The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

6560-50-P 

E.O. 12866 CISWI 2060-A012 FINAL RULE 20110118 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119; FRL- ] 

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 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 458 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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 

website. 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, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 458 

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 

AF&PA American Forest and Paper Association 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 458 

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 

gr/dscf Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Foot 

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 

ICCR Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 458 

ND Nondetect 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 458 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 

TMB Total Mass Basis 

tpd Tons Per Day 

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. ...........................................................................................................................G

eneral Information

A. ...........................................................................................................................D

oes this action apply to me? 

B. ...........................................................................................................................W

here can I get a copy of this document? 

C. ...........................................................................................................................J

udicial Review 

II..........................................................................................................................B

ackground Information 

A. ...........................................................................................................................W

hat is the statutory authority for this final rule? 

B. ...........................................................................................................................W

hat is the history of the CISWI standards? 

C. ...........................................................................................................................H

ow is the solid waste definition addressed in this 

final rule? 

D. ...........................................................................................................................W

hat is the relationship between the final rule and 

other combustion rules? 

E. ...........................................................................................................................W

hat is EPA’s approach for conducting a 5-year review 

under CAA section 129(a)(5)? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 458 

F. ...........................................................................................................................W

hat is the relationship of this final action to 

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

III........................................................................................................................S

ummary of the Final Rule

A. ...........................................................................................................................W

hich 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? 

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: Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 458 

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 LowIncome 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 

entitiesa

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 

Any 

industrial 

or 

commercial 

facility 

using a 

solid waste 

incinerator 

327 Manufacturers of cement; 

nonmetallic mineral product 

manufacturing 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 458 

Category NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially regulated 

entitiesa

333, 336 Manufacturers of machinery; 

manufacturers of transportation 

equipment 

423, 44, Merchant wholesalers, durable 

goods; retail trade 

a Note that the rule contains definitions of the 

subcategories of CISWI units and a list of types of 

combustion units that are excluded. For further 

discussion, see section III.D.1 of this preamble. 

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. To determine 

whether your facility is affected by the final action, you 

should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.2010 

of subpart CCCC and 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD. 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 458 

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 [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 458 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 

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., 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 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. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 458 

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 (D.C. 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 comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 458 

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. (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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 458 

parallel action to today’s final CISWI rule, EPA is 

promulgating the final definition of solid waste that 

identifies whether non-hazardous 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 solid 

waste in their combustion units. Such units that combust 

solid waste (as defined pursuant to subtitle D of RCRA) 

will be subject to standards in the final CAA section 129 

CISWI rules rather than under CAA section 112 rules 

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 non-hazardous secondary materials are solid waste, 

as that term is defined under RCRA in EPA’s concurrent Non-
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 458 

hazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking. We used the 

information currently available, as supplemented during the 

comment period on the proposed rule, to determine which 

materials are solid waste, the burning of which would 

subject a unit to CAA section 129, and which materials are 

not solid waste. Energy recovery units (i.e., boilers and 

process heaters) and waste-burning kilns (i.e., cement 

kilns) that are burning non-hazardous secondary materials 

that are not solid waste, will be subject to the standard 

under CAA section 112 that is applicable to such units. We 

based the standards in this final rule on the sources we 

determined would be subject to CISWI because, based on the 

information available to us at this time, we believe they 

combust solid waste as that term is defined in EPA’s Nonhazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 458 

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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 458 

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.” 

MACT 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 458 

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 “beyondthe-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-the-floor” 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 458 

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 bestperforming 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 458 

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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 458 

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 Non-hazardous 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 458 

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 (D.C. 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 458 

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 comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 458 

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). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 458 

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 waste-burning 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 458 

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. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 458 

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 

burn-off 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 458 

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. In addition, 

the 2000 CISWI standards exempted other types of units that 

may combust solid waste, including: pathological waste 

incinerators; agricultural waste incinerators; incinerators 

regulated by the CAA section 129 MWC or HMIWI standards; 

incinerators with a capacity less than 35 tpd that combust 

more than 30 percent MSW; qualifying small power producers; 

qualifying cogeneration units; materials recovery units; 

air curtain incinerators combusting “clean wood” waste; 

cyclonic barrel burners; rack, part, and drum reclamation 

units (i.e., burn-off ovens); cement kilns; SSI; chemical 

recovery units; and laboratory analysis units. 

Qualifying small power producers, qualifying 

cogeneration units, and materials recovery units continue 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 458 

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 Non-hazardous 

Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking. The final MACT floor 

emission limits for existing sources in each subcategory 

are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. 

Comment [A1]: Would it be 

possible to add a table to 

this section that provides a 

comparison of the final 

emissions limits to the 

proposed emissions limits? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 458 

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) 

Final CISWI Subcategories

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

CISWI 

limit) 

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

HCl (ppmv) 62 29 0.45 14b 3.0b 290

CO (ppmv) 157 16b 260 

(biomass 

units)/

47 (coal 

units)

24 390 47

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

0.04 0.0036 0.002b 0.096 0.0025 2.6

Cd 

(mg/dscm)

0.004 0.0026 0.00051

b

0.023 0.00040 0.55

Hg 

(mg/dscm)

0.47 0.0054 0.00033 0.0013b 0.007b 0.0053

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

70 34 250 110 16 290

Dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

(no 

limit) 

4.6 0.29 2.9b 0.029 1400

Dioxin, 

furans, 

TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

0.41

0.13

0.059 0.32b 0.0057 160

NOx (ppmv) 388 53 230 

(biomass 

units)/

340 

(coal 

units)

76 590 170

SO2 (ppmv) 20 11 6.2 

(biomass 

units)/

650 

(coal 

units)

720 110 1200
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 458 

a All emission limits are expressed as concentrations 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

b See 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) 

Final CISWI Subcategories

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

limit)

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

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

CO (ppmv) 157 5.4 240

(biomass 

units)/

46

(coal 

units)

24 90 6.1 

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

0.04 0.0019b 0.0020c 0.096 0.00069 0.26

Cd 

(mg/dscm)

0.004 0.0023 0.00051c 0.023 0.00040c 0.55c

Hg 

(mg/dscm)

0.47 0.00016 0.00033c 0.00025d 0.0040e 0.0035b

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

70 18 250c 110 2.5 290c

Dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

(no 

limit) 

0.052b 0.068 (no limit) 0.029c 1400c

Dioxin, 

furans, 

TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

0.41 0.13c 0.011 0.002d 0.000011 31 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 458 

Final CISWI Subcategories

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

limit)

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

NOx (ppmv) 388 23 230c

(biomass 

units)/

340

(coal 

units)

76 196 78 

SO2 (ppmv) 20 11c 6.2c

(biomass 

units)/

650 

(coal 

units)

720 12 1.2

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen. 

b See the memorandum “CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for 

Existing and New Sources” for details on this calculation. 

c The 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 458 

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 activated carbon injection. 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 

have annual emissions testing for all nine pollutants. 

Comment [A2]: Since this is 

the first mention of the 129 

pollutants, please list 

them. 

Deleted: would 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 458 

Existing kilns are required to monitor Hg, PM, and HCL (if 

no wet scrubber) emissions using a CEMS and perform annual 

testing for CO, NOx, and SO2. Annual performance 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 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 

Comment [A3]: It is not 

clear what is meant by this 

sentence. 

Comment [A4]: How as 250 

mmBtu/hr threshold chosen? 

Comment [A5]: Where can the 

reader find information of 

the estimated costs of each 

of these requirements? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 458 

(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 the 

imposition of monetary penalties for qualifying malfunction 

events. 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 

Comment [A6]: Was this in 

the proposal? Did EPA 

receive comment on the 

specific elements of the 

affirmative defense? Where 

are these comments 

addressed? Has EPA made any 

changes to the affirmative 

defense? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 458 

“existing” or “new” sources.1 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 

 

1 We 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). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 458 

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 proposed amendments to the EG, and 

consistent with CAA section 129, revised state plans 

containing the revised existing source emission limits and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 458 

other requirements in the final amendments are due within 1 

year after promulgation of the amendments. States must 

submit revised state plans to EPA [INSERT THE DATE 1 YEAR 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 458 

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).2 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 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 

 

2 All 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 458 

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 website 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 458 

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). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 458 

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=registra

tion. If they have a current CDX account (e.g., they 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 458 

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. 

