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system in accordance with 

your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

the continuous monitoring system in 

continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(m) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow monitoring 

system, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (l) and (m)(1) through (4) 

of this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of no greater 

than 2 percent of the expected process 

flow rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling 

flow or abnormal velocity distributions 

due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system 

performance evaluation in accordance 

with your monitoring plan at the time 

of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(n) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a 

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM 

scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters 

of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring 

system operating range, whichever is 

less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pressure monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured 

pressure exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure 

range, conduct a performance 

evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and confirm that the 

pressure monitoring system continues to 

meet the performance requirements in 

your monitoring plan. Alternatively, 

install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a 

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM 

scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters 

of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring 

system operating range, whichever is 

less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pressure monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured 

pressure exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure 

range, conduct a performance 

evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and confirm that the 

pressure monitoring system continues to 

meet the performance requirements in 

your monitoring plan. Alternatively, 

install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a secondary electric power 

monitoring system for an electrostatic 

precipitator, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (p)(1) 

through (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure 

(secondary) voltage and current to the 

precipitator collection plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the electric power monitoring system 

in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance 

test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(q) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a monitoring system 

to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper 

flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) 

and (q)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Install the system in a position(s) 

that provides a representative 

measurement of the total sorbent 

injection rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the sorbent injection rate monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each 

performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(r) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag 

leak detection system to comply with 

the requirements of this subpart, you 

must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a bag leak 

detection system as specified in 

paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of 

this section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

sensor(s) in a position(s) that will be 

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent, or 

compartment e.g., for a positive pressure 

fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter or 

less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

and consistent with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17). 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will sound 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located where it is observed readily 

by plant operating personnel. 

(s) For facilities using a continuous 

emission monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with 

the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be 

demonstrated by using the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.2730 to measure sulfur dioxide and 

calculating a 30-day rolling average 

emission concentration using Equation 

19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. The sulfur dioxide 

continuous emission monitoring system 

must be operated according to 

performance specification 2 in appendix 

B of this part and must follow the 

procedures and methods specified in 

this paragraph (s). For sources that have 

actual inlet emissions less than 100 

parts per million dry volume, the 

relative accuracy criterion for inlet 

sulfur dioxide continuous emission 

monitoring systems should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the 

reference method test data in terms of 

the units of the emission standard, or 5 

parts per million dry volume absolute 

value of the mean difference between 

the reference method and the 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems, whichever is greater. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix 

B of this part, collect sulfur dioxide and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) with both the 

continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

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

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference 

Method 6 or 6C, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) 

must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, or as 

an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous 

emissions monitoring system at the inlet 

to the sulfur dioxide control device 

must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential sulfur 

dioxide emissions of the unit subject to 

this rule. The span value of the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide 

control device must be 50 percent of the 

maximum estimated hourly potential 

sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit 

subject to this rule. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations 

quarterly and calibration drift tests daily 

in accordance with procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(t) For facilities using a continuous 

emission monitoring system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the nitrogen oxides emission limit, 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit may be demonstrated by 

using the continuous emission 

monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.2730 to measure nitrogen oxides 

and calculating a 30-day rolling average 

emission concentration using Equation 

19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. The nitrogen oxides 

continuous emission monitoring system 

must be operated according to 

performance specification 2 in appendix 

B of this part and must follow the 

procedures and methods specified in 

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

section. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, collect nitrogen oxides 

and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) with both the 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems and the test methods specified 

in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (t)(1)(ii) of 

this section. 

(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference 

Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4 must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, or as 

an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system must be 

125 percent of the maximum estimated 

hourly potential nitrogen oxide 

emissions of unit. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations 

quarterly and calibration drift tests daily 

in accordance with procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(4) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If 

carbon dioxide is selected for use in 

diluent corrections, the relationship 

between oxygen and carbon dioxide 

levels must be established during the 

initial performance test according to the 

procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through (t)(4)(iv) of 

this section. This relationship may be 

reestablished during performance 

compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

3A, 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 

30 minutes in each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1- 

hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of 3 runs must be 

performed. 

(u) For facilities using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with any of the emission limits of this 

subpart, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Demonstrate compliance with the 

appropriate emission limit(s) using a 30- 

day rolling average, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. 

(2) Operate all continuous emissions 

monitoring systems in accordance with 

the applicable procedures under 

appendices B and F of this part. 

(v) Use of the bypass stack at any time 

is an emissions standards deviation for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15777 

particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, 

NOX, SO2, and dioxin/furans. 

(w) For energy recovery units with a 

heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu per 

hour or greater that do not use a carbon 

monoxide continuous emission 

monitoring system, you must operate 

and maintain the continuous oxygen 

monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.2730 according to the procedures in 

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

section by the compliance date specified 

in table 1 of this subpart. The oxygen 

level shall be monitored at the outlet of 

the energy recovery unit. 

(1) Each monitor must be operated 

and maintained according to the 

applicable procedures under 

performance specification 3 of appendix 

B of this part and according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed 

according to paragraph (1) of this 

section. 

(2) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 3 of appendix 

B of this part, oxygen data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- 

to 60-minute period) by both the 

continuous emission monitor and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(w)(3) of this section. 

(3) For oxygen, EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), 

as applicable, must be used. 

(4) You must calculate and record a 

30-day rolling average oxygen 

concentration using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 

19 of Appendix A–7 of this part. 