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. 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 should not subject 

burn-off ovens, soil treatment units, cyclonic burn 

barrels, 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. 

Comment [A7]: Is this 

correct, or did EPA receive 

3,500 comments on the suite 

of boilers and CISWI rules? 

If 3,500 comments for all, 

please adjust for just the 

CISWI rule. Additionally, 

how many of those were 

unique? 

Comment [A8]: Again, this 

rule or the suite of 

rulemakings? Please 

specify. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 458 

 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 to 

allow appropriate 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 non-waste 

materials. 

 Added recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 

units that burn materials other than traditional 

fuels. 

 Revised the annual performance testing requirements to 

clarify the schedule for completion of subsequent 

performance tests. 

 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. 

Comment [A9]: Not sure what 

is meant by this. 

Comment [A10]: Did EPA seek 

comment on this at proposal? 

Did they receive comment on 

it? Where is the estimate of 

the recordkeeping and 

reporting burden for this 

provision? 

Comment [A11]: Did EPA seek 

comment on this at proposal? 

Did they receive comment on 

it? Where is the estimate of 

the recordkeeping and 

reporting burden for this 

provision? What is the 

benefit of this provision? 

Comment [A12]: Why? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 458 

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 wasteburning 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 458 

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 be 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 458 

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-toComment [A13]: Why six 

months? If a facility then 

switches to 112 and then 

later switches back to 129, 

do they need to reapply for 

a 129 permit? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 458 

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 

Comment [A14]: Are there 

permitting differences (e.g. 

public notification) between 

112 and 129? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 458 

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 of 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) 

(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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 458 

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 

Comment [A15]: Why? Is this 

required by the statute? 

What is the benefit of 

having dual notification? 

Who is responsible for 

compliance enforcement – EPA 

regional offices or the 

state/local agency? If just 

the state/local agency, why 

does the EPA regional office 

need the information? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 458 

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-towaste 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 

Comment [A16]: This isn’t 

clear. Please explain 

further. Why would a 

facility need to demonstrate 

compliance with a standard 

they won’t be subject to? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 458 

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 

Comment [A17]: This comment 

does not appear to be 

responded to below, since it 

does not mention homogenous 

waste. Does EPA plan to 

expand this comment, or 

address the broader question 

of qualifying small power 

producers and cogen 

facilities? 

Comment [A18]: Where is this 

defined, here (in this 

response) or in the 

regulatory text? 

Comment [A19]: By whom? 

Where is this specified? 

Has anything changed since 

2000? If so, please be 

clear about that. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 458 

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 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. 

Comment [A20]: It is not 

clear why EPA is talking 

about gasification in 

response to the comment 

above. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 458 

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; however, laboratory analysis units combusting 

solid waste and located at commercial and industrial 

facilities are incineration units subject to CISWI. We 

have in the final rule deferred regulation of these units 

and required laboratory analysis units combusting solid 

waste and located at commercial and industrial facilities 

to notify EPA of their existence and to describe the 

process at such units. 

4. Asphalt recycling 

Comment [A21]: Why? Why 

wouldn’t EPA exempt these 

testing units, similar to 

what they’ve done in other 

rules for testing and/or 

research units. 

Furthermore, what public 

health risk do laboratory 

analysis units pose? What is 

the public health benefit 

How would a facility 

measure/test those units? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 458 

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 

Comment [A22]: Can EPA 

provide more information 

from the comment – what CAA 

exemption is being referred 

to? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 458 

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, 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 

Comment [A23]: Further 

discussion of this comment 

and response is needed. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 458 

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 reproposing 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 

Comment [A24]: Did the 

commenter use quotations? 

If not, please remove. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 458 

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 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 Court-ordered deadline does not apply to 

certain CISWI units. The EPA maintains that we are under a 

Court-ordered deadline to complete our CAA section 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 458 

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 nonhazardous waste (both major and area sources) to meet our 

obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) (63 FR 17838, 17849, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 458 

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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 458 

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 waste-burning 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 458 

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 postcombustion 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 458 

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 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 

Court-ordered deadline; but, in any case, we would not 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 458 

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. 

Comment [A25]: It seems the 

commenter is addressing the 

notice and comment 

requirements; because the 

final Definition Rule may be 

different than proposed, the 

public did not have the 

opportunity to comment fully 

on the CISWI rule. Does EPA 

feel that they have given 

the public sufficient 

opportunity to comment and 

anticipate on what will be 

considered a solid waste, 

and thus, what the universe 

of CISWI units will be? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 458 

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 pollutant-by-pollutant basis. They argue that 

setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis is 

unlawful and results in MACT floors that bear no relation 

to emission limits that are being achieved at the bestperforming 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 pollutantby-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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 458 

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 best-performing sources on a pollutant-by-
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 458 

pollutant 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-bypollutant 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 458 

individual pollutant standards, and adopted the technologybased multi-pollutant 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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 458 

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 (D.C. Cir. 1980), that under 

the CAA "EPA has a statutory duty to promulgate achievable 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 458 

attempted to defend its practice of establishing pollutantby-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-by-pollutant 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 458 

to what has been achieved at existing sources, not what 

could be hypothetically achievable on a per-pollutant 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 458 

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 “bestperforming 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 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 “best-performing 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 

Comment [A26]: Please 

explain why this is an 

illogical result? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 458 

reasonable under the 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)...” (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 

Comment [A27]: Please 

provide the rest of the 

section quoted. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 458 

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 repeated that 

EPA must set emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. See, e.g., Cement 

Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (D.C. Cir.) (“[T]he Agency first 

sets emission floors for each pollutant and source 

category...”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

Comment [A28]: Please 

provide FR cites of previous 

statements; additionally, 

we suggest rephrasing this 

to a statement like “EPA has 

interpreted, and long 

interpreted,” rather than 

“believes.” 

Comment [A29]: This quote 

reads like it is a 

description of what EPA did, 

rather than a direction from 

the court. Please double 

check this and if a 

description, find evidence 

where the court has directed 

EPA to set standards for 

each pollutant. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 458 

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 pollutantby-pollutant 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 worstperforming 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 

Comment [A30]: Is it 

appropriate to discuss the 

parallel in the CWA without 

discussing the structural 

similarity and differences 

with the CWA. For instance, 

does the CWA BAT standards 

include a cost-benefit or 

cost balancing provision? If 

so, then it may not be an 

appropriate comparison. 

Further, it seems more 

appropriate to discuss the 

parallels between the two 

statutes, rather than what 

Congress intended. 

Comment [A31]: What does EPA 

mean by “worst performing 

unit” or “best performing 

unit”? Is this for one 

pollutant or for all nine? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 458 

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. Sierra Club v. 

EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 

Commenters’ argument that Congress could have mandated 

a pollutant-by-pollutant 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 

Comment [A32]: EPA could use 

a risk-based approach (by 

weighting the pollutants 

with the relative value of 

their human health impacts), 

for instance. Does the CAA 

prohibit such an approach? 

Comment [A33]: What in the 

above paragraph is a quote 

from the decision from this 

case? Please use quotes or 

remove the reference. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 458 

different result when it left the provision ambiguous on 

this issue. The argument that MACT floors set pollutantby-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 

Comment [A34]: Consider 

using a phrase other than 

“re-begs the question.” 

Furthermore, it does not 

appear this sentence adds 

much to this paragraph, 

which seems to be EPA’s 

explanation of why the CAA 

does not prohibit a 

pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 458 

certain 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 458 

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 

Comment [A35]: Did they 

provide any data on this 

issue? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 458 

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 

Comment [A36]: Is this what 

EPA costed out for the RIA? 

IF so, please clarify that. 

Comment [A37]: Please point 

to where in 129 the 

consideration of costs is 

prohibited? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 458 

things, when evaluating whether the MACT standards should 

be more stringent than the MACT floor, so called “beyondthe-floor” standards. EPA did consider costs in its 

beyond-the-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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 458 

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 (D.C. 