■ 65. Section 60.2715 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2715 By what date must I conduct the 

annual performance test? 

You must conduct annual 

performance tests between 11 and 13 

months of the previous performance 

test. 

■ 66. Section 60.2716 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2716 By what date must I conduct the 

annual air pollution control device 

inspection? 

On an annual basis (no more than 12 

months following the previous annual 

air pollution control device inspection), 

you must complete the air pollution 

control device inspection as described 

in § 60.2706. 

■ 67. Section 60.2720 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2720 May I conduct performance 

testing less often? 

(a) You must conduct annual 

performance tests according to the 

schedule specified in § 60.2715, with 

the following exceptions: 

(1) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward, as 

specified in § 60.2725. The 

Administrator may request a repeat 

performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance 

test within 60 days of a process change, 

as defined in § 60.2875. 

(3) If the initial or any subsequent 

performance test for any pollutant in 

table 2 or tables 6 through 9 of this 

subpart, as applicable, demonstrates 

that the emission level for the pollutant 

is no greater than the emission level 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, 

and you are not required to conduct a 

performance test for the pollutant in 

response to a request by the 

Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section or a process change in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section, you may elect to 

skip conducting a performance test for 

the pollutant for the next 2 years. You 

must conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant during the third year and no 

more than 37 months following the 

previous performance test for the 

pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both 

cadmium and lead must be emitted at 

emission levels no greater than their 

respective emission levels specified in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you 

to qualify for less frequent testing under 

this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, mercury, carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans, the 

emission level equal to 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit in table 2 or 

tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as 

applicable, to this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible 

emissions (of combustion ash from the 

ash conveying system) for 2 percent of 

the time during each of the three 1-hour 

observations periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent 

testing for a pollutant as provided in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section and a 

subsequent performance test for the 

pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit 

does not meet the emission level 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, 

you must conduct annual performance 

tests for the pollutant according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section until you qualify for less 

frequent testing for the pollutant as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(b) [Reserved] 

■ 68. Section 60.2730 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (c) and 

adding paragraphs (d) through (q) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.2730 What monitoring equipment 

must I install and what parameters must I 

monitor? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alert automatically an operator 

when an increase in relative particulate 

matter emission over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located 

where it is observed easily by plant 

operating personnel. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are using something other 

than a wet scrubber, activated carbon, 

selective non-catalytic reduction, or an 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limitations under 

§ 60.2670, you must install, calibrate (to 

the manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain and operate the equipment 

necessary to monitor compliance with 

the site-specific operating limits 

established using the procedures in 

§ 60.2680. 

(d) If you use activated carbon 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must 

measure the minimum sorbent flow rate 

once per hour. 

(e) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Following the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under 

§ 60.2690, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not 

operate above the maximum charge rate, 

or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to 

your CISWI unit) or the minimum 

reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour 

block averages at all times. 

(2) Operation of the affected facility 

above the maximum charge rate, below 

the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum 

reagent flow rate simultaneously 

constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit. 

(f) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limits of this subpart, you 

must monitor the secondary power to 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates and maintain the 3-hour block 

averages at or above the operating limits 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

established during the mercury or 

particulate matter performance test. 

(g) For waste-burning kilns not 

equipped with a wet scrubber, in place 

of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA 

Method 321 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, an owner or operator must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

for monitoring hydrogen chloride 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the hydrogen chloride emissions 

limit for units other than waste-burning 

kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, 

a facility may substitute use of a 

hydrogen chloride continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

conducting the hydrogen chloride 

annual performance test, monitoring the 

minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent 

flow rate and monitoring the minimum 

scrubber liquor pH. 

(h) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a particulate matter continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

conducting the particulate matter 

annual performance test and monitoring 

the minimum pressure drop across the 

wet scrubber, if applicable. 

(i) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the dioxin/furan annual 

performance test. You must record the 

output of the system and analyze the 

sample according to EPA Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. You may 

propose alternative continuous 

monitoring consistent with the 

requirements in § 60.13(i). The owner or 

operator who elects to continuously 

sample dioxin/furan emissions instead 

of sampling and testing using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7 must install, calibrate, maintain 

and operate a continuous automated 

sampling system and must comply with 

the requirements specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) and (q). 

(j) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the mercury emissions 

limit, a facility may substitute use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for the mercury annual performance 

test. You must record the output of the 

system and analyze the sample at set 

intervals using any suitable 

determinative technique that can meet 

performance specification 12B criteria. 

This option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system takes effect 

on the date a final performance 

specification applicable to mercury from 

monitors is published in the Federal 

Register. The owner or operator who 

elects to continuously sample mercury 

emissions instead of sampling and 

testing using EPA Method 29 or 30B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), 

or an approved alternative method for 

measuring mercury emissions, must 

install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system 

and must comply with the requirements 

specified in § 60.58b(p) and (q). 

(k) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for the nitrogen 

oxides annual performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for measuring 

nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to 

the atmosphere and record the output of 

the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

procedure 1 of appendix F of this part 

and the procedures under § 60.13 must 

be followed for installation, evaluation 

and operation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for nitrogen oxides is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.2690, compliance 

with the emission limit for nitrogen 

oxides required under § 60.52b(d) must 

be determined based on the 30-day 

rolling average of the hourly emission 

concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. 

The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be 

expressed in parts per million by 

volume (dry basis) and used to calculate 

the 30-day rolling average 

concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be calculated using the 

data points required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

(l) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the sulfur dioxide annual 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emissions limits. 