Cir. 2001). Specifically, EPA established the 2000 CISWI 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 458 

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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 458 

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 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). 

The best way to ascertain the actual emissions 

limitations achieved by the best-performing units, and thus 

comply with the Courts 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 458 

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 best-performing 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 “MACTon-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-on-MACT 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 re-proposed them in 2009 might 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 458 

be: “MACT-on-Unsupportable-Standards-Erroneously-Labeledas-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 bestperforming 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 comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 458 

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 best-performing 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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 458 

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, 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 458 

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 inter-unit 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 (D.C. 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 bestperforming 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 458 

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 

waste-burning 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 458 

As we discussed at proposal, the UL computation 

assumes that the data available represents the entire 

population of data from the best-performing 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 waste-burning 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 458 

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 waste-burning 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 wasteburning 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 458 

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 are burning 

solid waste, and we 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 458 

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-waste-burning counterparts 

of these units (i.e., 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 pre-specified) randomly 

selected observation from a population. In other words, 

the prediction interval estimates what the upper bound of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 458 

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) x TINV(2 x 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 458 

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 result 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 458 

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 3 through 

8 of this preamble. 

Table 3. 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)

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

28 28 28 28

No. in MACT 

floor =

4 4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

4.571 0.000459 0.000362 0.00125

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

33.6004 0.0053 0.0026 0.0035

Incinerators

Limit = 34 0.0054 0.0026 0.0036

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

31 31 31 31

No. in MACT 

floor =

4 4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

2.85061 0.0000520 0.0001713 0.0008519

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

246.9158 0.0003 0.0005(a) 0.0019(a)

ERUs – 

Solids

Limit = 250 0.00033 0.00051(a) 0.002(a)

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

6 6 6 6

No. in MACT 

floor =

1 1 1 1

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Avg of top 

12%

18.588 0.001 0.001 0.005
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 458 

Subcategory Parameter

PM

(mg/dscm)

Hg

(mg/dscm)

Cd

(mg/dscm)

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

101.7548 1.3133 0.0226 0.0959

Limit = 110 0.0013(a) 0.023 0.096

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

54 54 54 54

No. in MACT 

floor =

7 7 7 7

Avg of top 

12%

5.6632 N/A 0.0002 0.0013

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

15.7387 0.007(b) 0.0004 0.0024

Wasteburning 

kilns

Limit = 16 0.007(b) 0.0004 0.0025

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

19 19 19 19

No. in MACT 

floor =

3 3 3 3

Avg of top 

12%

91.677 0.0014 0.036 0.308

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

280.3013 0.0052 0.5491 2.5395

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

Limit = 290 0.0053 0.55 2.6

a A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used 

in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. For 

further explanation, see section XXXX. 

b For details on this calculation, see the memorandum 

"CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New 

Sources" in the Docket for this rulemaking. 

Table 4. 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 

=

28 28 28
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 458 

Subcategory Parameter

CO

(ppmvd)

NOx

(ppmvd)

SO2

(ppmvd)

No. in MACT 

floor =

4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

5.575 14.7 0.733

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

15.5880(a) 52.4192 10.4182

Limit = 16(a) 53 11

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

6 6 6

No. in MACT 

floor =

1 1 1

Avg of top 

12%

15.840 58.733 641.352

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

23.1289 75.6305 712.3156

ERUs -

Liquid/Gas 

Limit = 24 76 720

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

22 22 22

No. in MACT 

floor =

3 3 3

Avg of top 

12%

141.8976 75.6192 1.4039

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

253.5137 229.3627 6.1751

ERUs - Biomass 

Limit = 260 230 6.2

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

9 9 9

No. in MACT 

floor =

2 2 2

Avg of top 

12%

35.9846 307.2352 624.0054

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

46.4389 330.7464 641.9307

ERUs - Coal 

Limit = 47 340 650

Waste-burning No. of 54 54 54
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 458 

Subcategory Parameter

CO

(ppmvd)

NOx

(ppmvd)

SO2

(ppmvd)

sources in 

subcategory 

=

No. in MACT 

floor =

7 7 7

Avg of top 

12%

191.2861 367.0430 31.2438

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

388.3513 580.4714 103.5541

kilns

Limit = 390 590 110

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

19 19 19

No. in MACT 

floor =

3 3 3

Avg of top 

12%

10.085 70.841 2.533

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

46.1766 168.1384 1137.4726

Small, remote 

incinerators

Limit = 47 170 1200

a A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used 

in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

Table 5. 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

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory =

28 28 28

No. in MACT 

floor =

4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

0.181 0.238 0.004302537

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

28.0455 4.5036 0.1286

Incinerators

Limit = 29 4.6 0.13

ERUs – Solids No. of 

sources in 

31 31 31
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 458 

Subcategory Parameter

HCl

(ppmvd)

D/F (TMB)

(ng/dscm)

D/F (Total TEQ 

basis)

(ng/dscm)a

subcategory =

No. in MACT 

floor =

4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

0.16719 0.08001 .0088932

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

0.4456 0.2826 0.0586

Limit = 0.45 0.29 0.059

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) =

13.2107

(a)

13869.5228 30.0133

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Limit = 14(a) 2.9 (a) 0.32 (a)

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory =

54 54 54

No. in MACT 

floor =

7 7 7

Avg of top 

12%

0.7894 0.0073 0.0010

99% UPL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

1.7873 0.0284 0.0057

Waste-burning 

kilns

Limit = 3(a) 0.029 0.0057

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory =

19 19 19

No. in MACT 

floor =

3 3 3

Avg of top 

12%

47.610 362.387 9.05660

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

287.301

8

1379.7593 155.3526

Small, remote 

incinerators

Limit = 290 1400 160

a A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used 

in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 458 

Table 6. 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)

Avg of top 

performer

3.0608 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

17.7867 0.000151 0.0023 0.0019(a)

Incinerators

Limit = 18 0.00016 0.0023 0.0019(a)

Avg of top 

performer

2.640916 0.0000319

2

0.0001369

6

0.0004536

7

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

1094.5327 0.0028 2.8369 0.0030

ERUs - 

Solids

Limit = 250(b) 0.00033

(b)

0.00051

(b)

0.0020(b)

Avg of top 

performer 

18.588 0.001 0.001 0.005

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

101.7548 1.3133 0.0226 0.0959

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Limit = 110 0.00025(d

)

0.023 0.096

Avg of top 

performer 

1.2173 N/A 0.0001 0.0006

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

2.4483(a) 0.0040(c) 0.0006 0.000681

Wasteburning 

kilns

Limit = 2.5(a) 0.0040(c) 0.00040

(b)

0.00069

Avg of top 

performer 

83.534 0.001 0.011 0.086

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

733.5002 0.0034(a) 0.6692 0.2589

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

Limit = 290(b) 0.0035(a) 0.55(b) 0.26

a A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used 

in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

b The 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 458 

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 7. Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units – CO, 

NOx, SO2. 

Subcategory Parameter

CO

 (ppmvd)

NOx

(ppmvd)

SO2

(ppmvd)

Avg of top 

performer

5.1500 9.0333 0.2233

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

5.3241 22.3685 39.5108

Incinerators

Limit = 5.4 23 11(a)

Avg of top 

performer

15.840 58.733 641.352

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

23.1289 75.6305 712.3156

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Limit = 24 76 720

Avg of top 

performer 

106.6881 62.3233 1.0492

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

237.3400 344.7699 20.8889

ERUs - Biomass

Limit = 240 230(a) 6.2(a)

Avg of top 

performer 

35.4778 307.2352 624.0054

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

45.0280 330.7464 641.9307

ERUs - Coal

Limit = 46 340 650

Avg of top 

performer 

58.57 218.3408 1.4333

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

89.7816 657.0298 11.3200

Waste-burning 

kilns

Proposed 

limit =

90 590(a) 12

Avg of top 

performer

Small, remote 6.000 60.769 0.131

incinerators

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

6.000 77.2833 1.1635
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 458 

Subcategory Parameter

CO

 (ppmvd)

NOx

(ppmvd)

SO2

(ppmvd)

Limit = 6.1 78 1.2

a The NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was 

selected as the NSPS limit. 