(1) 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. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

requirements of procedure 1 of 

appendix F of this part and the 

procedures under § 60.13 must be 

followed for installation, evaluation and 

operation of the continuous emission 

monitoring system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for sulfur dioxide is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.2690, compliance 

with the sulfur dioxide emission limit 

may be determined based on the 30-day 

rolling average of the hourly arithmetic 

average emission concentrations using 

continuous emission monitoring system 

outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be expressed in parts per 

million corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(dry basis) and used to calculate the 30- 

day rolling average emission 

concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be calculated using the 

data points required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

(m) For energy recovery units that do 

not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter with 

bag leak detection system, or particulate 

matter continuous emission monitoring 

system, you must install, operate, certify 

and maintain a continuous opacity 

monitoring system according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(5) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in § 60.2670. Energy 

recovery units that use a particulate 

matter continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate initial and 

continuing compliance according to the 

procedures in § 60.2730(n) are not 

required to install a continuous opacity 

monitoring system and must perform 

the annual performance tests for opacity 

consistent with § 60.2710(f). 

(1) Install, operate and maintain each 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

according to performance specification 

1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each continuous opacity monitoring 

system according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13 and according to performance 

specification 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. 

(3) As specified in § 60.13(e)(1), each 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

must complete a minimum of one cycle 

of sampling and analyzing for each 

successive 10-second period and one 

cycle of data recording for each 

successive 6-minute period. 

(4) Reduce the continuous opacity 

monitoring system data as specified in 

§ 60.13(h)(1). 

(5) Determine and record all the 6- 

minute averages (and 1-hour block 

averages as applicable) collected. 

(n) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, in 

place of particulate matter testing with 

EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, an owner or operator 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15779 

must install, calibrate, maintain and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for monitoring 

particulate matter emissions discharged 

to the atmosphere and record the output 

of the system. The owner or operator of 

an affected facility who continuously 

monitors particulate matter emissions 

instead of conducting performance 

testing using EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–3 must install, 

calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

and must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(n)(14) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before stopping use of the system. 

(3) The monitor must be installed, 

evaluated and operated in accordance 

with the requirements of performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this 

part and quality assurance requirements 

of procedure 2 of appendix F of this part 

and § 60.13. 

(4) The initial performance evaluation 

must be completed no later than 180 

days after the final compliance date for 

meeting the amended emission 

limitations, as specified under § 60.2690 

or within 180 days of notification to the 

Administrator of use of the continuous 

monitoring system if the owner or 

operator was previously determining 

compliance by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3 performance tests, 

whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility 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 must be established according to 

the procedures and methods specified 

in § 60.2710(s)(5)(i) through (s)(5)(iv). 

(6) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility must conduct an initial 

performance test for particulate matter 

emissions as required under § 60.2690. 

Compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit must be determined by 

using the continuous emission 

monitoring system specified in 

paragraph (n) of this section to measure 

particulate matter and calculating a 30- 

day rolling average emission 

concentration using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 

19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 of 

this part. 

(7) Compliance with the particulate 

matter emission limit must be 

determined based on the 30-day rolling 

average calculated using Equation 19–19 

in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference 

Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7 of the part from the 1-hour 

arithmetic average of the continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. 

(8) At a minimum, valid continuous 

monitoring system hourly averages must 

be obtained as specified § 60.2735. 

(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages 

required under paragraph (n)(7) of this 

section must be expressed in milligrams 

per dry standard cubic meter corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 

(dry basis) and must be used to calculate 

the 30-day rolling average emission 

concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be calculated using the 

data points required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

(10) All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data must be used in 

calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum 

continuous emission monitoring system 

data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of 

this section are not met. 

(11) The continuous emission 

monitoring system must be operated 

according to performance specification 

11 in appendix B of this part. 

(12) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 11 in 

appendix B of this part, particulate 

matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 

data must be collected concurrently (or 

within a 30-to 60-minute period) by 

both the continuous emission monitors 

and the following test methods. 

(i) For particulate matter, EPA 

Reference Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as 

applicable, must be used. 

(13) Quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration 

drift tests must be performed in 

accordance with procedure 2 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(14) When particulate matter 

emissions data are missing because of 

continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks 

and zero and span adjustments, you 

must collect emissions data by using 

other monitoring systems as approved 

by the Administrator or EPA Reference 

Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7 to provide, as necessary, valid 

emissions data for a minimum of 85 

percent of the hours per day, 90 percent 

of the hours per calendar quarter, and 

95 percent of the hours per calendar 

year that the affected facility is operated 

and combusting waste. 

(o) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the carbon monoxide annual 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for measuring carbon 

monoxide emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere and record the output of the 

system. The requirements under 

performance specification 4B of 

appendix B of this part, the quality 

assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of 

this part and the procedures under 

§ 60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation, and operation 

of the continuous emission monitoring 

system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for carbon monoxide is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.2690, compliance 

with the carbon monoxide emission 

limit may be determined based on the 

30-day rolling average of the hourly 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. 

The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be 

expressed in parts per million corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used 

to calculate the 30-day rolling average 

emission concentrations. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be calculated 

using the data points required under 

§ 60.13(e)(2). 

(p) The owner/operator of an affected 

source with a bypass stack shall install, 

calibrate (to manufacturers’ 

specifications), maintain and operate a 

device or method for measuring the use 

of the bypass stack including date, time 

and duration. 