Table 8. 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

Avg of top 

performer

0.0413 0.0176 0.001266667

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

0.0901 0.0513(a) 2.1464

Incinerators

Limit = 0.091 0.052(a) 0.13(b)

Avg of top 

performer

0.068133 0.0161 0.000501333

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

0.5435 0.0674 0.0103

ERUs - Solids

Limit = 0.45(b) 0.068 0.011

Avg of top 

performer 

4.440 1.110 0.046335368

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

13.2107(a) 13869.5228 30.0133

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

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

Avg of top 

performer 

0.2757 0.0011 0.000008327

99% UPL of 

top (test 

runs) =

0.5294 0.0673 0.0000109

Waste-burning 

kilns

Limit = 3(a) 0.029(b) 0.000011

Avg of top 

performer 

27.678 299.827 4.868700057

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

196.6311 1700.6082 30.0810

Small, remote 

incinerators

Limit = 200 1400(b) 31

a A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used 

in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit. 

b The NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was 

selected as the NSPS limit. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 458 

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 both new and existing 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 458 

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 identified to be CISWI units based on the solid 

waste definition, 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 nonnormal 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 lognormally. Commenters state that where there is any 

uncertainty according to EPA’s criteria using Excel 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 458 

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 non-negative 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 

Comment [A38]: It would be 

helpful for EPA to describe 

what the result of this 

change was, rather than just 

stating the methodology was 

revised. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 458 

allow facilities to demonstrate compliance without taking 

undue risk of facing non-compliance. 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 458 

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 

biomass-to-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
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 458 

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, 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. 

This is 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 458 

formation would occur in certain units such that an 

additional FF 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 FF 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 beyond-the-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-the-floor 

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 beyondthe-floor option the potential of existing sources to meet 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 458 

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, nonairquality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements when considering beyond-the-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, add-on 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 458 

impacts and benefits associated with adopting the 

identified control option to determine whether the beyondthe-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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 458 

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 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. Water-based 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 458 

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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 458 

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 beyond-the-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-
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 458 

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-the-floor option, 

setting a CO limit at a level that most of the remaining 

waste-burning 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 458 

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-thefloor 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 458 

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 reduce catalyst activity, and lower the 

resulting effectiveness of the SCR, through catalyst 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 458 

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 is 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 458 

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-the-floor 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 458 

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 

beyond-the-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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 458 

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 co-benefit emission reductions are 

significantly less than the SO2 emission reductions. 

Because we are basing these analysis 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 beyond-the-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) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 458 

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-thefloor. 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-thefloor 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 458 

control. Based on our analysis and realizing the high 

degree of uncertainty regarding costs, emissions reductions 

and resulting cost-effectiveness for this particular CISWI 

subcategory, we have concluded that requiring beyond-thefloor 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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 458 

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 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-thefloor 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 an 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 458 

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 bestperforming 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 458 

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
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 458 

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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 458 

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 coalfired 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 NOx 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 458 

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 cofire 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 458 

(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 bestperforming 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 458 

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 (all but 16) are in the CISWI population solely due 

to tire combustion. In the time it takes for compliance, 

we expect that most of these facilities will probably find 

a source of tires that would result in the tires not being 

considered a waste. These units would then be covered 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 458 

under the Portland Cement NESHAP rather than CISWI. Of the 

16 kilns that are burning materials other than tires that 

would be considered a waste, all but two of these appear to 

be preheater type kilns, based on data on these units 

contained in the Portland Cement NESHAP docket. The 

remaining two kilns are of the wet kilns. We recognize 

that differences in kiln design and configuration can 

effect emissions. These effects are most evident on 

emissions of NOx and CO. However, we have insufficient 

data to develop separate subcategories for cement kilns. 

For example, in the Portland Cement NESHAP, we noted that 

kiln design could affect THC emissions. However, the data 

available at the time we developed the final rule were 

insufficient to develop subcategories based in kiln design. 

The same problem exists here for NOx and CO. The control 

devices that may be necessary to comply with the CISWI 

limits 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, FF and RTO, may be applied to either type 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 458 

of kiln. 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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 458 

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 on-site 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 458 

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. In addition, information we received during 

the comment period leads us to conclude that we may need to 

further subcategorize these units based on the significant 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 458 

differences among the units we characterized as burn-off 

ovens. For example, drum reconditioning or reclamation 

units are significantly larger and different in design from 

other units in the burn-off ovens subcategory. 

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 are deferring regulation of burnoff ovens so that we may collect the information necessary 

to adequately characterize and set standards for these 

units. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 458 

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 are creating a new subcategory for 

soil treatments units and deferring regulation of these 

units until we have sufficient information to establish CAA 

section 129 standards. 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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 458 

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 comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 458 

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 

31,956. 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 458 

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 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 

Deleted: continuous 

Comment [A39]: Given the 

strong case made in the 

previous statement about the 

utility of opacity measures 

and the use of opacity as a 

surrogate for PM, and the 

explanation that there are 

PM standards with frequent 

monitoring, please explain 

why it is necessary to 

discuss the lack of data? 

Comment [A40]: Please 

explain this – 129 requires 

EPA to set PM standards, 

right, so what is intended 

by this? 

Comment [A41]: Please 

explain what is the value 

added of this requirement. 

How will this information be 

used? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 178 of 458 

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). 

Comment [A42]: Given the 

ramifications of not 

complying with the emissions 

standards, why would a 

facility not operate their 

air pollution control device 

properly? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 458 

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 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 458 

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 sitespecific 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 458 

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 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 50 percent, instead of 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 458 

required for all pollutants rather than PM and HCl only. 

However, if sources meet the 50 percent threshold during 

one test, then they will qualify for reduced testing 

following that test rather than meeting a less stringent 

threshold for fewer pollutants for three consecutive years. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 458 

conditions (and typically only one operating condition), no 

long-term 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 458 

emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 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 (D.C. 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 458 

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. 

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 (D.C. 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-by-case enforcement 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 458 

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”). 

 Further, 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 “bestperforming” unit in defining MACT, the level of stringency 

that section 129 performance standards must meet. Applying 

the concept of “best controlled” and “best-performing” to a 

unit that is malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of a best controlled or bestperforming 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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 458 

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 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 cause by malfunction events, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 458 

EPA stated at proposal that we would consider relevant 

factors in determine the appropriate action to take. 

In the final rule, 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 that 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 458 

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 60.60.2265 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 458 

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, short, infrequent, 

and unavoidable failure of air pollution control 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 60.2120 and 

60.2685 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 458 

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 errorprone and imposes additional burdens on reporting sources. 

Some commenters asserted that EPA provides no insight or 

justification in the preamble or otherwise for requiring 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 458 

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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 198 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 199 of 458 

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 time-consuming 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 458 

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 

Comment [A43]: This appears 

to support the commenter’s 

statement that EPA’s burden 

estimates were too low. Has 

EPA revised their burden 

estimates to take into 

account the learning curve 

for the system? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 458 

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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 204 of 458 

of these minor changes to test methods may be approved in 

the 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 205 of 458 

counter to long-standing 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 selfimplementing 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 nonhazardous 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 458 

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 nonwaste determination pursuant to the petition process in the 

Solid Waste Definition Rule at 40 CFR 241.3(c), the source 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 458 

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 

non-waste 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 458 

discarded and are handled as valuable commodities in 

accordance with 40 CFR 241.3(d) 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(d) 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 209 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 458 

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 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 211 of 458 

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
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 212 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 216 of 458 

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 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 217 of 458 

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, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 458 

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 non-waste regulatory requirements as simple as 

possible. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 458 

The emissions reductions that would be achieved under 

this rule using the definition of solid waste under RCRA 

are presented in Table 9 of this preamble. 