(q) For energy recovery units with a 

heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu per 

hour or greater that do not use a carbon 

monoxide continuous emission 

monitoring system, you must install, 

operate and maintain the continuous 

oxygen monitoring system according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (q)(1) 

through (4) of this section by the 

compliance date specified in table 1 of 

this subpart. The oxygen level shall be 

monitored at the outlet of the energy 

recovery unit. 

(1) Each monitor must be installed, 

operated, and maintained according to 

the applicable procedures under 

performance specification 3 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

procedure 1 of appendix F of this part, 

the procedures under § 60.13 and 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan developed according to paragraph 

(l) of this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

performance specification 3 of appendix 

B of this part, oxygen data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- 

to 60-minute period) by both the 

continuous emission monitor and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(w)(3) of this section. 

(3) For oxygen, EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), 

as applicable, must be used. 

(4) You must calculate and record a 

30-day rolling average oxygen 

concentration using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 

19 of Appendix A–7 of this part. The 

1-hour arithmetic averages must be 

calculated using the data points 

required under § 60.13(e)(2). 

■ 69. Section 60.2735 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of 

monitoring data I must obtain? 

For each continuous monitoring 

system required or optionally allowed 

under § 60.2730, you must monitor and 

collect data according to this section: 

(a) You must operate the monitoring 

system and collect data at all required 

intervals at all times compliance is 

required except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

out-of-control periods (as specified in 

§ 60.2770(o) of this part), and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments. A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You are required to effect monitoring 

system repairs in response to 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods and to return the 

monitoring system to operation as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(b) You may not use data recorded 

during the monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof control periods, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. 

You must use all the data collected 

during all other periods in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(c) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions or out-of-control 

periods, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments, 

failure to collect required data is a 

deviation of the monitoring 

requirements. 

■ 70. Section 60.2740 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text. 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e). 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c) and (d). 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (n) through (v). 

§ 60.2740 What records must I keep? 

You must maintain the items (as 

applicable) as specified in paragraphs 

(a), (b), and (e) through (v) of this 

section for a period of at least 5 years: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) For affected CISWI units that 

establish operating limits for controls 

other than wet scrubbers under 

§ 60.2675(d) through (f) or § 60.2680, 

you must maintain data collected for all 

operating parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Identification of calendar dates 

and times for which data show a 

deviation from the operating limits in 

table 3 of this subpart or a deviation 

from other operating limits established 

under § 60.2675(d) through (f) or 

§ 60.2680 with a description of the 

deviations, reasons for such deviations, 

and a description of corrective actions 

taken. 

* * * * * 

(n) Maintain records of the annual air 

pollution control device inspections 

that are required for each CISWI unit 

subject to the emissions limits in table 

2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 

of this subpart, any required 

maintenance and any repairs not 

completed within 10 days of an 

inspection or the timeframe established 

by the state regulatory agency. 

(o) For continuously monitored 

pollutants or parameters, you must 

document and keep a record of the 

following parameters measured using 

continuous monitoring systems. 

(1) All 6-minute average levels of 

opacity. 

(2) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

(3) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of nitrogen oxides emissions. 

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of carbon monoxide emissions. 

(5) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of particulate matter emissions. 

(6) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of mercury emissions. 

(7) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of hydrogen chloride emissions. 

(p) Records indicating use of the 

bypass stack, including dates, times and 

durations. 

(q) If you choose to stack test less 

frequently than annually, consistent 

with § 60.2720(a) through (c), you must 

keep annual records that document that 

your emissions in the previous stack 

test(s) were less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit and document 

that there was no change in source 

operations including fuel composition 

and operation of air pollution control 

equipment that would cause emissions 

of the relevant pollutant to increase 

within the past year. 

(r) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(s) Records of all required 

maintenance performed on the air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(t) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(u) For operating units that burn 

materials other than traditional fuels as 

defined in § 241.2, a description of each 

material burned, and a record which 

documents how each material that is not 

a traditional fuel meets each of the 

legitimacy criteria in § 241.3(d). If you 

combust a material that has been 

processed from a discarded nonhazardous secondary material pursuant 

to § 241.3(b)(4), you must keep records 

as to how the operations that produced 

the material satisfy the definition of 

processing in § 241.2. If the material 

received a non-waste determination 

pursuant to the petition process 

submitted under § 241.3(c), you must 

keep a copy of the non-waste 

determination granted by EPA. 

(v) For operating units that burn tires, 

a certification that the shipments of tires 

that are non-waste per 40 CFR 

241.3(b)(2)(i), are part of an established 

tire collection program, consistent with 

the definition of that term in § 241.2. 

The certification must document that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15781 

the tires were not discarded and are 

handled as valuable commodities in 

accordance with § 241.3(b)(2)(i), from 

the point of removal from the 

automobile through arrival at the 

combustion facility. The certification 

must identify the entity the tires were 

received from (for example, the name of 

the state or private collection program), 

the quantity, volume, or weight of tires 

received by you, and the dates received. 

The certification must be signed by the 

owner or operator of the combustion 

unit, or by a responsible official of the 

established tire collection program, and 

must include the following certification 

of compliance, ‘‘The tires from this tire 

collection program meet the EPA 

definition of an established tire 

collection program in § 241’’ and state 

the title or position of the person 

signing the certification. You must also 

keep a record that identifies where on 

your plant site the tires from each tire 

collection program are located, and that 

accounts for all tires at the plant site. 

■ 71. Section 60.2770 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) and adding 

paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2770 What information must I include 

in my annual report? 

* * * * * 

(e) If no deviation from any emission 

limitation or operating limit that applies 

to you has been reported, a statement 

that there was no deviation from the 

emission limitations or operating limits 

during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(k) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction that occurred 

during the reporting period and that 

caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

(l) For each deviation from an 

emission or operating limitation that 

occurs for a CISWI unit for which you 

are not using a CMS to comply with the 

emission or operating limitations in this 

subpart, the annual report must contain 

the following information. 

(1) The total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the deviation 

occurred during the reporting period. 

(2) Information on the number, 

duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the 

corrective action taken. 

(m) If there were periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system, including the continuous 

emission monitoring system, was out of 

control as specified in paragraph (o) of 

this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for 

each deviation from an emission or 

operating limitation occurring for a 

CISWI unit for which you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to 

comply with the emission and operating 

limitations in this subpart. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was inoperative, except for 

zero (low-level) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out-of-control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction or during 

another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the CISWI unit. 

(9) A brief description of the CISWI 

unit. 

(10) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(n) If there were periods during which 

the continuous monitoring system, 

including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was not out of 

control as specified in paragraph (o) of 

this section, a statement that there were 

not periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system was out 

of control during the reporting period. 

(o) A continuous monitoring system is 

out of control if any of the following 

occur. 

(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable), or high-level calibration 

drift exceeds two times the applicable 

calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or 

in the relevant standard. 

(2) The continuous monitoring system 

fails a performance test audit (e.g., 

cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy 

audit, relative accuracy test audit, or 

linearity test audit. 

(3) The continuous opacity 

monitoring system calibration drift 

exceeds two times the limit in the 

applicable performance specification in 

the relevant standard. 

■ 72. Section 60.2780 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and removing 

paragraphs (e) and (f). 

§ 60.2780 What must I include in the 

deviation report? 

* * * * * 

(c) Durations and causes of the 

following: 

(1) Each deviation from emission 

limitations or operating limits and your 

corrective actions. 

(2) Bypass events and your corrective 

actions. 

* * * * * 

■ 73. Section 60.2790 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2790 Are there any other notifications 

or reports that I must submit? 

(a) Yes. You must submit notifications 

as provided by § 60.7. 

(b) If you cease combusting solid 

waste but continue to operate, you must 

provide 30 days prior notice of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch, consistent with § 60.2710(a). 

The notification must identify: 

(1) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(2) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

(3) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) 

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(5) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

(i.e., the effective date of the waste-tofuel switch), consistent with paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (3)of this section. 

■ 74. Section 60.2795 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2795 In what form can I submit my 

reports? 

(a) Submit initial, annual and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(b) After December 31, 2011, within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance evaluation or 

performance test, as they are defined in 

§ 63.2, conducted to demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart, the owner 

or operator of the affected facility must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data and performance test data, except 

opacity data, to EPA by successfully 

submitting the data electronically to 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by 

using the Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/ert_tool.html). 

■ 75. Section 60.2805 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2805 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a Title V operating permit for my 

unit? 

Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain 

incinerator subject to standards under 

this subpart must operate pursuant to a 

permit issued under Clean Air Act 

sections 129(e) and Title V. 

■ 76. Section 60.2860 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2860 What are the emission 

limitations for air curtain incinerators? 

After the date the initial stack test is 

required or completed (whichever is 

earlier), you must meet the limitations 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 10 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values), except as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 35 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values) during the 

startup period that is within the first 

30 minutes of operation. 

■ 77. Section 60.2870 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for air curtain 

incinerators? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The results (as determined by the 

average of three 1-hour blocks 

consisting of ten 6-minute average 

opacity values) of the initial opacity 

tests. 

* * * * * 

■ 78. Section 60.2875 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding definitions for ‘‘Affirmative 

defense,’’ ‘‘Burn-off oven,’’ ‘‘Bypass 

stack,’’ ‘‘Chemical recovery unit,’’ 

‘‘Continuous monitoring system,’’ 

‘‘Cyclonic burn barrel,’’ ‘‘Energy recovery 

unit,’’ ‘‘Energy recovery unit designed to 

burn biomass (Biomass),’’ ‘‘Energy 

recovery unit designed to burn coal 

(Coal),’’ ‘‘Energy recovery unit designed 

to burn liquid wastes material and gas 

(Liquid/gas),’’ ‘‘Energy recovery unit 

designed to burn solid materials 

(Solid),’’ ‘‘Fabric filter,’’ ‘‘Homogeneous 

wastes,’’ ‘‘Incinerator,’’ ‘‘Kiln,’’ 

‘‘Laboratory analysis unit,’’ ‘‘Minimum 

voltage or amperage,’’ ‘‘Opacity,’’ 

‘‘Operating day,’’ ‘‘Performance 

evaluation,’’ ‘‘Performance test,’’ 

‘‘Process change,’’ ‘‘Raw mill,’’ ‘‘Small 

remote incinerator,’’ ‘‘Soil treatment 

unit,’’ ‘‘Solid waste incineration unit,’’ 

‘‘Space heater’’ and ‘‘Waste-burning 

kiln,’’ in alphabetical order. 

■ b. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration (CISWI) unit,’’ 

‘‘Modification,’’ and ‘‘Wet scrubber.’’ 

■ c. Removing paragraph (3) of the 

definition for ‘‘Deviation.’’ 

■ d. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Commercial or industrial waste,’’ 

‘‘Contained gaseous material,’’ and 

‘‘Solid Waste.’’ 