Table 9. 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 455 468 

CO 24,855 24,819 

Pb 4.1 4.1 

Cd 0.95 0.95 

Hg 0.13 0.13 

PM (filterable) 1,668 1,672 

dioxin, furans 0.0001 0.0001 

NOx 5,437 5,544 

SO2 5,119 5,170 

Total 37,541 37,678 

a The 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 458 

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 10 of this 

preamble presents the model plant emissions reductions that 

would be expected for new sources. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 221 of 458 

Table 10. Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis 

Emission reduction for CISWI Subcategory Model 

Units (tpy unless otherwise noted) 

Pollutant 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 tire-derived 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 comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 458 

would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 112 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 19,840 tpy from PM 

capture and 23,100 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 458 

estimate that approximately 110,417 tpy of waste would be 

diverted to a landfill. 

For new CISWI units, we estimate an annual requirement 

of 6.9 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 7.0 tpy from 

PM capture and 20.8 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 233,020 MW-hours per year would be required for 

the additional and improved control devices. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 225 of 458 

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. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 458 

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 $706 million with an associated total annual cost of 

$280 million ($2008). 

Under the rule, EPA’s economic model suggests the 

average national market-level variables (prices, 

production-levels, consumption, international trade) will 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 458 

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. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 458 

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.3 

A summary of the monetized benefits estimates at discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 11 of this 

preamble. 

Table 11. Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates For 

the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015 (Millions of 2008$)1

Pollutant 

Estimated Emission 

Reductions 

(tpy) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits 

(3% Discount 

Rate) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits 

(7% Discount 

Rate) 

PM2.5 710 $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 

1 All 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 

 

3 Roman, 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.
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 230 of 458 

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. 

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).4 

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 

 

4 Fann, 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 231 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 232 of 458 

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 study5 and the 

extended Six Cities cohort study.6 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 

 

5 Pope, 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 

6 Laden, et al., 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory 

and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 458 

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 analysis7 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. 

 

7 U.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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 458 

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 11 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: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant 

regulatory action” because it will have an annual effect on 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 458 

the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the OMB for review under Executive 

Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this 

action. In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in “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 12. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, 

and Net Benefits for the CISWI NSPS and Emissions 

Guidelines in 2015 (millions of 2008$)a

 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Option 1: MACT Floor 

Total Monetized Benefitsb $340 to $830 $310 to $750 

Total Social Costsc $280 $280 

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

25,000 tons of CO 

470 tons of HCl 

260 pounds of Hg 

0.95 tons of Cd 

Non-monetized Benefits 

4.1 tons of lead 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 458 

92 grams of dioxins/furans 

Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure 

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment 

Option 2: Beyond-the-Floor 

Total Monetized Benefitsb $430 to $1,100 $390 To $960 

Total Social Costsc $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 

a All 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. 

b The 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. 

c The 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 238 of 458 

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. 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 458 

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. 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 17,093 hours at a total 

annual labor cost of $608,494. 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, storage of data and reports 

and photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the 

ICR are estimated at $10,267,283 total and $3,422,428 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 240 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 458 

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. 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. There are only 10 small companies. The 

average cost-to-sales ratios for small companies are below 

3.5 percent. The median ratio is 2.2 percent. Only four 

entities have a sales test that exceeds 3 percent. 

Although this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 242 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 243 of 458 

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 $280 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 244 of 458 

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 expertbased estimates fall between these estimates. The benefits 

from reducing other air pollutants 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 dioxins and furans each year. In 

addition, ecosystem benefits and visibility benefits have 

not been monetized in this analysis 

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 comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 245 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 246 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 458 

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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 248 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 249 of 458 

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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 250 of 458 

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 No. 

104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures 

and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 

VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to 

use available and applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 251 of 458 

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,” for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen 

or CO2 content of the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 

19.10-1981 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. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 458 

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), 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 253 of 458 

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 LowIncome 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 458 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations, low-income, 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 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 255 of 458 

cardiovascular diseases. (Please refer to the RIA contained 

in the docket for this rulemaking.) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA has undertaken 

to determine the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources. This analysis reflected 

the amended and corrected data set and used “proximity-toa-source” to identify the populations considered to be 

living near affected sources, such that they have notable 

exposures to current emissions from these sources. In this 

approach, EPA reviewed the distributions of different 

socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected 

emission reductions from this rule. The review identified 

those census blocks within a circular distance of 3 miles 

of affected sources and determined the demographic and 

socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income, education, 

etc.) of these census blocks. The radius of 3 miles (or 

approximately 5 kilometers) has been used in other 

demographic analyses focused on areas around potential 

sources.8,9,10,11 In addition, air modeling experience has 

 

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

“Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities.” 

Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 256 of 458 

shown that beyond 3 miles, the influence of an individual 

source of emissions can generally be considered to be 

small, both in absolute terms and relative to the influence 

of other sources (assuming there are other sources in the 

area, as is typical in urban areas). EPA’s demographic 

analysis has shown that these areas tend to have lower 

proportions of Whites, similar proportions of American 

Indians, and higher proportions of African-Americans, 

Hispanics and “Other and Multi-racial” populations, and 

higher proportions of families with incomes below the 

poverty level.12 

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 

 

9 Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 

Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. 

Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 

10 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to 

Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and 

Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis”. Social Science 

Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297. 

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

Waste and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of 

Christ. March, 2007. 

12 The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 

“Review of Environmental Justice Impacts”, April 2010, a 

copy of which is available in the docket. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 458 

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 website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA also 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 458 

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 agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units 

Page 259 of 458 

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 [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

_______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 260 of 458 

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. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as 

follows: 

Subpart CCCC-Standards of Performance for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units 

* * * * * 

3. Section 60.2005 is amended to read as follows: 

§60.2005 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 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. 

4. Section 60.2010 is amended by adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 261 of 458 

§60.2010 Does this subpart apply to my incineration unit?

* * * 

(d) Regulation of your CISWI unit is not deferred 

under §60.2025. 

5. Section 60.2015 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a) and (b) 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 [INSERT 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(2) A commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration unit that commenced reconstruction or 

modification after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 458 

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. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k), and 

(l). 

e. Revising paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(3), (g), (m) and 

(n). 

f. Removing paragraphs (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 (m) 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); 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 458 

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 request must include information sufficient 

to document that the unit meets the criteria of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 458 

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. 

7. Section 60.2025 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2025 For what types of combustion does this final 

action not apply?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 458 

This final action does not apply to combustion units 

described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. 

Combustion units other than those identified in paragraphs 

(a) through (e) of this section are subject to standards 

applicable to incinerators if: (1) they are not regulated 

as energy recovery units (i.e., those designed to burn 

biomass, coal, and liquid/gas), waste-burning kilns, or 

small remote incineration units; and (2) the combustion of 

solid waste makes an otherwise applicable section 112 

standard inapplicable. 

(a) Burn-off oven. This type of incineration unit 

includes part reclamation units, rack reclamation units, 

and drum reclamation units. 

(b) Soil treatment unit. 

(c) Laboratory analysis unit. 

(d) Cyclonic burn barrel. 

(e) Space heater. 

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?

* * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 458 

(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 amended to read as follows: 

(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 [INSERT 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 267 of 458 

THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 458 

* * * * * 

12. Section 60.2105 is amended by removing the 

introductory text and adding paragraphs (a) and (b). 

§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 [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] 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). 

d. Removing paragraph (g). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 458 

§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 90 percent of the 

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 wet scrubber, which 

is calculated as 90 percent of the 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 90 percent of the 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 458 

(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated 

as 90 percent of the 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 

voltage and amperage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates during the particulate matter performance 

test. Calculate the average value of these parameters for 

each test run. The minimum test run averages establish 

your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage (or 

electric power) operating limits for the electrostatic 

precipitator. 

(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 

minimum sorbent flow rate test run averages establish your 

site-specific minimum sorbent flow rate. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must establish 

the maximum charge rate, the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit), and the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 458 

minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating 

parameters during the initial nitrogen oxides performance 

test to determine compliance with the emissions limits. 

(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 458 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 458 

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, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 274 of 458 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limitations were being 

exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs; 

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions; 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe personal 

injury, or severe property damage; 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and 

systems, as well as control systems, were kept in operation 

if at all possible; 

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 275 of 458 

(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 

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) 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 30 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 276 of 458 

16. Section 60.2125 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c). 

b. Revising paragraph (g)(2). 

c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows: 

§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 octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 458 

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 an initial 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 initial performance test must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 278 of 458 

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 an initial performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation 

of the monitoring system. 

19. Section 60.2140 is amended by redesignating the 

unnumbered paragraph 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?

(a) The initial performance test must be conducted 

within 60 days after your CISWI unit reaches the charge 

rate at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days 

after its initial startup. 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 458 

(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 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 an initial 

performance test within 60 days. 

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 amended by: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 280 of 458 

a. Redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (b) and 

revising newly designated paragraph (b). 

b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and 

revising newly designated paragraph (b). 

c. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and 

revising newly designated paragraph (d). 

d. Adding paragraph (a). 

e. Adding paragraphs (e) through (v). 

§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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 458 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The effective 

date of the waste-to-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 nonwaste 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 fuel-to-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) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 282 of 458 

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 nonwaste 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-to-fuel switch), consistent 

with (2) and (3)) above. 

 (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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 283 of 458 

(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-tofuel, 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 284 of 458 

(c) You must continuously monitor the operating 

parameters specified in §60.2110 or established under 

§60.2115. Operation above the established maximum or below 

the established minimum operating limits constitutes a 

deviation from the established operating limits. Threehour rolling average values are used to determine 

compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system 

alarms) unless a different averaging period is established 

under §60.2115. 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: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 285 of 458 

(1) You must measure emissions according to §60.13 to 

calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 

percent oxygen (or 12 percent carbon dioxide). 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 4B of appendix B of this part and 

quality assurance procedure one 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 458 

(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 a 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 monitor 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 exhaust gas flow rate to the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 458 

atmosphere according to the requirements of performance 

specification 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 waste-burning 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 under normal operating 

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 site-specific monitoring plan 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 288 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 289 of 458 

(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 sitespecific 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 measurement device, you must meet the 

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

this section. 

(1) Locate 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 2 percent of the flow rate. 

(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semiannually. 

(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 458 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum 

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(4) Perform checks at least daily to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed, e.g., check pressure tap 

pluggage daily. 

(5) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor 

exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (o)(1) through (3) of 

this section. 

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 291 of 458 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two 

points every 8 hours of process operation. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor voltage and secondary current 

(or total power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use voltage and secondary current monitoring 

equipment to measure voltage and secondary current to the 

electrostatic precipitator. 

(q) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

using a 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) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer's procedures and specifications. 

(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and 

specifications. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 458 

(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 (r)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter. 

(2) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer's written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997. 

(3) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less. 

(4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings. 

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor. 

(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with an alarm system that will sound an alert automatically 

to an operator when an increase in relative particulate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 293 of 458 

matter emissions over a preset level is detected. The 

alarm must be located where it is observed readily by plant 

operating personnel. 

(7) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(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 less than 100 parts per million dry volume, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 458 

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, 

sulfur dioxide 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 

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 Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and 

Apparatus](American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

1819 L Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 

293–8020, http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, 

http://www.asme.org) must be used. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 295 of 458 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–

1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments 

and Apparatus] (American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20036, (202) 293–8020, http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, 

http://www.asme.org) as applicable, 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) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part. 

(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and/or zero and 

span adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 296 of 458 

other monitoring systems as approved by EPA 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 solid waste (as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR 240). 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 458 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, 

nitrogen oxides 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 

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-Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW., 

6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, 

http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, 

NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org) 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) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 458 

(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous emission 

monitoring system data are not obtained because of 

continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, 

emissions data must be obtained using other monitoring 

systems as approved by EPA 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 the unit is operated 

and combusting solid waste. 

(5) 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)(5)(i) through (t)(5)(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 299 of 458 

carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B, or 

as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981-Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instrument and Apparatus] (American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW, 6th 

floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, 

http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, 

NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org) 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 300 of 458 

(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 within 12 

months following the anniversary date of the initial 

performance test. Conduct subsequent annual performance 

tests between 11 and 13 months after the anniversary date 

of the initial performance test. 

23. 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 amended by revising paragraph 

(a) and removing paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§60.2155 May I conduct performance testing less often?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 458 

(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 (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 36 months following the 

previous performance test for the pollutant. For cadmium 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 458 

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 50 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 3 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. 

* * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 303 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 458 

(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 rolling 

averages (calculated each hour as the average of the 

previous 3 operating hours) 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 voltage and amperage of the electrostatic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 305 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 306 of 458 

(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. 

This option to use a continuous automated sampling system 

takes effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to dioxin/furan from continuous monitors is 

published in the Federal Register. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 307 of 458 

and testing using EPA Reference Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8 of this part, ASTM D6784-02 (2008), 

Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle 

Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from CoalFired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)(ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box CB700, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428–B2959, (800) 262–1373, 

http://www.astm.org), 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 458 

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 §60.2125, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 309 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 310 of 458 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 311 of 458 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 312 of 458 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 313 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 314 of 458 

(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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 458 

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 out-of-control periods, repairs 

associated with monitoring system malfunctions or out-ofcontrol 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 458 

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 out-of-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-ofcontrol 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 out-of-control 

periods, and required monitoring system quality assurance 

or quality control activities including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 458 

(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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 321 of 458 

§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)(3), 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 322 of 458 

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. 

* * * * * 

28. 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.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 323 of 458 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 324 of 458 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 325 of 458 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 326 of 458 

(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 

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. 

* * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 327 of 458 

29. 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. 

* * * * * 

30. Section 60.2230 is amended 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: 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 328 of 458 

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 nonwaste 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-to-fuel switch), consistent 

with (2) and (3)) above. 

31. Section 60.2235 is amended 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) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 329 of 458 

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). 

* * * * * 

32. 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. 

* * * * * 

33. Section 60.2250 is amended by: 

a. Redesignating paragraph (a) to be an introductory 

paragraph. 

b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to be 

paragraphs (a) and (b). 

c. Removing paragraph (b). 

§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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 330 of 458 

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. 

* * * * * 

34. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 331 of 458 

* * * * * 

35. Section 60.2265 is amended by: 

a. Adding definitions for “Affirmative defense”, 

“Burn-off oven”, “Bypass stack”, “Chemical recovery unit”, 

“Continuous monitoring system”, “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”. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 332 of 458 

§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. 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 333 of 458 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 334 of 458 

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. 

* * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 335 of 458 

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 include 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 336 of 458 

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 240) for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 337 of 458 

matter. Incinerator designs include single chamber and 

two-chamber. 

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. 

* * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the 

lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator measured from the pressure drop 

and liquid flow rate monitors 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 338 of 458 

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 339 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 340 of 458 

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. 

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 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 refuse-derived fuel) for the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 341 of 458 

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 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. 

* * * * * 

36. Table 1 of subpart CCCC is amended to read as 

follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 342 of 458 

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 [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa 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, 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.) 

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 meter 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 3-run average Performance test 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 343 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meter per 

run) 

(Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A8). 

Mercury 0.47 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-

02, 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 

(2008)b. 

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 A4). 

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). 

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 A8). 

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 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 344 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

duration of 1 

hour per run) 

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard 

conditions. 

b ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 

37. 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 

Requirementsa

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 

• If a performance 

§§60.2205 

and 

60.2210 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 345 of 458 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

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) or (b) 

were met 

• Documentation of 

periods when all 

qualified CISWI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for more 

than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

* * * * * 

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 

* * * * * 

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced 

sections of the rule for the complete requirements. 

38. 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 346 of 458 

2010, Or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification 

After [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limitationa 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 A8 of this part). 

Use ICPMS for the 

analytical finish. 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

5.4 parts per 

million by 

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.) 

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 A7). 

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 A7). 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 347 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

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. 

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 

ug/dry standard 

cubic meter) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 or 30B at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(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 A4). 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. 

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). 

a All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent 

oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 348 of 458 

dioxins/furans, you must meet either the Total Mass Limit 

or the toxic equivalency basis limit. 

b ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 

39. 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 [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa For the air 

pollutant Liquid/Gas Solids 

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

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 A8). Use ICPMS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Biomass – 

240 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Carbon 

monoxide 

24 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% 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 349 of 458 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is 

greater. 

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). 

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 A8). 

Lead 0.096 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

0.0020 

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 

0.00033 

milligrams 

3-run 

average 

Performance 

test (Method 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 350 of 458 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

(collect 

enough 

volume to 

meet an instack 

detection 

limit data 

quality 

objective of 

0.03 

ug/dscm) 

29 or 30B at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-8) or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(2008)b. 

Biomass – 

230 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

76 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). 

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 A8) 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. 

Sulfur dioxide 720 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

6.2 parts 

per million 

3-run 

average (1 

hour minimum 

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 351 of 458 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

dry volume sample time 

per run) 

CFR part 

60,appendix A4. Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 20 ppm or 

less. 

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). 

a All 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 ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 

40. 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 [INSERT 

THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using this 

method 

Cadmium 0.00040 

milligrams 

3-run average 

(collect a 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 CFR 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 352 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using this 

method 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters 

per run) 

part 60, appendix A8). Use ICPMS for the 

analytical finish. 

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). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

0.029 

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) 

0.000011 

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 0.00069 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A8). Use ICPMS for the 

analytical finish. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 353 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using this 

method 

cubic meters)

Mercury 0.0040 

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 

196 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

NOx Continuous 

Emissions Monitoring 

System (performance 

specification 2 of 

appendix B of this 

part) 

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 12 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

Sulfur dioxide 

Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 2 of 

appendix B of this 

part) 

a All 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. 

41. 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 [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 354 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Cadmium 0.55 

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 

6.1 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.) 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

1,400 

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). 

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 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 

60,appendix A-8). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 355 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

cubic meter cubic) 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, 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 

(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). 

Particulate 

matter 

(filterable) 

290 

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. 

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). 

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard 

conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 356 of 458 

total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis 

limit. 

b ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 

42. 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 

43. 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. 

44. Section 60.2505 is amended 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 357 of 458 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, you must submit 

a state plan to EPA that implements the 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 [INSERT THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 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 [INSERT 

THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(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 [INSERT THE 

DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units other than incinerator 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 358 of 458 

units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 

2010. 

45. Section 60.2525 is amended by redesignating the 

introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) 

to read as follows: 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 359 of 458 

interim action and will be automatically withdrawn when 

your state plan is approved. 

46. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 360 of 458 

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) [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) 3 years after the effective date of state plan 

approval. 

* * * * * 

47. 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-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f). 

* * * * * 

48. Section 60.2541 is added to read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 361 of 458 

§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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 362 of 458 

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. 

49. 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. 

50. Section 60.2545 is amended by adding paragraphs 

(b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect CISWI unit 

owners and operators in my state?

* * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 363 of 458 

(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. 

(c) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 

subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 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 

[INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

51. Section §60.2550 is amended by revising paragraph 

(a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

§60.2550 What CISWI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 364 of 458 

(1) Incineration units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before June 4, 2010. 

* * * * * 

(4) Regulation of your CISWI unit is not deferred 

under §60.2558. 

52. 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] 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 365 of 458 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 366 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 367 of 458 

53. Section 60.2558 is amended to read as follows: 

§60.2558 For what types of combustion units does this 

final action not apply? 

This final action does not apply to combustion units 

described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. 

Combustion units other than those identified in paragraphs 

(a) through (e) of this section are subject to standards 

applicable to incinerators if: (1) they are not regulated 

as energy recovery units (i.e., those designed to burn 

biomass, coal, and liquid/gas), waste-burning kilns, or 

small remote incineration units; and (2) the combustion of 

solid waste makes an otherwise applicable section 112 

standard inapplicable. 

(a) Burn-off oven. This type of incineration unit 

includes part reclamation units, rack reclamation units, 

and drum reclamation units. 

(b) Soil treatment unit. 

(c) Laboratory analysis unit. 

(d) Cyclonic burn barrel. 

(e) Space heater. 

54. 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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 368 of 458 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or 

to prevent conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

55. 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. 

* * * * * 

56. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 369 of 458 

(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. 

57. 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 90 percent of the 

average pressure drop across the wet scrubber measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 370 of 458 

limitations; or minimum amperage to the wet scrubber, which 

is calculated as 90 percent of the 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 90 percent of the 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 90 percent of the 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 371 of 458 

* * * * * 

(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

voltage and amperage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates during the particulate matter performance 

test. Calculate the average value of these parameters for 

each test run. The minimum test run averages establish 

your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage (or 

electric power) operating limits for the electrostatic 

precipitator. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the performance test. The minimum 

sorbent flow rate test run averages establish your sitespecific minimum sorbent flow rate. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must establish 

the maximum charge rate, the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) and the 

minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating 

parameters during the initial nitrogen oxides performance 

test to determine compliance with the emissions limits. 

(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber or fabric filter 

to comply with the emission limitations, and if you do not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 372 of 458 

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). 

58. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2680 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 373 of 458 

(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. 

59. 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 374 of 458 

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, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limitations were being 

exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 375 of 458 

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions; 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe personal 

injury, or severe property damage; 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and 

systems, as well as control systems, were kept in operation 

if at all possible; 

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs; 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 376 of 458 

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 30 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. 

60. 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?

* * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 377 of 458 

(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 (tetra-through octachlorinated) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 378 of 458 

continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent with 

§60.2710 and §60.2730. 

61. 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. 

62. 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 an initial 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 initial 

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 an initial 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 379 of 458 

performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system 

within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. 

63. 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 380 of 458 

the combustion chamber, you must conduct an initial 

performance test within 60 days. 

64. 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. 

65. Section 60.2710 is amended by: 

a. Redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (b) and 

revising newly designated paragraph (b). 

b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and 

revising newly designated paragraph (c). 

c. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and 

revising newly designated paragraph (d). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 381 of 458 

d. Adding paragraph (a). 

e. Adding paragraphs (e) through (w). 

§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 waste-to-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 

§60.2710(a)(2). Your source must remain in compliance with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 382 of 458 

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 nonwaste 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 fuel-to-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; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 383 of 458 

(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 nonwaste 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-to-fuel switch), consistent 

with (2) and (3)) above. 

 (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-tofuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and drift 

checks must be performed as of the effective date of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 384 of 458 

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. Operation above the established maximum or below 

the established minimum operating limits constitutes a 

deviation from the established operating limits. Threehour rolling average values are used to determine 

compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system 

alarms) unless a different averaging period is established 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 385 of 458 

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 (or 12 percent carbon dioxide). 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 386 of 458 

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system in accordance with the applicable 

requirements of performance specification 4B 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 387 of 458 

determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit using 

a mercury continuous emission monitoring system according 

to the following requirements: 

(1) Operate a continuous emission monitor 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 system must install, operate, 

calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously 

measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the requirements of performance 

specification 12A at 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 waste-burning kiln 

must demonstrate initial compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emission monitor while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 388 of 458 

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 site-specific 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 389 of 458 

(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 sitespecific monitoring plan. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 390 of 458 

(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 measurement device, you must meet the 

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

this section. 

(1) Locate 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 2 percent of the flow rate. 

(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semiannually. 

(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration and internal and external corrosion. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 391 of 458 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum 

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(4) Perform checks at least daily to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed, e.g., check pressure tap 

pluggage daily. 

(5) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor 

exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (o)(1) through (3) of 

this section. 

(1) Locate 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) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two 

points every 8 hours of process operation. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor voltage and secondary current 

(or total power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 392 of 458 

you must use voltage and secondary current monitoring 

equipment to measure voltage and secondary current to the 

electrostatic precipitator. 

(q) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor 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) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer's procedures and specifications. 

(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and 

specifications. 

(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 (r)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 393 of 458 

(2) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer's written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997. 

(3) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less. 

(4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings. 

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor. 

(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 easily observed by plant operating 

personnel. 

(7) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 394 of 458 

(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 395 of 458 

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, 

sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 

period) by 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-Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 

(American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L 

Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–

8020, http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 

York, NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org) 

must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Method 3A or 

3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 

(American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L 

Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–

8020, http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 

York, NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org) 

as applicable, must be used. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 396 of 458 

(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) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part. 

(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and/or zero and 

span adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using 

other monitoring systems as approved by EPA 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 solid waste (as that term is defined by the 

Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 397 of 458 

(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, 

nitrogen oxides 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 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 398 of 458 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–

1981 —Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments 

and Apparatus] (American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20036, (202) 293–8020, http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, 

http://www.asme.org), 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) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part. 

(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions 

monitoring data are not obtained because of continuous 

emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks and zero and span adjustments, emissions data must 

be obtained using other monitoring systems as approved by 

EPA 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 399 of 458 

per calendar year the unit is operated and combusting solid 

waste. 

(5) 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)(5)(i) through (t)(5)(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—Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW., 

6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, 

http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, 

NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org), as 

applicable, must be used to determine the oxygen 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 400 of 458 

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 

system 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. 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 401 of 458 

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 site-specific monitoring plan developed according to 

paragraph (l) 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 Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus](American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW., 

6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, 

http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 402 of 458 

NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org), 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. 

66. 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 within 12 

months following the anniversary date of the initial 

performance test. Conduct subsequent annual performance 

tests between 11 and 13 months after the anniversary date 

of the initial performance test. 

67. 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. 

68. Section 60.2720 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2720 May I conduct performance testing less often?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 403 of 458 

(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 36 months following the 

previous performance test for the pollutant. For cadmium 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 404 of 458 

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 50 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 3 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 405 of 458 

69. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 406 of 458 

(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 rolling 

averages (calculated each hour as the average of the 

previous 3 operating hours) 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 voltage and amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-hour 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 407 of 458 

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 408 of 458 

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. This option 

to use a continuous automated sampling system takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification applicable to 

dioxin/furan from continuous monitors is published in the 

Federal Register. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 409 of 458 

mercury emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA 

Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, ASTM 

D6784-02 (2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)(ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 

CB700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428–B2959, (800) 

262–1373, http://www.astm.org), 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 410 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 411 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 412 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 413 of 458 

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 414 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 415 of 458 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 416 of 458 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 417 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 418 of 458 

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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 419 of 458 

specific monitoring plan developed according to paragraph 

(l) 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 Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus](American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1819 L Street, NW., 

6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293–8020, 

http://www.ansi.org; (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, 

NY 10016–5990, (800) 843–2763, http://www.asme.org), 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). 

70. Section 60.2735 is revised to read as follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 420 of 458 

§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 out-of-control periods, repairs 

associated with monitoring system malfunctions or out-ofcontrol 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 out-of-control periods and to return the 

monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as 

practicable. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 421 of 458 

(b) You may not use data recorded during the 

monitoring system malfunctions, 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 out-of-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. 

71. 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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 422 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 423 of 458 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 424 of 458 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 425 of 458 

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)(3), 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 nonwaste 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 426 of 458 

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. 

72. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 427 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 428 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 429 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 430 of 458 

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. 

73. 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. 

* * * * * 

74. Section 60.2790 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2790 Are there any other notifications or reports that 

I must submit? 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 431 of 458 

(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: 

(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 nonwaste 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 432 of 458 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch), consistent 

with (2) and (3)) above. 

75. 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). 

76. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 433 of 458 

* * * * * 

77. 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. 

* * * * * 

78. 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) * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 434 of 458 

(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. 

* * * * * 

79. Section 60.2875 is amended by: 

a. Adding definitions for “Affirmative defense,” 

“Burn-off oven,” “Bypass stack,” “Chemical recovery unit,” 

“Continuous monitoring system,” “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.” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 435 of 458 

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. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 436 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 437 of 458 

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 

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. 

* * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 438 of 458 

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. 

* * * 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 439 of 458 

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 440 of 458 

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 two-chamber. 

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. 

* * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the 

lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator measured from the pressure drop 

and liquid flow rate monitors during the most recent 

particulate matter or mercury performance test 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 441 of 458 

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. 

* * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 442 of 458 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 443 of 458 

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 pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) and has the 

capacity to combust 1 ton per day or less solid waste and 

is more than 50 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. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 444 of 458 

secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary 

purpose of recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power 

production facilities, as defined in section 3(17)(C) of 

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying 

cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of 

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn 

homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used 

oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the 

production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying 

cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste for 

the production of electric energy and steam or forms of 

useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain 

incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood 

wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air 

curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be 

established by the Administrator by rule. 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 445 of 458 

* * * * * 

80. 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

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of 

the state. 

b The 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 [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for 

CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 

4, 2010. 

81. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 446 of 458 

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 

limitationa Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using this 

method 

* * * * * * * 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

62 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time 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 (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 A4) 

* * * * * * * 

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) 

* * * * * * * 

b The 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 [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 447 of 458 

82. 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 

* * * * * * * * 

83. 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 

Requirementsa 

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 

• If a performance 

test was conducted 

during the reporting 

period, the results 

of the test 

• If a performance 

test was not 

conducted during the 

§§60.2765 

and 

60.2770 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 448 of 458 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

reporting period, a 

statement that the 

requirements of 

§60.2720(a) or (b) 

were met 

• Documentation of 

periods when all 

qualified CISWI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for more 

than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

* * * * * * * 

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 

* * * * * * * 

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced 

sections of the rule for the complete requirements. 

84. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows: 

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 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Cadmium 0.0013 

milligrams 

3-run average 

(collect a 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 449 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

minimum volume of 

2 dry standard 

cubic meters) 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish. 

Carbon 

monoxide 

16 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 10 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 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meter) 

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 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 an 

Performance test 

(Method 29 or 30B 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 450 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

ASTM D6784-02, 

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) 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(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). 

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 5 

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). 

a The 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 [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 451 of 458 

b All 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 ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 

85. Table 7 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows: 

Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply To Energy Recovery Units After 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa For the air 

pollutant Liquid/Gas Solids 

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

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. 

Biomass – 

260 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Carbon 

monoxide 

24 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

Coal – 47 

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). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

2.9 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

0.29 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 452 of 458 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa For the air 

pollutant Liquid/Gas Solids 

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

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 

0.0020 

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, 

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 

(2008)c. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 453 of 458 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa For the air 

pollutant Liquid/Gas Solids 

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

Biomass – 

230 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

76 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). 

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 A8) 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. 

Biomass – 

6.2 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Sulfur dioxide 720 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. 

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions 

Visible 

emissions 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

Visible 

emission test 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 454 of 458 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa For the air 

pollutant Liquid/Gas Solids 

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

for no more 

than 5 

percent of 

the hourly 

observation 

period 

for no more 

than 5 

percent of 

the hourly 

observation 

period 

periods (Method 22 at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-7). 

a All 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 ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org. 

86. 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 [INSERT 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Cadmium 0.00040 

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 390 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). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

0.029 

nanograms per 

3-run average 

(collect a 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 455 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

basis) dry standard 

cubic meter 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters) 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

0.0057 

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 

3.0 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. 

Lead 0.0025 

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 0.0070 

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 of this 

part.) 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

590 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). 

Particulate 

matter 

filterable 

16 milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

30-day rolling 

average 

PM CEMS 

(performance 

specification 11 of 

appendix B of this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 456 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

part). 

Sulfur dioxide 110 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). 

a All 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. 

87. 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 

[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

Cadmium 0.55 

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 47 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). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

1,400 

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) 

160 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

Performance 

test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR 

part 60, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 457 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

meter) appendix A-7). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

290 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 

26 or 26A at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-8). 

Lead 2.6 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 0.0053 

milligrams per

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02, 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 

(2008)b. 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

170 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). 

Particulate 

matter 

filterable 

290 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 A8). 

Sulfur dioxide 1,200 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). 

Fugitive ash Visible Three 1-hour Visible 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 458 of 458 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa Using this averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

emissions for 

no more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

observation periods emission test 

(Method 22 at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-7). 

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard 

conditions. 

b ASTM D6784-02 (2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). Available from American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 

C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, 

http://www.astm.org.