§ 60.2875 What definitions must I know? 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Burn-off oven means any rack 

reclamation unit, part reclamation unit, 

or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off 

oven is not an incinerator, wasteburning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

* * * * * 

Chemical recovery unit means 

combustion units burning materials to 

recover chemical constituents or to 

produce chemical compounds where 

there is an existing commercial market 

for such recovered chemical 

constituents or compounds. The 

following seven types of units are 

considered chemical recovery units: 

(1) Units burning only pulping liquors 

(i.e., black liquor) that are reclaimed in 

a pulping liquor recovery process and 

reused in the pulping process. 

(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric 

acid used to produce virgin sulfuric 

acid. 

(3) Units burning only wood or coal 

feedstock for the production of charcoal. 

(4) Units burning only manufacturing 

byproduct streams/residue containing 

catalyst metals that are reclaimed and 

reused as catalysts or used to produce 

commercial grade catalysts. 

(5) Units burning only coke to 

produce purified carbon monoxide that 

is used as an intermediate in the 

production of other chemical 

compounds. 

(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon 

liquids or solids to produce hydrogen, 

carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or 

other gases for use in other 

manufacturing processes. 

(7) Units burning only photographic 

film to recover silver. 

* * * * * 

Commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration (CISWI) unit means 

any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that 

combusts, or has combusted in the 

preceding 6 months, any solid waste as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. 

If the operating unit burns materials 

other than traditional fuels as defined in 

§ 241.2 that have been discarded, and 

you do not keep and produce records as 

required by § 60.2740(u), the material is 

a solid waste and the operating unit is 

a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI units 

will include all of the following 

components, a CISWI unit includes, but 

is not limited to, the solid waste feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, 

waste heat recovery equipment, if any, 

and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit 

does not include air pollution control 

equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit 

boundary starts at the solid waste 

hopper (if applicable) and extends 

through two areas: The combustion unit 

flue gas system, which ends 

immediately after the last combustion 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15783 

chamber or after the waste heat recovery 

equipment, if any; and the combustion 

unit bottom ash system, which ends at 

the truck loading station or similar 

equipment that transfers the ash to final 

disposal. The CISWI unit includes all 

ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. 

* * * * * 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

means the total equipment, required 

under the emission monitoring sections 

in applicable subparts, used to sample 

and condition (if applicable), to analyze, 

and to provide a permanent record of 

emissions or process parameters. 

* * * * * 

Cyclonic burn barrel means a 

combustion device for waste materials 

that is attached to a 55 gallon, 

openhead drum. The device consists of 

a lid, which fits onto and encloses the 

drum, and a blower that forces 

combustion air into the drum in a 

cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing 

of waste material and air. A cyclonic 

burn barrel is not an incinerator, wasteburning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emission limitation, operating limit, or 

operator qualification and accessibility 

requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit. 

* * * * * 

Energy recovery unit means a 

combustion unit combusting solid waste 

(as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act in 40 

CFR 240) for energy recovery. Energy 

recovery units include units that would 

be considered boilers and process 

heaters if they did not combust solid 

waste. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

biomass (Biomass) means an energy 

recovery unit that burns solid waste and 

at least 10 percent biomass, but less 

than 10 percent coal, on a heat input 

basis on an annual average, either alone 

or in combination with liquid waste, 

liquid fuel or gaseous fuels. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

coal (Coal) means an energy recovery 

unit that burns solid waste and at least 

10 percent coal on a heat input basis on 

an annual average, either alone or in 

combination with liquid waste, liquid 

fuel or gaseous fuels. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

liquid waste material and gas (Liquid/ 

gas) means an energy recovery unit that 

burns a liquid waste with liquid or 

gaseous fuels not combined with any 

solid fuel or waste materials. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

solid materials (Solids) includes energy 

recovery units designed to burn coal 

and energy recovery units designed to 

burn biomass 

Fabric filter means an add-on air 

pollution control device used to capture 

particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also 

known as a baghouse. 

Homogeneous wastes are stable, 

consistent in formulation, have known 

fuel properties, have a defined origin, 

have predictable chemical and physical 

attributes, and result in consistent 

combustion characteristics and have a 

consistent emissions profile. 

Incinerator means any furnace used in 

the process of combusting solid waste 

(as the term is defined by the 

Administrator under Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act in 40 

CFR 240) for the purpose of reducing 

the volume of the waste by removing 

combustible matter. Incinerator designs 

include single chamber and twochamber. 

Kiln means an oven or furnace, 

including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, used for processing 

a substance by burning, firing or drying. 

Kilns include cement kilns that produce 

clinker by heating limestone and other 

materials for subsequent production of 

Portland Cement. 

Laboratory analysis unit means units 

that burn samples of materials for the 

purpose of chemical or physical 

analysis. A laboratory analysis unit is 

not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, 

an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 

90 percent of the lowest test-run average 

voltage or amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitator measured during the most 

recent particulate matter or mercury 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits. 

Modification or modified CISWI unit 

means a CISWI unit that has been 

changed later than June 1, 2001, and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes 

over the life of the unit exceeds 50 

percent of the original cost of building 

and installing the CISWI unit (not 

including the cost of land) updated to 

current costs (current dollars). To 

determine what systems are within the 

boundary of the CISWI unit used to 

calculate these costs, see the definition 

of CISWI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the CISWI 

unit or change in the method of 

operating it that increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted for which 

Clean Air Act section 129 or section 111 

has established standards. 

Opacity means the degree to which 

emissions reduce the transmission of 

light and obscure the view of an object 

in the background. 

Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12:00 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

amount of solid waste is combusted at 

any time in the CISWI unit. 

* * * * * 

Performance evaluation means the 

conduct of relative accuracy testing, 

calibration error testing, and other 

measurements used in validating the 

continuous monitoring system data. 

Performance test means the collection 

of data resulting from the execution of 

a test method (usually three emission 

test runs) used to demonstrate 

compliance with a relevant emission 

standard as specified in the performance 

test section of the relevant standard. 

Process change means a significant 

permit revision, but only with respect to 

those pollutant-specific emission units 

for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited 

to a change in the air pollution control 

devices used to comply with the 

emission limits for the affected CISWI 

unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for 

activated carbon injection). 

* * * * * 

Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, 

vertical roller mill or other size 

reduction equipment, that is not part of 

an in-line kiln/raw mill, used to grind 

feed to the appropriate size. Moisture 

may be added or removed from the feed 

during the grinding operation. If the raw 

mill is used to remove moisture from 

feed materials, it is also, by definition, 

a raw material dryer. The raw mill also 

includes the air separator associated 

with the raw mill. 

* * * * * 

Small, remote incinerator means an 

incinerator that combusts solid waste 

(as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR 

240) and combusts 3 tons per day or less 

solid waste and is more than 25 miles 

driving distance to the nearest 

municipal solid waste landfill. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15784 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Soil treatment unit means a unit that 

thermally treats petroleum– 

contaminated soils for the sole purpose 

of site remediation. A soil treatment 

unit may be direct-fired or indirect 

fired. A soil treatment unit is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an 

energy recovery unit or a small, remote 

incinerator under this subpart. 

Solid waste incineration unit means a 

distinct operating unit of any facility 

which combusts any solid (as that term 

is defined by the Administrator under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act in 40 CFR part 240) waste 

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 facilities (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 refusederived 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. 

Space heater means a usually portable 

appliance for heating a relatively small 

area. 

* * * * * 

Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that 

is heated, in whole or in part, by 

combusting solid waste (as that term is 

defined by the Administrator under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act pursuant in 40 CFR part 240). 

* * * * * 

■ 79. Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 

60 is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART

60—MODEL RULE—INCREMENTS OF

PROGRESS AND COMPLIANCE

SCHEDULES

Comply with these increments of progress By these datesa

Increment 1—Submit 

final control plan.

(Dates to be specified 

in state plan). 

Increment 2—Final 

compliance.

(Dates to be specified 

in state plan).b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the 

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

the effective date of state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced construction on or before November 

30, 1999. The date can be no later than 3 

years after the effective date of approval of a 

revised state plan or March 21, 2012 for 

CISWI units that commenced construction on 

or before June 4, 2010. 

■ 80. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising the title to read ‘‘Table 2 

to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model 

Rule—Emission Limitations That Apply 

Before [Date to be specified in state 

plan].’’ 

■ b. Revising the entries for ‘‘Hydrogen 

chloride,’’ ‘‘Mercury,’’ ‘‘Opacity’’ and 

‘‘Oxides of nitrogen.’’ 

■ c. Adding footnotes b and c. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY BEFORE

[Date to be specified in state plan] b

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining 

compliance using this method 

*******

Hydrogen chloride ......................... 62 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

* * * * * * * 

Mercury ......................................... 0.47 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008).c

Opacity .......................................... 10 percent ..................................... Three 1-hour blocks consisting of 

ten 6-minute average opacity 

values.

Performance test (Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

* * * * * * * 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 388 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Methods 7 or 

7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4). Use a span gas with a 

concentration of 800 ppm or 

less. 

* * * * * * * 

bThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or March 21, 

2016. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15785 

■ 81. Table 4 of subpart DDDD is 

amended by revising the row headings 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

Dioxin/furan isomer Toxic equivalency factor 

*******

■ 82. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for ‘‘Annual 

Report’’. 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Emission 

limitation or operating limit deviation 

report’’. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a

Report Due date Contents Reference 

*******

Annual report ............... No later than 12 months following the submission of the initial test report. Subsequent reports are to be submitted no more 

than 12 months following the previous report.

• Name and address ......................................

• Statement and signature by responsible official.

• Date of report ..............................................

• Values for the operating limits ....................

• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded for the 

calendar year being reported.

§§ 60.2765 and 

60.2770. 

• If a performance test was conducted during 

the reporting period, the results of the test.

• If a performance test was not conducted 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that the requirements of § 60.2720(a) were 

met.

• Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable 

for more than 8 hours but less than 2 

weeks.

• If you are conducting performance tests 

once every 3 years consistent with 

§ 60.2720(a), the date of the last 2 performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 2 performance tests to the 75 percent emission 

limit threshold required in § 60.2720(a) and 

a statement as to whether there have been 

any operational changes since the last performance test that could increase emissions.

* * * * * * * 

Emission limitation or 

operating limit deviation report.

By August 1 of that year for data collected 

during the first half of the calendar year. By 

February 1 of the following year for data 

collected during the second half of the calendar year.

• Dates and times of deviation ......................

• Averaged and recorded data for those 

dates.

• Duration and causes of each deviation and 

the corrective actions taken.

• Copy of operating limit monitoring data and 

any test reports.

• Dates, times and causes for monitor downtime incidents.

§ 60.2775 and 

60.2780. 

* * * * * * * 

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

■ 83. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15786 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO INCINERATORS ON AND

AFTER [DATE TO BE SPECIFIED IN STATE PLAN] a

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation b Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.0026 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 36 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a maximum allowable drift 

of 0.2 ppm and a span gas with 

a CO concentration of 75 ppm 

or less. The span gas must 

contain approximately the same 

concentration of CO2 expected 

from the source. 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 4.6 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.13 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 29 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 0.0036 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0054 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 an 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008)b, collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters per run. For Method 

30B, collect a minimum sample 

as specified in Method 30B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008) c. 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 53 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 100 ppm or less. 

Particulate matter filterable ............ 34 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 11 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. Use a maximum allowable 

drift of 0.2 ppm and a span gas 

with concentration of 20 ppm or 

less. 

Fugitive ash ................................... Visible emissions for no more 

than 5% of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

7). 

aThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or March 21, 

2016. bAll emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total 

mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

■ 84. Table 7 of Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15787 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO ENERGY RECOVERY

UNITS AFTER MAY 20, 2011 

For the air pollutant 

You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using this 

method Liquid/gas Solids 

Cadmium ........................... 0.023 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

0.00051 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 2 

dry standard cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 

29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8). Use 

ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Carbon monoxide .............. 36 parts per million dry 

volume.

Biomass—490 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—59 parts per million 

dry volume.

3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 

10 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4). Use a 

span gas with a concentration of 100 ppm or 

less for liquid/gas boilers 

and coal-fed boilers. 

Use a span gas with a 

concentration of 1000 

ppm or less for biomassfed boilers. 

Dioxins/furans (total mass 

basis).

2.9 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter.

0.35 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis).

0.32 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter.

0.059 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride ............. 14 parts per million dry 

volume.

0.45 parts per million dry 

volume.

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 

26 or 26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8). 

Lead ................................... 0.096 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

0.0036 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 2 

dry standard cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 

29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8). Use 

ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .............................. 0.0013 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

0.00033 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 

29 and ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008),b

collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. 

For Method 30B, collect 

a minimum sample as 

specified in Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 

29 or 30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8) 

or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008).b

Oxides of nitrogen ............. 76 parts per million dry 

volume.

Biomass—290 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—340 parts per million dry volume.

3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 

7E at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4). Use a 

span gas with a concentration of 150 ppm or 

less for liquid/gas fuel 

boilers. Use a span gas 

with a concentration of 

700 ppm or less for solid 

fuel boilers. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO ENERGY RECOVERY

UNITS AFTER MAY 20, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant 

You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using this 

method Liquid/gas Solids 

Particulate matter filterable 110 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

250 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter or 

30-day rolling average if 

PM CEMS is required or 

being used.

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 

5 or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3 or appendix A–8) if the unit 

has a design capacity 

less than or equal to 

250 MMBtu/hr; or PM 

CEMS (performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this part) if 

the unit has a design capacity greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr. Use Method 

5 or 5I of Appendix A of 

this part and collect a 

minimum sample volume 

of 1 dscm for the PM 

CEMS correlation testing. 

Sulfur dioxide ..................... 720 parts per million dry 

volume.

Biomass—6.2 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—650 parts per million dry volume.

3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 

6 or 6c at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–4. Use a 

span gas with a concentration of 20 ppm or 

less for biomass-fed 

boilers. Use a span gas 

with a concentration of 

1500 ppm or less for liquid/gas and coal-fed 

boilers. 

Fugitive ash ....................... Visible emissions for no 

more than 5 percent of 

the hourly observation 

period.

Visible emissions for no 

more than 5 percent of 

the hourly observation 

period.

Three 1-hour observation 

periods.

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7). 

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must 

meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

■ 85. Table 8 of Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO WASTE-BURNING

KILNS AFTER MAY 20, 2011 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.00048 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 110 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 200 ppm or less. 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 0.02 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.0070 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 25 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter) or 30-day rolling average 

if HCl CEMS is being used.

Performance test (Method 321 at 

40 CFR part 63, appendix A) or 

HCl CEMS if a wet scrubber is 

not used. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15789 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO WASTE-BURNING

KILNS AFTER MAY 20, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Lead ............................................... 0.0026 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0079 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.30-day rolling average .................. Mercury CEMS or sorbent trap 

monitoring system (performance specification 12A or 12B, 

respectively, of appendix B of 

this part.) 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 540 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 1,000 ppm or less. 

Particulate matter filterable ............ 6.2 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

30-day rolling average .................. PM CEMS (performance specification 11 of appendix B of this 

part; Use Method 5 or 5I of Appendix A of this part and collect 

a minimum sample volume of 2 

dscm for the PM CEMS correlation testing.) 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 38 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). Use a span gas with a concentration of 80 ppm or less. 

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must 

meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. 

■ 86. Table 9 of Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO SMALL, REMOTE

INCINERATORS AFTER MAY 20, 2011 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.61 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 20 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 50 ppm or less. 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 1,200 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

57 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 220 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 2.7 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0057 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008)b, collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum 

sample as specified in Method 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008).b


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6
15790 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO SMALL, REMOTE

INCINERATORS AFTER MAY 20, 2011—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 240 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Use a span gas with a concentration of 500 ppm or less. 

Particulate matter filterable ............ 230 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 420 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). Use a span gas with a concentration of 1000 ppm or less. 

Fugitive ash ................................... Visible emissions for no more 

than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

7). 

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4495 Filed 3–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES6