U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Title of Action: 

Docket#: FRL#: RIN:

This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available 

a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: 

(1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e., the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, 

an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are 

determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 

6(a)(3)(B) and (C)). 

(2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was 

subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. 

(3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.

For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 

12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.]

No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.]

Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1) – (3) below.]

Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public 

docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.]

(1) A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O. 

(2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was 

submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available.

The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the 

suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, are clearly identified through attribution to 

OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the 

appropriate option(s).]

(a) Redline-Strikeout – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using redlinestrikeout to show the substantive changes that were made.

(b) Hand Markup – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes 

to show the substantive changes that were made.

(c) Note to the file - A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made, 

with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted.

If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the 

contact:

Name: Email: Phone: 

Revised 05/05/2010 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments; NonHazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Proposed Rule

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 RIN 2060-AR15

Tab Tesnau tesnau.tab@epa.gov 703-605-0636
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

EO12866 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units; RIN 2060-AR15 Proposed Rule – Reconsideration 20111014 

 6560-50-P 

E.O. 12866 [file name] 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003-0119; FRL- ] 

RIN 2060-AR15 

40 CFR Part 241 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008-0329; FRL- ] 

RIN 2050-AG44 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: 

Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Solid Waste: Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rules; notice of reconsideration of final 

rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated its 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 (CISWI)units 

and the vacatur and remand of several definitions by the 

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007. The March 

21, 2011 action also included the 5-year technology review of 

the new source performance standards and emission guidelines 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 2 of 405 

required under section 129 of the Clean Air Act. That action 

also promulgated other amendments that the EPA believes were 

necessary to address air emissions from CISWI units. Following 

that action, the Administrator received petition[s] for 

reconsideration as well as identified some issues that warrant 

further opportunity for public comment. In response to the 

petition[s], the EPA is reconsidering and requesting comment on 

several provisions of the final new source performance standards 

and emission guidelines for CISWI units. 

In addition, EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR Part 

241, which was codified by the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

(NHSM) rule (76 FR 15456, et seq). Originally promulgated on 

March 21, 2011, the NHSM rule provides the standards and 

procedures for identifying whether NHSMs are solid waste under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when used as 

fuels or ingredients in combustion units. The purpose of these 

proposed amendments is to clarify several provisions to 40 CFR 

Part 241 in order implement the NHSM rule as the Agency 

originally intended. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before 

[INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 3 of 405 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak 

at a public hearing by [INSERT THE DATE 10 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a 

public hearing will be held on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. For further information on the public hearing and 

requests to speak, contact Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541–7946 to 

verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, 

it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA’s Environmental Research 

Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or an 

alternate site nearby. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the CISWI reconsideration 

and proposed rule, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0119, by one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. 

• Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2003-0119. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119. Please include a total of 

two copies. We request that a separate copy also be 

sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by Courier, deliver 

comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 4 of 405 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are accepted only during the docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Submit your comments on the NHSM proposed rule, identified 

by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to: rcra-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 

• Fax: Comments may be faxed to 202-566-9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- RCRA-2008-0329. 

• Mail: Send comments to: RCRA Docket, EPA Docket 

Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 

28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 

Please include a total of two copies of your comments. 

We request that a separate copy also be sent to the 

contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to: 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W, Washington 

DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments on the CISWI reconsideration 

and proposal to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. Direct your 

comments on the NHSM proposed rule to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA2008-0329. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 5 of 405 

available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 6 of 405 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 

Center, the EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room 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 Docket Center 

is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information 

regarding the CISWI reconsideration and proposed rule, contact

Ms. Toni Jones, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 7 of 405 

number: (919) 541–0316; fax number: (919) 541–3470; email 

address: jones.toni@epa.gov. 

For further information regarding the NHSM proposed rule, 

contact Mr. George Faison, Program Implementation and 

Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery, 5303P, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20460-

0002; telephone number: 703-305-7652; fax number: 703-308-0509; 

email address: faison.george@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. 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 

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BAT Best Available Technology 

Btu British Thermal Unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 8 of 405 

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 

DSW Definition of Solid Waste 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EMPC Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration 

EOM Extractable Organic Matter 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ERU Energy Recovery Unit 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitator 

FF Fabric Filters 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMI Hospital, Medical and Infectious 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration 

HWC Hazardous Waste Combustor 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISO International Standards Organization 

LBMS Linkageless Burner Management System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MDL Method Detection Level 

mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

mmBtu/hr Million British Thermal Units per Hour 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

MW Megawatts 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustor 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

ND Nondetect 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 9 of 405 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

NHSM Non-Hazardous Secondary Material(s) 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Pb Lead 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins 

PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PIC Product of Incomplete Combustion 

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 

SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound 

SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 10 of 405 

TBtu Tera British Thermal Unit 

TEF Total Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

TMB Total Mass Basis 

TOX Total Organic Halogens 

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 

U.S.C. United States Code 

UTL Upper Tolerance Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WWW Worldwide Web 

B. Does this notice of reconsideration and proposal apply to me? 

 Categories and entities potentially affected by the 

proposed action are those that operate commercial and industrial 

solid waste incineration (CISWI) units, and those that generate 

potentially affected non hazardous secondary materials. The new 

source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines 

(EG), hereinafter referred to as “standards,” for CISWI affect 

the following categories of sources: 

Category NAICS1

Code 

Examples of potentially regulated 

entities 

Any industrial 

or commercial 

facility using 

a solid waste 

incinerator 

211, 212, 

486 

Mining, oil and gas exploration 

operations; pipeline operators 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 11 of 405 

 221 Utility providers

321, 322, 

337 

Manufacturers of wood products; 

manufacturers of pulp, paper and 

paperboard; manufacturers of 

furniture and related products 

 325, 326 

Manufacturers of chemicals and allied 

products; manufacturers of plastics 

and rubber products 

 327 

Manufacturers of cement; nonmetallic 

mineral product manufacturing 

 333, 336 

Manufacturers of machinery; 

manufacturers of transportation 

equipment 

 423, 44, Merchant wholesalers, durable goods; 

retail trade 

Any facility 

or entity 

generating a 

non hazardous 

secondary 

material that 

may be burned 

for fuel or 

destruction2

111 Crop Production 

 112 Animal Production

 113 Forestry and Logging

 115 Support Activities for Agriculture 

and Forestry 

 211 Oil and Gas Extraction

 212 Mining (except oil and gas) 

 221 Utilities

 236 Construction of Buildings 

 311 Food Manufacturing

 312 Beverage and Tobacco Product 

Manufacturing 

 313 Textile Mills

 316 Leather and Allied Product 

Manufacturing 

 321 Wood Product Manufacturing 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 12 of 405 

 322 Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products 

 324 Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing 

 325 Chemical Manufacturing

 326 Plastics and Rubber Products 

Manufacturing 

 327 Non-Metallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing 

 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 

 332 Fabricated and Metal Product 

Manufacturing 

 333 Machinery Manufacturing 

 334 Computer and Electronic Product 

Manufacturing 

 336 Transportation Equipment 

Manufacturing 

 337 Furniture and Related Product 

Manufacturing 

 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 

 423 Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

 424 Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

 44-45 Retail Trade

 486 Pipeline Transportation 

 493 Warehousing and Storage 

 511 Publishing Industry (except internet)

 531 Real Estate

 541 Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services 

 611 Educational Services

 622 Hospitals

 623 Nursing and Residential Care 

Facilities 

 624 Social Assistance

 713930 Marinas

 721 Lodging, Restaurant

 722 Food Services and Drinking Places

 813 

Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, 

Professional, and Similar 

Organizations 

 92 Public Administration

 

1

 North American Industry Classification System. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 13 of 405 

2

 May be some overlap with the incinerators. 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the proposed action. To determine whether your 

facility would be affected by the proposed action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart 

CCCC, 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD, and 40 CFR 241. If you 

have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed 

action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA? 

 Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider 

to be CBI electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. For comments on the CISWI reconsideration and proposal, 

send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the 

following address: Ms. Toni Jones, c/o OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attn: Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-119. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 14 of 405 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM 

the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in 

the public docket. If you submit a disk or CD-ROM that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that 

it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

CFR part 2. 

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for 

claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

D. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related 

information? 

The docket number for the proposed action regarding the 

CISWI NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40 CFR part 

60, subpart DDDD) is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119. 

D. Worldwide Web (WWW)

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of the proposed action is available on the WWW through the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 15 of 405 

Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following 

signature, the EPA posted a copy of the proposed action on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Organization of this Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. 

I. CISWI Reconsideration and Proposal 

A. Background Information 

1. What is the history of the CISWI standards? 

2. How is the definition of solid waste addressed in the final 

CISWI rule? 

B. Actions We Are Taking 

C. Discussion of Issues for Reconsideration 

1. Revision of the Subcategories 

a. Energy recovery units 

b. Waste-burning kilns 

2. Establishment of limitations on fuel switching provisions 

3. Definitions of cyclonic burn barrels, burn-off ovens, soil 

treatment units, laboratory analysis units, and space heaters 

4. Providing an affirmative defense for malfunction events 

5. Revisions to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements 

6. Establishing a full-load stack test requirement for carbon 

monoxide coupled with continuous oxygen monitoring 

7. Establishing a definition of “homogeneous waste” 

8. Incorporating fuel variability into emission limit 

calculations 

9. Review of dioxin/furan data and non-detect methodology using 

three times the detection level 

10. Providing an option for sources to use emissions averaging 

to demonstrate compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 16 of 405 

11. Definitions 

a. Establishing a definition of foundry sand thermal 

reclamation unit 

b. Removing the definition of contained gaseous material 

c. Revising the definition of chemical recovery unit 

12. Allowances for using feed stream analysis or other 

supplemental information to demonstrate compliance 

13. Providing percent reduction alternative standards 

14. Providing parametric monitoring provisions for additional 

control device types 

15. Revisions to the continuous monitoring provisions for large 

ERUs 

16. Extending compliance dates 

D. Technical Corrections and Clarifications 

1. Providing a definition of municipal solid waste 

2. Energy recovery units designed to burn non-coal solid 

materials 

3. Typographical errors and corrections 

E. Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

1. What are the primary air impacts? 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts? 

3. What are the energy impacts? 

4. What are the secondary air impacts? 

5. What are the cost and economic impacts? 

6. What are the benefits? 

II. NHSM Proposed Revisions 

A. Statutory Authority 

B. What is the Intent of This Proposal? 

C. What is the Scope of This Proposal? 

1. Revised Definitions 

2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as Fuels 

3. Categorical Non-Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as 

Fuels 

4. Additional Request for Comment 

5. Effective Date of NHSM Final Rule 

6. Clarification Letters Issued After Promulgation of the NHSM 

Final Rule 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 17 of 405 

D. Rationale for the Proposed Revisions to the Part 241 

Requirements 

1. Revised Definitions 

2. Revisions to the Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM 

Used as Fuels 

3. Categorical Determinations That Specific NHSM Are Not Solid 

Waste When Used as a Fuel 

4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Non-Waste Determinations 

E. Additional Request for Comment 

F. Effect of Today’s Final Rule on Other Programs 

1. Clean Air Act 

2. Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program/Definition of Solid Waste 

Rule 

G. State Authority 

1. Relationship to State Programs 

2. State Adoption of the Rulemaking 

H. Cost and Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. CISWI Reconsideration and Proposal 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 18 of 405 

A. Background Information 

1. What is the history of the CISWI standards? 

On December 1, 2000, the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG for 

CISWI units (60 FR 75338), hereinafter referred to as the 2000 

CISWI rule. On August 17, 2001, the EPA granted a Request for 

Reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 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 the EPA’s CISWI rulemaking. 

In granting the petition for reconsideration, the 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (“Court”) challenging the EPA’s 

final CISWI rule. On September 6, 2001, the Court entered an 

order granting the EPA’s motion for a voluntary remand of the 

CISWI rule, without vacatur. The EPA’s request for a voluntary 

remand of the final CISWI rule was taken to allow the EPA to 

address concerns related to the 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 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 19 of 405 

(DC Cir. 2001)(Cement Kiln). Neither the EPA’s granting of the 

petition for reconsideration, nor the Court’s order granting a 

voluntary remand, stayed, vacated, or otherwise influenced the 

effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. Therefore, the remand 

order had no impact on the implementation of the 2000 CISWI 

rule. 

On February 17, 2004, the EPA published a proposed rule 

(CISWI Definitions 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, the 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 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 March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG 

for CISWI units (76 FR 15704). That action constitutes the EPA’s 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 20 of 405 

response to the voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI rule and to 

the 2007 vacatur and remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule. In 

addition, the EPA addressed the 5-year technology review that is 

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

2. How is the definition of solid waste addressed in the 

final CISWI rule? 

The RCRA definition of solid waste is integral in defining 

the CISWI source category. The EPA defines the non-hazardous 

secondary materials (NHSM) that are solid waste under RCRA in 

the final ”Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

That Are Solid Waste” Rulemaking. In an action parallel to the 

March 21, 2011 final CISWI rule, the EPA promulgated a final 

rule that identifies the standards and procedures for 

identifying whether non-hazardous secondary materials are or are 

not solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion 

units. That action, hereinafter referred to as the “2011 NHSM 

final rule,” is relevant to the final CISWI rule because some 

ERUs and waste-burning kilns combust, in their combustion units, 

secondary materials that are solid waste under the 2011 NHSM 

final rule. Commercial and industrial units that combust solid 

waste are subject to standards issued pursuant to CAA section 

129, rather than to standards issued pursuant to CAA section 112 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 21 of 405 

that would otherwise be applicable to such units (e.g. boilers, 

process heaters, and cement kilns). 

B. Actions We Are Taking 

 In this notice, we are granting reconsideration of, and 

requesting comment on, certain issues raised by Petitioners in 

their petitions for reconsideration and the issues identified by 

the EPA in the March 21, 2011, notice of reconsideration. These 

provisions are: 1) revision of the subcategory of energy 

recovery units; 2) establishment of limitations on fuel 

switching provisions; 3) revision of the definition of cyclonic 

burn barrels; 4) establishment of the procedures for providing 

an affirmative defense for malfunction events; 5) revisions to 

the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements; 6) establishment of 

a full-load stack test requirement for carbon monoxide coupled 

with continuous oxygen monitoring for CISWI units; and 7) 

establishment of a definition of “homogeneous waste” in the 

CISWI rule. The EPA is also proposing certain revisions, which 

are: 1) revised emission limits for the waste-burning kiln and 

energy recovery unit subcategories to reflect updated 

inventories and additional data, 2) the removal of continuous 

carbon monoxide monitoring with CO CEMS requirements, 3) the 

removal of oxygen correction requirements for carbon monoxide 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 22 of 405 

emission limits for energy recovery units during periods of 

startup and shutdown, and 4) the replacement of continuous 

particulate matter monitoring for ERUs greater than 250 MMBtu/hr 

design heat input capacity with continuous parameter monitoring 

system requirements. The EPA is taking comment on those 

revisions. Additionally, the EPA is proposing amendments and 

technical corrections to the final rule to clarify questions on 

final rule language and correct minor typographical errors 

raised by stakeholders subject to the final rule. Section I.C. 

of this preamble summarizes these issues and discusses our 

proposed responses to each issue. 

 We are also proposing other clarification changes and 

technical corrections to certain provisions in the final rule. 

We are seeking public comment only on the issues 

specifically identified in this notice. We will not respond to 

any comments addressing other aspects of the final rule or any 

other related rulemakings. 

C. Discussion of Issues for Reconsideration 

 This section of the preamble contains the EPA’s basis for 

the provisions we are reconsidering in this proposed rule. We 

solicit comment on all proposed responses and revisions 

discussed in the following sections. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 23 of 405 

1. Revision of the subcategories

Today’s proposal incorporates new emission limits based on 

revised inventories for two of the final rule subcategories, 

solid-fuel burning energy recovery units (ERU) and waste-burning 

kilns. Tables 1 and 2 present the proposed emission limits for 

all subcategories for existing and new sources, respectively. 

Table 1. Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits for 

2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits 

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

CISWI 

limit) 

 CISWI Subcategories

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

HCl (ppmv) 62 29 0.50 14b 3.0b 220

CO (ppmv) 157 36b 490 

(biomass 

units)/

46 (coal 

units)

36 120 (long 

kilns) / 410 

(preheater / 

precalciner) 

20

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

0.04 0.0036 0.0019 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.0031 

(coal 

units)

0.096 0.0043 2.7

Cd 

(mg/dscm)

0.004 0.0026 0.00078 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.058 

(coal 

units) 

0.023 0.00082 0.61

Hg 

(mg/dscm)

0.47 0.0054 0.0020 0.0031b 0.011b 0.0057
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 24 of 405 

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

CISWI 

limit) 

 CISWI Subcategories

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

70 34 11 

(biomass 

units) / 

86 (coal 

units)

110 9.2 230

Dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

(no 

limit) 

4.6 0.52 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.51 

(coal 

units)b

2.9b 3.6 1,200

Dioxin, 

furans, 

TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

0.41

0.13

0.12 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.075 

(coal 

units)b

0.32b 0.075b 57

NOx (ppmv) 388 53 290 

(biomass 

units)/

340 

(coal 

units)

76 630 240

SO2 (ppmv) 20 11 7.3 

(biomass 

units)/

650 

(coal 

units)

720 830 420

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 Reconsideration Proposal" for 

details on this calculation. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 25 of 405 

Table 2. Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 

CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits 

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

limit)

Final CISWI Subcategories

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

HCl (ppmv) 62 0.091 0.50c 14b 3.0b 200 

CO (ppmv) 157 12 160

(biomass 

units)/

46 (coal 

units)

36 90 (long 

kilns) / 320 

(preheater / 

precalciner)

12 

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

0.04 0.0019b 0.0019c

(biomass 

units) / 

0.0031 (coal 

units)

0.096 0.0043 0.26

Cd 

(mg/dscm)

0.004 0.0023 0.00014 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.058 (coal 

units)

0.023 0.00082c 0.61c

Hg 

(mg/dscm)

0.47 0.00084b 0.0020c 0.00091d 0.0037b 0.0035b

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

70 18 5.1 (biomass

units) / 86 

(coal 

units)c

110 8.9 230c

Dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

(no 

limit) 

0.058b 0.52 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.51 (coal 

units)b

(no limit) 0.51b 1,200c

Dioxin, 

furans, 

TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

0.41 0.13 0.076 

(biomass 

units) / 

0.075 (coal 

units)b

0.093d 0.075b 31 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 26 of 405 

Pollutant 

(units)a

Incinerators 

(2000 

limit)

Final CISWI Subcategories

Incinerators ERUs - 

Solids

ERUs – 

Liquid/Gas

Wasteburning 

kilns

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

NOx (ppmv) 388 23 290c

(biomass 

units)/

340 (coal 

units)

76 200b 78 

SO2 (ppmv) 20 11c 7.3c

(biomass 

units)/

650 (coal 

units)

720 130 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 Reconsideration Proposal” 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 Reconsideration Proposal " 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 Reconsideration Proposal " for details on 

this calculation. 

a. Energy recovery units

 In the final rule, we established separate subcategories 

based on the types of fuels and wastes ERUs were designed to 

burn. ERUs (i.e. units that would be boilers and process heaters 

but that they combust solid waste) designed to burn gaseous 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 27 of 405 

fuels and liquids that are solid waste were included in one 

primary subcategory, and the other primary subcategory was for 

units designed to burn solid fuels. The solid fuel ERU 

subcategory was further divided into separate subcategories for 

coal and biomass units, with separate limits for CO, NOx and SO2 

to account for significant differences in unit design for these 

two types of fuels and the impacts the different unit designs 

have on emissions of these pollutants. 

 Petitioners have contended that they did not have adequate 

opportunity to comment on the ERU subcategories presented in the 

final rule. Some have suggested that all nine emission limits 

should be divided between coal and biomass ERUs, instead of only 

having different limits for CO, NOx and SO2. We are granting 

reconsideration of our subcategorization approach for ERUs and 

are also proposing to divide emission limits for PM, Cd, Pb and 

dioxin/furan between coal and biomass units. The generation of 

PM is affected by the combustor design and operation. Therefore, 

design differences between biomass and coal ERU units have an 

impact on the generation of PM. We also are separating Cd and Pb 

with PM primarily due to the observation that these metals 

typically precipitate onto PM and are controlled along with PM. 

Finally, while dioxin/furan formation depends to some extent on 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 28 of 405 

the amount of chlorine available in the combustion gases, it is 

also affected by the amount of time the chlorine and hydrocarbon 

materials remain within a particular temperature range. The time 

gases remain in this range is a function of the combustor 

design, therefore, we have proposed separate limits for 

dioxin/furan as well. We are taking comment on the proposed 

revisions to the subcategorization of ERUs, including whether we 

should also subcategorize for HCl and Hg. 

 Since issuing the final CISWI rule, we have received data 

and information in both petitions and data submittals that 

indicated our inventory of ERUs used to develop the final rule 

standards required some adjustments to more accurately reflect 

the definition of solid waste in the 2011 NHSM final rule. Based 

on the new data, we removed 5 units from the final rule 

inventory that we determined to be non-waste burning units, and 

we added 3 units to our inventory that we determined combust 

solid waste. We also received emissions data for the newly added 

units and re-analyzed the performance of ERUs in the solidbiomass and solid-coal energy recovery unit subcategories. The 

emission limits in today’s proposal reflect the new inventory 

and emission data received; however, we have used the same 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 29 of 405 

methodology as in the final rule for establishing emission 

limits. We are not taking comment on this methodology. 

b. Waste-burning kilns

 The EPA has performed an analysis of the materials being 

combusted in the entire inventory of Portland cement kilns in 

light of the final NHSM rule (See memorandum “Revised Floors 

without Kilns that Would have been CISWI Kilns Had the Solid 

Waste Definition Applied” in the CISWI docket). As a result of 

this analysis, we have added 11 more kilns to our inventory of 

waste-burning kilns. We have also obtained emissions test data 

for the newly identified CISWI kilns and re-calculated the MACT 

floor emission limits for the waste-burning kilns subcategory 

based on the new inventory and additional data. As with the new 

ERU standards, we have used the same methodology to establish 

today’s proposed emission limits as we used for the final rule; 

therefore, we are not accepting comment on the methodology used 

to calculate the limits. We are also requesting comment on 

whether waste-burning kiln emission limits should be expressed 

on a production (e.g., lb per million tons clinker produced) 

basis instead of, or in addition to, concentration based limits. 

Table 3 presents the emission limits for particulate matter, NOx, 

SO2 and Hg on a production basis for comparison. Comments should 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 30 of 405 

clarify which pollutants could warrant production-based limits, 

and the rationale for using a production basis. 

Table 3. Waste-burning Kiln Emission Limits Expressed in 

Production Basis 

Pollutant (units) Existing kilns New kilns 

Hg (lb/MM ton 

clinker) 

58 21 

PM (lb/ton clinker) 0.052 0.050 

NOx (lb/ton clinker) 0.53 0.17 

SO2 (lb/ton clinker) 0.97 0.16 

 

2. Establishment of limitations on fuel switching provisions

The final rule included provisions to address the situation 

where CISWI units cease combusting solid waste, and where 

existing commercial and industrial facilities start combusting 

solid waste. Units that cease combusting solid waste remain 

subject to CISWI for at least 6 months after solid waste is 

added to the combustion chamber. After 6 months, sources must 

either comply with any applicable section 112 standards or, if 

they intend to combust solid waste in the unit in the future, 

opt to remain subject to CISWI. Sources switching out of CISWI 

due to cessation of solid waste combustion must submit advance 

notification of the effective date of the waste-to-non-waste 

fuel switch consistent with new procedures in the final rule. 

Units that begin combusting solid waste are considered affected 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 31 of 405 

sources under CISWI emission guidelines, and must comply as 

expeditiously as possible as required by the state or Federal 

CISWI 111(d)/129 plan revision, whichever is applicable. 

The EPA acknowledges that sources may stop and start 

combusting 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. The provisions in the final rule account 

for the fact that facilities may start and stop combusting solid 

waste and ensure that any resulting changes in applicability 

between section 129 and section 112 rules do not occur with so 

much frequency that sources are unable to demonstrate continuing 

compliance with the applicable standards. To ensure that 

frequent switching does not impede our ability to determine 

continuous compliance and create undue permitting and testing 

burdens, sources remain subject to CISWI for a minimum of 6 

months. The definition of CISWI unit has been revised to clarify 

that a CISWI unit includes a distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that combusts any solid waste 

in a consecutive 6-month period. We believe this change will 

reduce administrative and compliance costs to both the source 

and the regulatory agencies. For example, sources will not have 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 32 of 405 

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 for the 6 

month period after waste is added to the combustion unit. For 

example, if a source burns waste on January 1, they would be 

subject to CISWI through June 30. If during that 6 month period 

they burned waste again, for example on March 1, the 6 month 

window would now be until September 30. 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 determines that continued compliance 

with CISWI is appropriate because the source intends to combust 

solid waste in the future. Source owners or operators may, 

alternatively, choose a date at least 6 months after ceasing 

solid waste combustion on which they would no longer be subject 

to CISWI, and would instead be subject to any applicable section 

112 standards. This date is called the effective date of the 

waste-to-fuel switch. 

Specifically, the new provisions direct a source owner or 

operator to establish an effective date for the waste-to-nonwaste fuel, or non-waste fuel-to-waste switch, and that date 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 33 of 405 

becomes the date on which all of the newly applicable 

requirements apply. When a source begins combusting solid waste, 

the effective date of the non-waste fuel-to-waste switch must be 

the same as the actual date the unit begins combusting solid 

waste because by statute any source that combusts any solid 

waste is a solid waste incineration unit subject to standards 

under CAA section 129. See section 129(g)(1) (defining “solid 

waste incineration unit”). For sources that cease burning solid 

waste, the effective date for the waste-to-fuel switch is a date 

that is at least 6 months after the last date on which solid 

waste is added to the combustion unit. This allows sources that 

cease combusting solid waste to comply with an applicable NESHAP 

or opt to remain subject to CISWI at the discretion of the owner 

or operator. We allow the owner or operator of a CISWI unit the 

option of remaining subject to CISWI to account for sources that 

may want to retain the ability to burn waste intermittently 

without having to periodically switch between the section 112 

and section 129 regulatory programs. If a source wishes to end 

applicability of CISWI to its unit, the source must submit an 

advance notification of the effective date, established as 

described above, of the waste-to-non-waste fuel switch. The 

source must be in compliance on the effective date of the waste-
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 34 of 405 

to-non-waste fuel switch with any NESHAP that applies as a 

result of ceasing the combustion of solid waste. The source must 

remain in continuous compliance with the CISWI regulations until 

that date. 

The new waste-to-non-waste fuel switch provisions in the 

final rule include requirements to conduct performance testing 

that will assure compliance with all applicable standards. 

Specifically, performance tests must be conducted within 60 days 

of the date on which the unit begins combusting solid waste. In 

addition, the owner or operator must collect and report any PM 

CEMS and/or PM parametric monitoring data for those monitors 

that are operated at the same time as the performance test to 

determine whether the existing calibrations and/or correlations 

are still applicable. After the testing is completed, and it is 

demonstrated that the source is operating in compliance with the 

applicable standards, the owner or operator should adjust any PM 

CEMS calibration and any correlation for PM to correspond to the 

performance test results and data. 

The new provisions also require advance notification of the 

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

notification includes basic information that will enable the 

reviewing authority to determine the date on which CISWI will no 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 35 of 405 

longer apply to the facility and the date on which any newly 

applicable section 112 regulations may apply. Notification must 

be submitted to both the EPA Regional Office and the delegated 

state or local agency. To ensure that frequent switching does 

not impede our ability to determine continuous compliance, 

sources may not switch between applicable section 129 and 

section 112 standards without completing the initial performance 

test. Therefore, sources that wish to start burning solid waste 

before they have demonstrated compliance with their existing 

section 112 standard must complete the performance test for the 

112 rule before switching to solid waste combustion. If a source 

switches back to a non-waste fuel or non-waste material for 

which a performance test was conducted within the 6 months 

preceding the effective date of the 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 emission limits for 

which compliance is determined on an annual average or other 

averaging period that is for a period of time greater than the 

period in which the source will be combusting the fuel or nonwaste material, the source must comply with the emission limit 

averaged over the shorter time period in which the fuel or 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 36 of 405 

material is combusted. For example, if a source chooses to 

demonstrate compliance with the Hg limits of the major source 

Boiler NESHAP through fuel analysis, which has a 12-month 

rolling average limit, and opts to start combusting 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 rolling 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. An existing source will not be considered a new 

source solely due to a combustion material switch. Assuming new 

source applicability isn’t triggered, existing sources that 

change fuels or materials are considered existing sources and, 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 37 of 405 

as such, they must be in compliance on the date they begin 

combusting the new fuel or material. For all sources that 

commence combustion of solid waste, the CISWI requirements 

become applicable on the date that the fuel switch occurs. 

While we believe the final rule reflects reasonable 

approaches consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act, we believe reconsideration and additional opportunity for 

public review and comment should be obtained. Therefore, we are 

seeking comment on the fuel switching provisions included in the 

final CISWI rule. Additionally, we are soliciting comment on an 

alternative time period for switching frequency (e.g., 12 

months). 

3. Definitions of cyclonic burn barrels, burn-off ovens, 

soil treatment units, laboratory analysis units, and space 

heaters from CISWI subcategories

EPA included in the final rule definitions for units that 

differentiated such units from the four subcategories for which 

the Agency finalized standards on March 21, 2011. The 

definitions were not proposed and EPA is proposing those 

definitions in this notice to provide the public an opportunity 

to comment on them. We discuss each definition below. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 38 of 405 

In the proposed CISWI rule, EPA included cyclonic burn 

barrels within the definition for incinerators. Based on the 

information received during the comment period, the EPA 

determined that cyclonic burn barrels and traditional 

incinerators should be separate subcategories. See 40 CFR 

60.2265 and 60.2875 (defining “cyclonic burn barrel” to mean a 

combustion device for waste materials that is attached to a 55 

gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of a lid, which fits 

onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces combustion 

air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing of 

waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a 

small, remote incinerator under subparts CCCC or DDDD.) 

In addition, information we have obtained since proposal 

indicates that there may be many more cyclonic burn barrels than 

those we have identified, and we have almost no emission data on 

which to set emissions standards for cyclonic burn barrels. We 

also received information that it is difficult if not impossible 

to test cyclonic burn barrels for the CAA section 129 pollutants 

using available test methods. For these reasons, we concluded in 

the final rules that cyclonic burn barrels were not incinerators 

and that we could not establish standards for such units at the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 39 of 405 

time we issued the final rules. We further determined in the 

final rule that we did not need to regulate cyclonic burn 

barrels to comply with our CAA section 112(c)(6) obligation for 

the reasons set forth in the preamble to the final rule. We have 

not received any new emission data for cyclonic burn barrels; 

therefore, we are not proposing to establish standards such 

units in this notice. We solicit comment concerning our 

decisions in regard to cyclonic burn barrels and the definition 

as set forth in the final rule. 

We estimated in the proposed CISWI rule that there were 

approximately 36 burn-off ovens, and we proposed standards for 

the subcategory based on an incomplete emission data set. We 

received many comments during the comment period that indicated 

that there may be 15,000 more units in the burn-off oven 

subcategory than we had identified, and the comments also 

indicated that the subcategory for which we established one set 

of standards in fact has many different types of units that 

should not be regulated under one standard. Based on the 

comments, the lack of data, and our determination that we did 

not need to regulate burn-off ovens to comply with our CAA 

section 112(c)(6) obligation, we did not finalize standards for 

burn-off ovens. We revised the definition of burn-off oven in 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 40 of 405 

the final rule to distinguish such units from the units for 

which we established standards. We have not received data that 

would allow us to establish standards for the various burn-off 

oven subcategories and, therefore, we are not proposing 

standards in this reconsideration notice. We solicit comment on 

our decisions concerning to burn-off ovens and on our definition 

as set forth in the final rule. 

EPA believed there were two soil treatment units prior to 

proposing the CISWI standards and we proposed to include soil 

treatment units in the waste-burning kilns subcategory. 

Commenters indicated that soil treatment units are not kilns and 

also that the Agency had significantly underestimated the number 

of such units currently in operation. Based on the comments and 

our determination that we did not need such units to comply with 

our CAA section 112(c)(6) obligation, we did not finalize 

standards for soil treatment units. We included a definition for 

soil treatment unit in the final rule to distinguish such units 

from the units for which we established standards. We have not 

received additional data since issuing the final standards that 

would allow us to adequately characterize the soil treatment 

unit subcategory and we are not proposing standards for such 

units in this reconsideration notice. We solicit comment 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 41 of 405 

concerning our decisions in regard to soil treatment units and 

our definition as set forth in the final rule. 

The EPA received many comments concerning laboratory 

analysis units during the comment period on the proposed rule. 

The EPA concluded based on those comments that samples used in 

laboratory analysis units have a purpose separate from the 

disposal of material. Furthermore, we believe based on the 

information available that the material that is combusted in 

such units is likely not a solid waste as that term is defined 

in the 2011 NHSM final rule. For these reasons and because we 

determined we do not need such units to comply with our CAA 

112(c)(6) obligation, we included in the final rule a definition 

of laboratory analysis unit that distinguishes such units from 

the units for which we established standards. We have not 

received any information since issuing the final rule on the 

emissions from laboratory analysis units or the nature of the 

material combusted in such units that causes us to revise the 

conclusions reached in the final rule. We solicit comment 

concerning our decisions in regard to laboratory analysis units 

and our definition as set forth in the final rule. 

The EPA did not consider space heaters in the proposed 

rule. The Agency received comments inquiring whether such units 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 42 of 405 

were subject to the proposed standards if they combusted solid 

waste. Because the EPA did not consider such units when 

proposing the CISWI standards and we did not have emissions data 

for space heaters, we included in the final rule a definition of 

space heaters that was intended to distinguish such units from 

the units for which the Agency finalized standards. As with the 

other units discussed in this section, EPA does not have to 

regulate space heaters to comply with the CAA 112(c)(6) 

obligation. We have not received any emissions information on 

space heaters since issuing the final CISWI standards; 

therefore, we are not proposing to regulate such units in the 

reconsideration notice. We have, however, identified 

typographical errors included in the definition of space heater 

contained in the final CISWI standards and we are proposing a 

definition that corrects those typographical errors: “Space 

heater means a usually portable appliance for heating a 

relatively small area. A space heater is not an incinerator, 

waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote 

incinerator under this subpart.” We solicit comment concerning 

our decisions in regard to space heaters and our revised 

definition set forth above. 

4. Providing an affirmative defense for malfunction events
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 43 of 405 

 The 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)). The EPA therefore added to the final rule an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits 

that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 60.2265 and 60.2875 

(defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding.). We also 

added other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that 

are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met 

all of the elements set forth in 60.2120 and 60.2685. See 40 CFR 

22.24. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the 

emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 44 of 405 

CFR 60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not 

caused by poor maintenance and/or careless operation). For 

example, to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the 

source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess 

emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

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

normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to 

minimize emissions in accordance with section §60.11(d) and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission 

limitations were being exceeded....” and that “[a]ll possible 

steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions 

on ambient air quality, the environment and human health...” In 

any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the 

respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties 

may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA. See 

also 40 CFR part 22.77. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 45 of 405 

 While we believe the final rule reflects reasonable 

approaches consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act, we believe reconsideration and additional opportunity for 

public review and comment should be obtained. We are therefore 

seeking comment on the inclusion of the affirmative defense 

provisions in the final rule. 

5. Revisions to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements

In the March 21, 2011 notice of reconsideration, the EPA 

initiated reconsideration of the requirements to continuously 

monitor for carbon monoxide. Petitioners have identified 

computational issues for correcting carbon monoxide 

concentration measurements to 7 percent oxygen for periods when 

the oxygen content of the flue gas approaches the ambient air 

oxygen content. The equation for the 7 percent oxygen correction 

is X ppm CO*(20.9 – 7)/(20.9 - %O2 of flue gas stream). As seen 

by this equation, as the flue gas stream oxygen content gets 

closer to 20.9, the value of X is multiplied by an ever 

increasing factor. For example, when the stack gas oxygen 

content is 4 percent, the factor is 0.82. If the stack gas 

oxygen content is 20 percent, the factor increases to 15.4. 

Therefore, a flue gas CO concentration reading of 100 ppm would 

be corrected to 82 ppm for a stack gas at 4 percent oxygen 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 46 of 405 

content, but would become a 1,540 ppm corrected concentration 

for a stack gas at 20 percent oxygen content. In the extreme, at 

a 20.8 percent stack gas concentration (i.e., approximating 

ambient air oxygen content), the same 100 ppm measurement would 

be corrected to 13,700 ppm. 

Petitioners have noted that oxygen contents relatively 

close to ambient air are often maintained during combustion unit 

startup and shutdown in order to safely operate the combustion 

unit. Therefore, CO readings during these periods would be 

multiplied by an uncharacteristically high correction factor, 

and the resulting corrected CO concentrations are artificially 

inflated due to the 7 percent oxygen correction. Petitioners and 

commenters argue and presented data that show these artificially 

inflated data points drive the 30-day rolling average values for 

the unit beyond the emission limit. 

Petitioners have suggested various approaches to remedy 

this situation, with one being to simply waive the 7 percent 

oxygen correction requirement during unit startup and shut 

downs. In other words, the CEMS data as reported at stack gas 

concentration would be included in the rolling average 

calculations for periods when the combustion unit is either 

being started up or shut down. During all other operating 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 47 of 405 

periods, the CEMS data is corrected to a 7 percent oxygen 

concentration prior to calculating the rolling average. 

We received data for one unit in one subcategory (coal 

energy recovery units) that indicates startups usually occur 

over a 4 hour-period, and shutdowns occur over a one-hour 

period. Therefore, we are proposing provisions for calculating 

the 30-day CO rolling average that allow the uncorrected CEMS 

reading to be used during the first 4 hours of operation from a 

cold start and the 1 hour of operation following the last waste 

material being fed to the combustion unit during shut down 

procedures of the unit. Sources must indicate in the CEMS data 

records which CEMS data are obtained during the 4 hour startup 

and 1 hour shutdown period. 

Additionally, in order to be consistent with similar 

requirements for non-waste fuel-fired boilers and process 

heaters, we have removed continuous CO monitoring requirements 

for new and existing ERU units, instead making CO monitoring 

with CEMS a compliance alternative and, for larger units, 

requiring annual CO stack tests and continuous oxygen monitoring 

instead. We have also removed the continuous CO monitoring 

requirements for new CISWI units in the other subcategories, but 

allow them to demonstrate compliance using CO CEMS if they so 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 48 of 405 

choose. The 7 percent oxygen correction waiver during startup 

and shutdowns discussed above would apply to any CISWI sources 

that elect to demonstrate compliance with the CO limits with a 

CO CEMS instead of performing stack tests. We are requesting 

comment on these proposed revisions to the final rule CO 

monitoring requirements. 

6. Establishing a full-load stack test requirement for carbon 

monoxide coupled with continuous oxygen monitoring

In the March 21, 2011 notice of reconsideration, the EPA 

initiated reconsideration on the requirement of coupling a fullload stack test for CO coupled with continuous oxygen monitoring 

to demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO emission 

limits. While this requirement pertains primarily to 

requirements contained within the major source boiler NESHAP, 

there are similar requirements in the final CISWI rule for 

existing units. Specifically, existing energy recovery units 

with a design heat input capacity over 100 MMBtu/hr must 

demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO emission limits 

with an annual CO stack test and monitoring the oxygen content 

of the flue gas using a continuous oxygen monitoring system. 

 As discussed earlier, we have removed the CO CEMS 

requirements for existing units, instead allowing the option for 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 49 of 405 

sources to use CO CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the 

standards. We are also requesting comment on allowing the option 

to use CO CEMS instead of oxygen monitoring is of potential use 

to affected sources and implementing agencies, and also whether 

the oxygen monitoring requirements coupled with an annual CO 

stack provides an appropriate parameter to ensure optimized 

combustion short of direct CO measurements. 

 Petitioners have also commented that the final rule 

continuous oxygen monitoring requirements would preclude the use 

of existing oxygen monitoring systems that may already be 

installed on these units to help manage combustor operation. 

Petitioners have claimed that, by requiring the system meet 

Performance Specification 3 requirements, it is unlikely that 

existing oxygen monitors are located in a position that would 

enable their use for compliance demonstration. As a result, 

sources would need to install and operate an additional oxygen 

monitoring system. Petitioners contend that this additional 

system would be an added expense, and would be located too far 

downstream of the combustion chamber to provide accurate data 

regarding combustion characteristics so would be of no use to 

combustor operation. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 50 of 405 

 We are therefore proposing revisions to the continuous 

oxygen monitoring provisions in today’s action that would afford 

the ability for existing sources to use their current oxygen 

analyzer and oxygen trim systems to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. We are requesting comment on the practicality of the 

proposed provisions, and whether alternative monitoring 

approaches are available that would ensure that the oxygen 

monitoring system is sited and operated to give accurate 

readings while minimizing the need for potentially duplicative 

monitoring systems. 

7. Establishing a definition of “homogeneous waste” 

 The EPA included in the final CISWI rule a definition of 

homogenous waste and a process for evaluating claims that a 

particular waste stream is homogenous. 

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 the EPA, 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 51 of 405 

that the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste are 

consistent throughout such that the emission profile of any 

sample of waste combusted is similar or identical to any other 

sample. Mixtures of different types of wastes are generally not 

homogeneous, unless the mixtures are from materials that are 

each individually determined to be homogeneous, are from known 

origin, are mixed in constant proportion, and are conditioned or 

processed, such as could occur in the gasification of the 

wastes. Municipal solid waste can never be homogeneous because 

it does not have a defined origin. Likewise, refuse derived fuel 

cannot be homogeneous because it is derived from municipal solid 

waste. Refuse derived fuel is also specifically excluded from 

the qualifying small power production and cogeneration 

facilities exemption at CAA section 129(g)(1). 

In the final rule, the EPA stated that a determination 

concerning whether a waste is homogeneous is made on a case-bycase basis. The EPA added provisions to the CISWI final rule 

that require source owners or operators seeking the exemption to 

submit a request for a homogeneous waste fuel determination to 

the EPA, and that they support their request with information 

describing the materials to be combusted and why they believe 

the waste is homogeneous. The final rule also indicated that the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 52 of 405 

determination of what constitutes a homogeneous waste is not 

delegable to the state or local agencies. 

We are proposing the definition of homogeneous waste and 

the provisions for making homogenous waste determinations to 

provide the public an opportunity to comment on the provision. 

8. Incorporating fuel variability into emission limit 

calculations

 The proposed and final CISWI rule emission limits were 

calculated based primarily on emissions test data. Commenters 

urged the EPA to incorporate fuel variability into the emission 

limit calculations as was done in the boiler NESHAP. Petitioners 

have since claimed that the EPA did not adequately address 

comments regarding this issue. In today’s proposal, we are 

providing further clarification on our response to this issue. 

In the preamble to the final CISWI rule, we explained the 

methodology used to establish the final emission limits, which 

relied almost exclusively on direct measurements. CISWI units by 

definition are burning wastes, usually in combination with 

various non-waste fuels, and often with a variety of different 

waste streams. As a result, fuel variability data would only 

account for a variability found in a fraction of the materials 

being input into the unit. We have, in fact, considered total 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 53 of 405 

material feed variability in establishing limits for mercury for 

waste-burning kilns (76 FR 15727). To enable this analysis, we 

had to rely on data available from sources that provided 

materials analysis for all materials being fed into Portland 

cement kilns over a 30-day span. We did not, and do not still, 

have such data available for other pollutants and other types of 

CISWI unit. Therefore, we are not proposing the use of fuel 

variability in our emission limit methodology, except as noted 

above. We are requesting comments and supporting data that would 

allow us to consider an approach similar to the waste-burning 

kiln mercury limits for other pollutants and subcategories. 

9. Review of dioxin/furan data and non-detect methodology using 

three times the detection level

Several petitioners have argued that the dioxin/furan 

emission limits are based primarily on emissions data that are 

below detection levels and have suggested that these data not be 

included in emissions calculations, or at a minimum, establish a 

minimum emission limit value that is quantifiable by most 

laboratories available to analyze this data. We proposed and, in 

the final rule, used a methodology that sets the emission limit 

at a level that is at least three times the detection limit of 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 54 of 405 

the emission tests of the best performing units used in the MACT 

floor emission limit calculations. We have, however, reviewed 

the dioxin/furan data in more detail to ensure that all data are 

correctly identified as either non-detection or detection level 

limited, where some of the fractions may be non-detection, but 

not all of them. While our findings found the most data were 

accurately identified, there were a few average values that were 

reclassified as “detection level limited.” However, these 

corresponding run data were correctly identified and were 

included in the three times the detection limit methodology. 

Therefore, no dioxin/furan emission limits were impacted due to 

this review. 

In addition, the EPA conducted a review of sampling volumes 

and detection levels across various emission testing information 

collection request (ICR) efforts on various combustion sources 

(See memorandum “Updated data and procedure for handling below 

detection level data in analyzing various pollutant emissions 

databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits” in the CISWI 

docket). As a result of this analysis, we have determined 

recommended values for three times the reported detection level 

(3xRDL) that may be used as a minimum emission limit value that 

can be accurately measured by most laboratories. These 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 55 of 405 

recommended values were then compared with calculated emission 

limits and, if the calculated limit is less than the recommended 

3xRDL, the 3xRDL value is selected as the limit. This premise 

for this approach is the same as described in the final rule, 

but using a broader data set to establish the 3xRDL value. We 

have not changed the methodology of the emission limit 

calculation or tabulation of the three times the detection limit 

value that was used in the final CISWI rule. Therefore. , we are 

not accepting comment on the emission limit calculation 

methodology. 

One petitioner has suggested that dioxin/furan emission 

limits should not be less than 0.3 ng/dscm. We are requesting 

comment and data on whether 0.3 ng/dscm or the recommended 3xRDL 

values for each test method are sufficient to reflect 

quantifiable concentration levels, or whether other values 

should be selected as a lower quantification boundary for 

emission limits for CISWI sources. 

10. Providing an option for sources to use emissions averaging 

to demonstrate compliance

Several petitioners contend that the EPA did not adequately 

address comments on the issue of allowing sources with multiple 

CISWI units at a facility to use emissions averaging to 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 56 of 405 

demonstrate compliance, similar to the provisions provided in 

the major source boiler NESHAP. The boiler MACT allows emissions 

averaging across subcategories within an affected facility. The 

applicability of CISWI is such that each unit is an affected 

facility, if it otherwise meets the applicability of the rule. 

We can not allow emissions averaging across affected facilities 

because we establish MACT on an affected facility basis and it 

would be impossible to justify MACT when averaged across 

affected facilities. 

11. Definitions

a. Establishing a definition of foundry sand thermal 

reclamation unit

Following publication of the final rule and the NHSM rule, 

we were made aware of a certain class of unit that had not 

previously been considered a CISWI unit, but could potentially 

be considered a type of CISWI once the NHSM rule came into 

effect. These units are called thermal sand reclamation (TSR) 

units, and are a component of a foundry’s “sand loop.” We have 

concluded that these units are parts reclamation units as 

defined in the 2000 CISWI rule. We defined parts reclamation 

units as “unit[s] that burn coatings off parts (e.g., tools, 

equipment) so that the parts can be reconditioned and reused.” 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 57 of 405 

In the 2011 CISWI rule, parts reclamation units are a 

subcategory of burn-off ovens. Thermal reclamation units that 

recover foundry sands serve the same purpose as other parts 

reclamation units that recover metal parts. Specifically, 

foundry sand units recover parts (i.e., sand) by removing 

coatings (e.g., binders and resins) from the foundry molds. 

Thus, TSR units are part reclamation units that remove coatings 

that are on foundry sand, which allows re-use of the sand. As 

with other burn-off ovens, TSR parts reclamation units conserve 

natural resources (i.e., virgin sand) and minimize the use of 

landfill capacity for foundry sand. 

As with other burn-off ovens, we do not currently have 

emissions data for TSR units and regulation of such units is not 

required to comply with the Agency’s CAA 112(c)(6) obligation. 

For these reasons, we are not proposing standards for TSR units 

are this time. 

We are soliciting comment on the proposed definition of TSR 

units. 

b. Removing the definition of contained gaseous material

EPA did not propose to remove the definition of contained 

gaseous material in the proposed CISWI standards. In the final 

CISWI rule preamble (76 FR 15708), we removed definitions that 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 58 of 405 

define or clarify what constitutes a solid waste from the 

standards to minimize confusion in light of the definition of 

solid waste in the final NHSM rule. The definition of “contained 

gaseous material” was one of the definitions that was removed 

from the 2000 CISWI standards. 

Several petitioners have noted some ambiguities regarding 

the historical interpretation of what gases could be considered 

to be solid waste (i.e., a “contained gas”) and how this issue 

was discussed in the preamble of the final NHSM rule. These 

petitioners have requested that the EPA reconsider the removal 

of the definition of "contained gaseous material" in the CISWI 

rule, since the exact definition still appears in subparts EEEE 

and FFFF of part 60 (§60.2977 and §60.3078) and in subpart III 

of part 62 (§62.14840), which addresses federal plan 

requirements for certain CISWIs. In other words, the removal of 

the definition from the CISWI rule could imply that there would 

be a different approach or interpretation of "contained gaseous 

material" depending upon the type of solid waste incineration 

unit regulated under CAA section 129, which was not the Agency's 

intention. Accordingly, we are retaining the previously included 

definition of contained gaseous material in this rule to provide 

clarity to the regulated community. Furthermore, retaining the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 59 of 405 

definition is consistent other discussions within this preamble 

regarding the NHSM Rule, which clarifies our intent with respect 

to contained gas. EPA is soliciting comment on the need to 

retain the definition of contained gaseous material. 

c. Revising definition of chemical recovery unit

 Following publication of the final rule and the NHSM rule, 

we received additional information about a handful of combustion 

units that had previously not been regulated as CISWI sources, 

but could potentially be considered a type of CISWI unit once 

the 2011 NHSM final rule came into effect. However, these units 

do not adequately fit into any of the four subcategories of 

units in the final CISWI standards. The units that have been 

identified are sulfuric acid regeneration units (SARUs) that may 

be burning sulfur-bearing compounds which are classified as nonhazardous waste at facilities that are non-RCRA Part B permitted 

SARUs. Stakeholders have identified four such facilities, and 

have contended that response to comments and preamble language 

in both the 2011 NHSM final rule and the final CISWI rule are 

confusing and inadequately address their particular questions on 

applicability of CISWI to these units. The stakeholders ask 

specifically which subcategory should apply to these units, 

noting that none of the four subcategory definitions expressly 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 60 of 405 

include SARUs in their definitions. Furthermore, stakeholders 

note that the EPA has included a definition of chemical recovery 

unit in the final rule that more properly addresses SARUs as 

well as other types of chemical recovery unit. 

To address this issue and clarify applicability for 

chemical recovery units more generally, we are revising the 

definition of chemical recovery unit to clarify that chemical 

recovery units are not incinerators, waste-burning kilns, energy 

recovery units or small, remote incinerators under subparts CCCC 

or DDDD. 

12. Providing allowances for using feed stream analysis or other 

supplemental information to demonstrate compliance

The final rule specifies emissions testing, continuous 

emissions monitoring, and control device parameter monitoring to 

ensure continuing compliance with the emission standards. Some 

petitioners have requested responses to comments on providing 

provisions that would allow use of feed stream analysis and 

other supplemental information instead of the monitoring 

requirements specified. As an example, petitioners have asked if 

a source could use a material analysis to show that only minimal 

amounts of a pollutant compound enter the combustion unit. That 

data, along with data on the flue gas flow rate information 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 61 of 405 

could be used by sources to calculate a maximum possible 

pollutant concentration. The petitioners further argue that the 

source could then demonstrate that the maximum potential 

concentration is less than the applicable emission limit, and 

the source would not have to perform an emissions test for that 

pollutant. 

 We have not proposed any such provisions in today’s rule, 

and believe that direct measurement of emissions is the most 

comprehensive and accurate method to ascertain compliance with 

the final standards. Furthermore, CAA section 129(c) states that 

the EPA “shall... promulgate regulations requiring the owner or 

operator of each solid waste incineration unit – (1) To monitor 

emissions from the unit at the point at which such emissions are 

emitted into the ambient air... and at such other points as 

necessary to protect public health and the environment.” The 

EPA is thus constrained by the statute in our ability to 

implement the commenter’s proposed monitoring approach. 

13. Providing percent reduction alternative standards

The final rule contains numeric emission limits for all 

nine pollutants listed in CAA section 129(a)(4)(requiring 

numerical emissions limits for the 9 identified pollutants). The 

proposed and final rules describe at length the methodology used 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 62 of 405 

to establish these emission limits. However, petitioners and 

commenters suggested that the EPA should also establish 

alternative percent reduction standards to the numeric emission 

limits. Petitioners allege that we did not adequately address 

this comment in the preamble to our final rule or supporting 

documents. Therefore, we are providing our response to this 

issue in today’s proposal. 

The CISWI database does not include percent removal data 

except in very limited instances. This data was seldom provided 

voluntarily, and was not required by the EPA during the emission 

test information collection request. This is due to the 

increased cost of performing pre- and post-emission control 

device emissions tests to determine the removal efficiency of 

the control device. Source operators will typically not choose 

to perform extra testing at additional cost voluntarily, and the 

EPA went to great lengths to minimize burden on sources during 

the testing information collection request. As a result, we do 

not have percent reduction data for the best performing CISWI 

sources, and cannot develop a percent reduction alternative 

standard that reflects the best sources’ performance. 

Additionally, there are arguments that percent reduction 

standards are not legally permissible (See 74 FR 21149). As 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 63 of 405 

discussed in the Portland cement NESHAP proposal preamble, the 

Brick MACT opinion states “that best performers are those 

emitting the least HAP.” It further discusses how a percent 

reduction standard downplays the role of pollutant inputs on 

emissions, thereby allowing more pollutants to be emitted 

provided a given level of removal efficiency. 

Finally, we do not specify the control devices necessary to 

meet the numeric limits as in some other rules. Sources may 

evaluate their source emissions and determine the appropriate 

control strategy or devices needed to comply with the emission 

limits. Percent reduction standards are more appropriately 

applied when there is a specified control device that potential 

emission streams must be routed through, such as a flare. In 

these cases, a percent reduction alternative provides a design 

and performance metric for the required type of control device. 

This is not the case with CISWI since the rule does not specify 

a control device for all sources. 

Due to the reasons discussed above, we have not proposed 

any percent reduction alternative standards. 

14. Providing parametric monitoring provisions for additional 

control device types
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 64 of 405 

The final rules added monitoring parameters for sources that 

use wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, activated carbon 

sorbent injection, or selective noncatalytic reduction. However, 

one petitioner has claimed that we did not adequately address 

comments on this issue in the final rule preamble or supporting 

documents. Therefore, we are responding that we have included 

such provisions that commenters requested. The control devices 

with monitoring provisions expressly identified in the rules 

should encompass most types of control devices that we would 

anticipate the various types of CISWI units to use to meet the 

emission limits. In the case that there is another type of 

control that is not addressed, we have provided provisions for 

sources to petition for specific operating limits for the 

control device to be established during a performance test. 

These provisions also allow specific operating limits to be 

established for CISWI units without any air pollution control 

devices, such as material balance operating limits to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. However, we recognize that 

dry sorbent injection for acid gas control may be one additional 

type of control that affected sources may use, and are 

requesting comment on whether we should specify monitoring 

provisions for this type of control and recommendations on which 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 65 of 405 

parameters should be specified. Lastly, we also request comment 

on whether there are any additional types of control devices 

that we should identify monitoring parameters for in the rule. 

15. Revisions to the continuous monitoring provisions for large 

ERUs

 In today’s rule, we are proposing some revisions to the 

monitoring requirements for ERUs with a design heat input 

capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. In the final rules, these 

units were required to continuously monitor for particulate 

matter using a PM CEMS. However, recent EPA experience with the 

utility boiler source category has led the EPA to allow PM CEMS 

as an alternative, rather than a requirement. The PM CEMS 

technology may not be sufficient to certify accurate monitor 

performance in the particulate matter concentration range of the 

CISWI ERU limits. Therefore, we are requiring continuous 

parameter monitoring systems for these units similar to those 

being required for major industrial boilers and utility boilers. 

Likewise, to be consistent with these other rules, we have 

revised all operating parameter averaging for ERU units to be on 

a 30-day rolling average. Due to the relatively long operational 

campaigns of ERUs, the longer averaging time will allow 

operators sufficient flexibility for operational and control 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 66 of 405 

device adjustments should they be needed for short term fuel or 

waste characteristics variability. The EPA has determined the 30 

day rolling average reporting basis is appropriate for this 

rule. The operating limits established through performance 

testing in this rule represent short term process and control 

operating conditions representative of compliance. Concerns of 

variability outside the operators control such as fuel content, 

seasonal factors, load cycling, and infrequent hours of needed 

operation prompted us to look at longer averaging periods on 

which to base operating compliance determination. We are aware 

from studies of emissions over long averaging periods (See 

memorandums “Changing Averaging Time as an Incentive” and 

“Assessment of Using Single Point Stack Test Data to Derive 30-

Day Rolling Average Emissions Limits” in the CISWI docket) that 

long term (e.g., 30 day) average emissions for a operating in 

compliance will have a variability of about half of that 

represented by the results of short term testing. Given that 

short term tests are representative of distinct points along a 

continuum of that inherent operational variability, we believe 

it appropriate to provide a means for the source operator to 

account for that variability by applying a long term average for 

establishing compliance. We expect more problematic control 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 67 of 405 

system variability (e.g. ESP transformer failure or scrubber 

Venturi fan failure) to result in deviations from a 30-day 

average relative to compliance almost as much as for a shorter 

term average. 

16. Extending compliance dates

 On May 18, 2011, the EPA issued a stay of the effective 

date of the final rule. The EPA plans to reset the compliance 

dates of the rule when the final reconsideration is published. 

The EPA is proposing to set the compliance date for existing 

sources in the incinerator, energy recovery unit, and wasteburning kiln subcategories five years after the date of 

publication of the final reconsideration rule or three years 

after the state plan is approved, whichever happens earlier. 

This date is being proposed in order to provide facilities 

sufficient time to install controls or to make other compliancerelated decisions. For new sources in the incinerator, energy 

recovery unit, and waste-burning kiln subcategories, the EPA is 

proposing to change the compliance date to 6 months after the 

date of publication of the final reconsideration rule. Since 

there were no major changes to the emission standards from final 

rule for the small remote incinerator subcategory, the EPA is 

soliciting comment on the need to extend the compliance date for 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 68 of 405 

this subcategory. Particularly, the EPA is requesting additional 

data that supports the need to revise the emission standards for 

the small remote incinerator subcategory. 

The EPA determined that it is appropriate to extend the 

compliance dates for the incinerator, energy recover unit, and 

waste-burning kiln subcategories for several reasons. First, 

proposed changes to the emission limits for these subcategories 

will have a significant impact on the compliance strategies that 

are selected by the affected sources. For instance, the proposed 

changes in emission limits for existing energy recovery unit, 

and waste-burning kiln subcategories may require different 

control strategies selections than the emission limits finalized 

in March 2011. Second, when EPA announced the reconsideration 

and issued the stay of the effective date, a signal was sent to 

industry and to the states responsible for implementing the 

emission guidelines that requirements may change significantly. 

The resulting uncertainty has limited the ability of affected 

sources to begin making appropriate selections of control 

technologies and other compliance decisions. Even if significant 

changes were not being proposed, an extended compliance date 

would likely be necessary to provide enough time for facilities 

to achieve compliance. Additionally, not extending the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 69 of 405 

compliance date may be problematic for states and implementing 

agencies since the increments of progress for rule compliance 

are keyed off of the approval date of the revised state plan. 

Without a final rule in place, states and implementing agencies 

will be unable to adequately update and implement a state plan. 

For all of the reasons discussed above, the EPA has determined 

that it is necessary to extend the compliance date for existing 

sources in the energy recovery unit and waste-burning kiln 

subcategories based on the date that the reconsideration of the 

final rule is completed. Finally, the EPA has received comments 

that the availability of control equipment and vendors to 

install control equipment for CISWI units is in question due to 

the large number of units requiring controls in conjunction with 

the parallel rulemaking for industrial boilers and electric 

generating units that will require controls from many of the 

same vendors. While the EPA believes that the maximum time 

allotted under section 129 provides enough time for CISWI units 

to achieve compliance, the EPA recognizes that maintaining the 

compliance dates from the final rule would essentially provide 

less than 2 years for states to implement a revised state plan 

and for increments of progress to be scheduled. Because the 

stringency of the final standards will not be determined until 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 70 of 405 

the reconsideration is final, sources will not be able to begin 

planning a compliance strategy and states will be uncertain on 

an appropriate schedule for increments of progress, which 

includes submittal of a final control plan. The EPA is 

requesting comment on the proposed changes to the compliance 

dates. 

D. Technical Corrections and Clarifications 

In today’s rule, we are also proposing some changes to the 

final rule to correct minor typographical errors and clarify 

portions. This section of the preamble summarizes these 

corrections and clarifications. 

1. Providing a definition of municipal solid waste

 We are including the definition of “municipal solid waste” 

in the CISWI rule definitions. This definition is the same 

definition used in the CAA section 129 standards for municipal 

waste combustion (MWC) units. We believe that including this 

definition will further clarify applicability for MWC owners 

that question whether CISWI or MWC rules are applicable to their 

solid waste combustion unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 71 of 405 

2. Energy recovery units designed to burn non-coal solid 

materials

 We are amending the definition of “Energy recovery unit 

designed to burn biomass (Biomass)” to clarify that this 

definition applies to all energy recovery units designed to burn 

non-coal solid materials. While we believe biomass to be the 

majority of such materials, we wanted to more broadly define 

this source category to clarify applicability for energy 

recovery units that are burning less than 10 percent coal on a 

heat input basis. We are also amending recordkeeping 

requirements for ERU units to require records of fuel inputs to 

ensure that the units are meeting the applicability for coal or 

non-coal ERUs. 

3. Typographical Errors and Corrections

The following items are typographical errors in the final 

rule that we are correcting in today’s proposal: 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 72 of 405 

• Final rule §60.2165, a new paragraph break is needed for 

(n) (4); 

• Final rule §60.2265, a new paragraph break is needed for 

the definition of “Solid waste incineration unit;” 

• Amendatory instruction #50, paragraph (b) was not added 

but was amended; and 

• Footnote "a" for Table 9 to Subpart DDDD does not have 

the sentence allowing facilities to meet either the Total 

or TEQ for the D/F standard. It is included in all other 

tables (for new and existing sources). 

E. Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

1. 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 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 73 of 405 

goal, may find it cost-effective to discontinue use of their 

CISWI unit altogether. Therefore, we have estimated emissions 

reductions attributable to existing sources complying with the 

limits, as well as those reductions that would occur if the 

facilities with incinerators and small, remote incinerators 

decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and use 

alternative waste disposal options. 

For units combusting wastes for energy production, such as 

ERUs and waste-burning kilns, the decision to combust or not to 

combust waste will depend on several factors. One factor is the 

cost to replace the energy provided by the waste material with a 

traditional fuel, such as natural gas. Another factor would be 

whether the owner or operator is purchasing the waste or 

obtaining it at no cost from other generators, or if they are 

generating the waste on-site and will have to dispose of the 

materials in another fashion, such as landfills. Lastly, these 

units would have to compare the control requirements needed to 

meet the CISWI emission limits with those needed if they stop 

burning solid waste and are then subject to a NESHAP instead. As 

mentioned before, we have attempted to align the monitoring 

requirements for similar non-waste-burning sources as closely as 

possible in an effort to make them consistent and to help 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 74 of 405 

sources make the cross-walk between waste and non-waste 

regulatory requirements as simple as possible. 

The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this 

proposed rule using the definition of solid waste under RCRA and 

the proposed CISWI emission limits are presented in Table 4 of 

this preamble. 

Table 4. 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 578.0 590.1 

CO 22,104 22,069 

Pb 3.09 3.09 

Cd 1.620 1.622 

Hg 0.143 0.147 

PM (filterable) 1,439 1,442 

dioxin, furans 0.000101 0.000104 

NOx 5,299 5,405 

SO2 4,983 5,033 

Total 34,406 34,544 

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 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 75 of 405 

regulations for MWC, HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI, has shown that 

negative growth in the source category historically occurs upon 

implementation of CAA section 129 standards. Since CISWI rules 

were promulgated in 2000 and have been in effect for existing 

sources since 2005, many existing units have closed. At 

promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated 122 units in the CISWI 

population. In comparison, the incinerator subcategory in this 

rule, which contains any such units subject to the 2000 CISWI 

rule, has 28 units. EPA is not aware of any construction of new 

units since 2000, so we do not believe there are any units that 

are currently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. The revised CISWI 

rule is more stringent, so we expect this trend to continue. 

However, EPA does recognize that some facilities may opt to 

replace aging incinerator units with new units where it is cost 

effective or alternative disposal options are not feasible, as 

may be the case with some incinerators, or in very remote 

locations. We estimate that there could be one new incineration 

unit within the next 5 years following this proposal, 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 current 

existing unit baseline, based on average emission concentration 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 76 of 405 

values and sizes from our current inventory and the new source 

proposed emission limits. Table 5 of this preamble presents the 

model plant emissions reductions that would be expected for new 

sources. 

Table 5. Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis

Pollutant 

Emission reduction for CISWI Subcategory Model 

Units (tpy unless otherwise noted) 

Incinerator 

Small, remote 

incinerator 

HCl 3.67 0.0 

CO 1.23 0.25 

Pb 0.83 0.0037 

Cd 0.022 0.0007 

Hg 0.004 0.000012 

PM 

(filterable) 

148 0.5 

D/F (total 

mass)a

0.0018 0.0 

NOx 16.3 0.15 

SO2 7.6 0.15 

Total 178 1.05 

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

We do not anticipate that any new energy recovery or wasteburning 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 tirederived fuel from which the metal has been removed is not 

considered solid waste under the definition of solid waste. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 77 of 405 

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 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, our cost analyses have 

found that alternative waste disposal is generally available and 

less expensive. 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 78 of 405 

In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost 

alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each 

facility. We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the emission limits. These controls 

may use water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be 

treated. We estimate an annual requirement of 90 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 

22,549 tpy from PM capture and 9,820 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 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 79 of 405 

disposal is a better choice than compliance with the standards. 

We estimate that approximately 110,417 tpy of waste would be 

diverted to a landfill. 

For new CISWI units, we estimate an annual requirement of 

9,102 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 7,275 tpy from PM capture and 

8,173 tpy from ACI. 

3. 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 

242,283 MW-hours per year would be required for the additional 

and improved control devices. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 80 of 405 

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 wasteburning kiln units to be constructed, there would be no 

additional estimate for energy that would be replaced with a 

traditional fuel. 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For CISWI units adding controls to meet the emission 

limits, we anticipate minor secondary air impacts. The 

combustion of fuel needed to generate additional electricity and 

to operate RTO controls would yield slight increases in 

emissions, including NOx, CO, PM, and SO2 and an increase in CO2

emissions. Since NOx and SO2 are covered by capped emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 81 of 405 

trading programs, and methodological limitations prevent us from 

quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an 

increase in secondary air impacts for this rule from additional 

electricity demand. 

We believe it likely that the incinerators may elect to 

discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to 

the landfill or other disposal means. As we discussed in the 

solid waste impacts above, this could result in approximately 

110,417 tpy of waste going to landfills. By using EPA’s Landfill 

Gas Estimation Model, we estimate that, over the 20-year 

expected life of a CISWI unit, the resulting methane generated 

by a landfill receiving the waste would be about 96,300 tons. If 

this landfill gas were combusted in a flare, assuming typical 

flare emission factors and landfill gas chlorine, Hg, and sulfur 

concentrations, the following emissions would be expected: 20 

tons of PM; 8 tons of HCl; 16 tons of SO2; 890 tons of CO; 46 

tons of NOx; and 1.4 lbs of Hg. 

Similar to existing units, we anticipate minor secondary 

air impacts for new CISWI units adding controls as discussed 

above. 

5. What are the cost and economic impacts?
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 82 of 405 

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 proposed 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 $859 million with an associated total annual cost 

of $270 million ($2008). 

Under the rule, EPA’s economic model suggests the average 

national market-level variables (prices, production-levels, 

consumption, international trade) will not change significantly 

(e.g., are less than 0.02 percent). 

EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small 

entities by comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., 

sales and revenue tests). EPA’s analysis found the tests were 

below 3 percent for five of the nine small entities included in 

the screening analysis. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 83 of 405 

In addition to estimating this rule’s social costs and 

benefits, EPA has estimated the employment impacts of the final 

rule. We expect that the rule’s direct impact on employment will 

be small. We have not quantified the rule’s indirect or induced 

impacts. For further explanation and discussion of our analysis, 

see Chapter 4 of the RIA. 

For new CISWI units, we have estimated compliance costs for 

units coming online in the next 5 years. This analysis is 

based on the assumption that one new incinerator will come 

online over 5 years and one new small, remote incinerator 

will come online each year over the next 5 years. 

Additionally, it was assumed that each model unit will add 

the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with NSPS 

limits. Based on our analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $8.4 million over 5 years with an 

associated total annual cost (for 2015) of $2.6 million. 

6. What are the benefits?

 We estimate the monetized benefits of this regulatory 

action to be $340 million to $830 million (2008$), 3 percent 

discount rate) in the implementation year (2015). The monetized 

benefits of the regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 84 of 405 

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.1 A summary of the monetized benefits 

estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in 

Table 6 of this preamble. 

Table 6. Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates For the 

CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015 (Millions of 2008$)1,2

Pollutant 

Estimated Emission 

Reductions 

(tpy) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits 

(3% Discount 

Rate) 

Total Monetized 

Benefits 

(7% Discount 

Rate) 

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

PM2.5 Precursors 

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

NOx 5,544 $27 to $66 $24 to $59 

Total $340 to $830 $310 to $750 

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 equivalent health effects, but the benefitper-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.

2 The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes to the March 2011 

final CISWI rule, we were unable to incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into 

the RIA, which would decrease the costs by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by 

approximately 4% from those shown here.

 

1 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. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 85 of 405 

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).2 

To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model 

to convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors into 

changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate 

the changes in human health associated with that change in air 

quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were divided by 

the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 

chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature 

mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that 

 

2 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. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 86 of 405 

would support the development of differential effects estimates 

by particle type. Directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOx are the 

primary precursors affected by this rule. Even though we assume 

that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the 

benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each 

ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form 

PM2.5. For example, SO2 has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate 

than direct PM2.5 because it does not directly transform into 

PM2.5, and because sulfate particles formed from SO2 emissions 

can transport many miles, including over areas with low 

populations. Direct PM2.5 emissions convert directly into 

ambient PM2.5, thus, to the extent that emissions occur in 

population areas, exposures to direct PM2.5 will tend to be 

higher, and monetized health benefits will be higher than for 

SO2 emissions. 

For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of 

the PM benefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to 

consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based on 

both empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited 

from scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 87 of 405 

relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and premature 

mortality. For this rule, we cite two key empirical studies, the 

American Cancer Society cohort study3 and the extended Six 

Cities cohort study.4 In the RIA for this rule, which is 

available in the docket, we also include benefits estimates 

derived from expert judgments and other assumptions. 

EPA strives to use the best available science to support 

our benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the 

science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific literature and recent 

scientific advice, we have determined that the no-threshold 

model is the most appropriate model for assessing the mortality 

benefits associated with reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent 

with this recent advice, we are replacing the previous threshold 

sensitivity analysis with a new “LML” assessment. While an LML 

assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty 

in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the 

LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-related 

 

3 Pope, et al., 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Longterm Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American 

Medical Association 287:1132-1141 

4 Laden, et al., 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and 

Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 

667-672 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 88 of 405 

mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality 

concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule 

would accrue to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. 

Using the Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the 

population is exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/m3. Using 

the Laden, et al., (2006) study, 40 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3. It is important to emphasize 

that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related effects down to 

the lowest LML of the major cohort studies. This fact is 

important, because as we estimate PM-related mortality among 

populations exposed to levels of PM2.5 that are successively 

lower, our confidence in the results diminishes. However, our 

analysis shows that the great majority of the impacts occur at 

higher exposures. 

This analysis does not include the type of detailed 

uncertainty assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because 

we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to 

run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted any 

air quality modeling for this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 89 of 405 

benefits analysis5 provides an indication of the sensitivity of 

our results to various assumptions. 

It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits 

estimates provided above do not include benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including reducing other air 

pollutants, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment. The 

benefits from reducing HAP have not been monetized in this 

analysis, including reducing 25,000 tons of CO, 470 tons of HCl, 

4.1 tons of Pb, 0.95 tons of Cd, 260 pounds of Hg and 92 grams 

of total D/F each year. Although we do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates 

for this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the 

health effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, 

which is available in the docket. 

In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in 

Table 12 of this preamble do not reflect the disbenefits 

associated with increased electricity and fuel consumption to 

operate the control devices. We estimate that the increases in 

emissions of CO2 would have disbenefits valued at $3.8M at a 3 

 

5 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 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 90 of 405 

percent discount rate. Carbon Dioxide-related 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). 

II. NHSM Proposed Rule 

A. Statutory Authority 

The EPA is proposing amendments to the NHSM regulations 

under the authority of sections 2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and 6903(27). Section 129(a)(1)(D) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to establish standards for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), 

which burn solid waste (section 129(g)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7429). Section 129(g)(6) provides that the term “solid waste” is 

to be established by EPA under RCRA. Section 2002(a)(1) of RCRA 

authorizes the Agency to promulgate regulations as are necessary 

to carry out its functions under the Act. The statutory 

definition of “solid waste” is provided in RCRA section 

1004(27). 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 91 of 405 

B. What is the Intent of This Proposal? 

Today’s proposal would clarify several provisions in 40 CFR 

Part 241, which provides the standards and procedures for 

identifying whether non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) are 

solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion 

units. The Part 241 regulations were promulgated on March 21, 

2011 in the “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

That Are Solid Waste” final rule (the 2011 NHSM final rule)6

. On 

the same day, EPA promulgated final emissions standards for both 

area and major source boilers and process heaters under section 

112 of the CAA and for commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators (CISWI) under section 129 of the CAA7. These rules 

are interrelated because facilities that burn solid waste, as 

that term is defined under section 129(g)(6) of the CAA, are 

regulated as CISWI units pursuant to section 129 and facilities 

that do not burn solid waste are regulated as boilers and 

process heaters, under section 112. 

 

6

 76 FR 15456. 

7

 See National Emissions Standards for Area Source Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers (76 FR 15554), National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (76 FR 15608), and Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (76 FR 

15704). We also note that on the same day, EPA announced it was initiating a 

reconsideration process with respect to certain aspects of the CAA section 

112 and 129 rules so as to take additional comment and provide opportunity 

for submission of information relevant to those standards. 76 FR 15266. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 92 of 405 

Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the 

regulated community has raised a number of issues and concerns 

regarding the Part 241 requirements, including the 

implementation of those requirements. For example, the regulated 

community raised concerns and questions as to certainty about 

whether particular materials are solid wastes and how they could 

demonstrate compliance with the legitimacy criteria—with most 

focusing on the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM used 

as fuels (codified in §241.3(d)(1)(iii)). Further, the regulated 

community asserts that under the current NHSM rule, waste 

streams that the Agency itself found to be non-waste fuels when 

combusted may not meet the legitimacy criteria as established 

(e.g., resinated wood). It was also brought to the Agency’s 

attention that the provision identifying tires recovered from an 

established tire collection program as a non-waste fuel when 

combusted is limited to tires “from the point of removal from 

the vehicle through arrival at the combustion facility.” The 

regulated community asserts that this language precludes burning 

as a non-waste fuel off-specification tires (including factory 

scrap tires) that have never been placed on an automobile, even 

though they are not discarded. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 93 of 405 

In light of the concerns and questions raised by the 

regulated community, the Agency has re-examined the 2011 NHSM 

final rule and identified certain provisions that warrant 

clarification, as well as specific targeted revisions that are 

appropriate in order to allow implementation of the rule as EPA 

originally intended. The Agency is not reopening the entire rule 

for reconsideration and will not respond to comments directed 

toward rule provisions that are not specifically identified in 

this proposal. 

C. What is the Scope of This Proposal? 

The regulatory changes being proposed today are summarized 

below. The intent of this summary is to give a brief overview of 

the proposed changes. More detailed discussions, including the 

Agency’s rationale for these proposed changes, are discussed in 

Section II.D of today’s action. In addition, to aid commenters 

in their review, EPA has also included in the docket for today’s 

proposal an informational redline/strikeout version of the 

proposed revised regulations as compared to the current Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

 EPA is soliciting comment only on these targeted changes 

and is not reopening any other issues in the final NHSM rule. 

Comments that go beyond the scope of this narrow RCRA rulemaking 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 94 of 405 

will not be addressed by the Agency when it finalizes today’s 

proposed rule. 

1. Revised Definitions

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to revise certain 

definitions codified in §241.2. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to revise, for the purposes of clarifying the regulations, the 

following definitions: (1) “clean cellulosic biomass,” (2) 

“contaminants,” and (3) “established tire collection programs.” 

a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass 

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of “clean cellulosic 

biomass” to list additional examples of biomass materials that 

are appropriately included within this definition. The 2011 NHSM 

final rule defined “clean cellulosic biomass” as meaning “those 

residuals that are akin to traditional cellulosic biomass, such 

as forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, 

clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, and tree harvesting 

residuals from logging and sawmill materials), corn stover and 

other biomass crops used specifically for energy production 

(e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses), bagasse and 

other crop residues (e.g., peanut shells), wood collected from 

forest fire clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in 

disaster debris, clean biomass from land clearing operations, 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 95 of 405 

and clean construction and demolition wood. These fuels are not 

secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean 

biomass is biomass that does not contain contaminants at 

concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass 

materials” (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). 

In today’s proposal, EPA is adding more examples of biomass 

materials that should be included within this definition. This 

regulatory revision would not change the Agency’s intent under 

the March 2011 final rule, but would identify additional 

materials that are “clean cellulosic biomass,” and, thus, would 

be a traditional fuel under these regulations. While the list of 

clean biomass materials is not exhaustive, it is more 

comprehensive than the list that appeared in the definition 

included in the 2011 NHSM final rule. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to revise the definition of clean 

cellulosic biomass” as follows: “Clean cellulosic biomass means 

those residuals that are akin to traditional cellulosic biomass, 

including, but not limited to: agricultural and forest-derived 

biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, clean and 

unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, tree harvesting residuals 

from logging and sawmill materials, hogged fuel, wood pellets, 

untreated wood pallets); urban wood (e.g., tree trimmings, 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 96 of 405 

stumps, and related forest-derived biomass from urban settings); 

corn stover and other biomass crops used specifically for the 

production of cellulosic biofuels (e.g., energy cane, other fast 

growing grasses, byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation 

processes); bagasse and other crop residues (e.g., peanut 

shells, vines, orchard trees, hulls, seeds, spent grains, cotton 

byproducts, corn and peanut production residues, rice milling 

and grain elevator operation residues); wood collected from 

forest fire clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in 

disaster debris, clean biomass from land clearing operations, 

and clean construction and demolition wood. These fuels are not 

secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean 

biomass is biomass that does not contain contaminants at 

concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass 

materials.” 

See Section II.D.1 for more information regarding the 

revised definition of “clean cellulosic biomass.” 

b. Contaminants 

The 2011 NHSM final rule defined “contaminants” as meaning 

“any constituent in non-hazardous secondary materials that will 

result in emissions of the air pollutants identified in Clean 

Air Act section 112(b) or the nine pollutants listed under Clean 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 97 of 405 

Air Act section 129(a)(4) when such non-hazardous secondary 

materials are burned as a fuel or used as an ingredient, 

including those constituents that could generate products of 

incomplete combustion” (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). 

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of “contaminants” to 

clarify what will be considered contaminants for the purposes of 

the legitimacy criteria. Specifically, several pollutants listed 

in CAA sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4) form during combustion, so 

elemental precursors to those pollutants that are found in the 

NHSM prior to combustion are being added to the revised 

contaminant definition in place of the pollutants themselves. In 

addition, those pollutants from the CAA section 112(b) and 

129(a)(4) lists that we do not expect to find in any NHSM are 

also specifically excluded from the definition of contaminants. 

We do not expect this change to affect any of the decisions 

previously made on whether NHSMs are solid wastes when burned as 

fuels. 

We are also proposing to revise this definition to clarify 

that, for the purpose of meeting the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion, contaminant levels found in the NHSM prior to being 

fed into combustion units should be evaluated rather than 

emissions from those units. Specifically, there appears to be 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 98 of 405 

confusion within the regulated community that in determining 

whether or not a NHSM meets the “contaminant legitimacy 

criterion,” emissions from the combustion unit are to be 

considered in making such an evaluation. Both in today’s 

proposal and in the 2011 NHSM final rule preamble and regulatory 

text, it was clear that the NHSM itself was to be evaluated and 

not the emissions from the combustion unit. This approach is 

more appropriate, since the question is whether or not a NHSM is 

being burned for discard, and elevated contaminant levels in the 

NHSM could be indicative of burning for discard. Thus, EPA is 

clearing up any inadvertent ambiguity in the regulation itself. 

The Agency does not need to further explain this issue, since 

the rationale has been provided in the rulemaking record. Only 

the wording of the regulation needs to be changed to reflect the 

Agency’s intention. 

Thus, the Agency is proposing to revise the definition of 

“contaminants” as follows: “Contaminants means all pollutants 

listed in Clean Air Act sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4), with 

modifications outlined in this definition to reflect 

constituents found in non-hazardous secondary materials prior to 

combustion. The definition includes the following elemental 

contaminants that commonly form Clean Air Act section 112(b) and 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 99 of 405 

129(a)(4) pollutants: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chlorine, chromium, cobalt, fluorine, lead, manganese, mercury, 

nickel, nitrogen, selenium, and sulfur. The definition does not 

include the following Clean Air Act section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) 

pollutants that are either unlikely to be found in non-hazardous 

secondary materials prior to combustion or are adequately 

measured by other parts of this definition: hydrogen chloride 

(HCl), chlorine gas (Cl2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine mineral fibers, 

particulate matter, coke oven emissions, diazomethane, white 

phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride, m-cresol, o-cresol, pcresol, m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene.” For more information 

and the rationale regarding the proposed revision to the 

definition of “contaminants,” see Section II.D.1 of today’s 

proposed rule. 

c. Established Tire Collection Programs 

EPA is proposing to revise the definition of “established 

tire collection programs” to clarify that off-specification 

tires (including factory scrap tires) may be burned as whole 

tires in the same way as tires that are removed from vehicles. 

The 2011 NHSM final rule defined “established tire collection 

program” as meaning “a comprehensive collection system that 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 100 of 405 

ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as 

valuable commodities in accordance with section 241.3(b)(2)(i) 

from the point of removal from the vehicle through arrival at 

the combustion facility” (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). However, 

that definition did not account for “factory scrap” or “offspecification” tires that are contractually arranged to be 

collected, managed, and transported between a tire manufacturer 

(including retailers or other parties involved in the 

distribution and sale of new tires) and a combustor, which is 

analogous to how scrap tires removed from vehicles are managed. 

 Thus, the Agency is proposing to revise the definition of 

“established tire collection program” to mean “a comprehensive 

collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures scrap 

tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities 

from the point of removal from the vehicle or the point at which 

they are generated at a tire manufacturer (including retailers 

or other parties involved in the distribution and sale of new 

tires) through arrival at the combustion facility.” For more 

information regarding the proposed revision to the definition of 

“established tire collection program,” see Section II.D.1 of 

today’s proposed rule. 

2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as Fuels
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 101 of 405 

The 2011 NHSM final rule codified three self-implementing 

legitimacy criteria that NHSM must meet in order to be 

considered a non-waste fuel when burned in a combustion unit (40 

CFR 241.3(d)(1)(i)-(iii)). One of these criteria focused on 

comparing levels of contaminants contained in the NHSM to levels 

of those constituents found in traditional fuels. Specifically, 

the contaminant legitimacy criterion for fuels was finalized as 

follows: “The non-hazardous secondary material must contain 

contaminants at levels comparable in concentration to or lower 

than those in traditional fuels which the combustion unit is 

designed to burn. Such comparison is to be based on a direct 

comparison of the contaminant levels in the non-hazardous 

secondary material to the traditional fuel itself.” 40 CFR 

241.3(d)(1)(iii). The existing language provides flexibility for 

persons to make comparisons on a contaminant-by-contaminant 

basis or on a group of contaminants-by-group of contaminants 

basis in determining what constituents to compare. The phrase 

“traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to 

burn” also provides the flexibility to choose among multiple 

fuel options. 

However, industry groups have expressed concern that the 

regulatory language was not as clear as EPA has suggested. As a 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 102 of 405 

result, they requested that regulatory changes would be more 

appropriate than issuing guidance8

. Therefore, to make clear 

EPA’s intent in implementing the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion, the Agency is proposing to revise this criterion to 

read, “The non-hazardous secondary material must contain 

contaminants or groups of contaminants at levels comparable in 

concentration to or lower than those in traditional fuel(s) 

which the combustion unit is designed to burn. In determining 

which traditional fuel(s) a unit is designed to burn, persons 

can choose a traditional fuel that can be or is burned in the 

particular type of boiler, whether or not the combustion unit is 

permitted to burn that traditional fuel. In comparing 

contaminants between traditional fuel(s) and a non-hazardous 

secondary material, persons can use ranges of traditional fuel 

contaminant levels compiled from national surveys, as well as 

contaminant level data from the specific traditional fuel being 

replaced. Such comparisons are to be based on a direct 

comparison of the contaminant levels in both the non-hazardous 

secondary material and traditional fuel(s) prior to combustion.” 

 

8

 See, for example, June 24, 2011 letter from Tracey Norberg of the Rubber 

Manufacturers Association and Paul Noe of the American Forest & Paper 

Association to OSWER Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus. A copy of this 

letter can be found in the docket for today’s rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 103 of 405 

For more information regarding the proposed revisions to 

the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM used as fuels, see 

Section II.D.2 of today’s proposed rule. 

3. Categorical Non-Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as 

Fuels

EPA is proposing to identify several NHSMs as not being solid 

waste when burned as a fuel in a combustion unit where the 

Agency has sufficient information to determine that discard is 

not occurring when these materials are being used as fuels. 

Specifically, the Agency recognizes that certain NHSMs may not 

meet the legitimacy criteria, especially the “contaminant 

legitimacy criterion,” in all instances, but the material would 

still generally be considered a non-waste fuel. While we do not 

agree it is appropriate for the regulated community to make 

these judgments as part of the self-implementing aspects of the 

NHSM final rule, it is appropriate that the Agency do so, by 

balancing the legitimacy criteria and such other relevant 

factors that the Administrator may identify, in determining that 

a NHSM is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion 

unit. Thus, in today’s proposed rule, we are identifying the 

following specific materials as non-waste fuels: (1) scrap 

tires that have not been discarded and are managed under the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 104 of 405 

oversight of established tire collection programs, including 

tires removed from vehicles and off-specification tires, and (2) 

resinated wood. Thus, persons that burn these NHSMs as a fuel 

would not need to evaluate them using the self-implementing 

legitimacy criteria when burned. 

In addition, the Agency recognizes that there may be other 

NHSMs that should also be considered non-waste fuels, based on a 

balancing of the legitimacy criteria with other relevant 

factors. Therefore, we are proposing to create a petition 

process that would provide the regulated community an 

opportunity to submit a rulemaking petition to EPA for a 

determination that a particular NHSM that should not be 

considered solid waste when burned as a fuel in a combustion 

unit. This process could be used when a facility does not 

believe that the self-implementing legitimacy criteria yields a 

clear result. A brief discussion of the specific NHSMs being 

proposed to be listed as not solid waste is provided below, as 

well as an overview of the petition process for identifying 

additional NHSMs as not being solid wastes when burned as a fuel 

in a combustion unit for energy recovery. See Section II.D.3 and 

4 of today’s proposed rule for a detailed discussion of these 

topics. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 105 of 405 

a. Scrap tires 

 In the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA determined that scrap 

tires removed from vehicles and managed pursuant to established 

tire collection programs would not be considered a solid waste. 

This determination was codified in §241.3(b)(2)(i). This 

determination was made after EPA analyzed scrap tires removed 

from vehicles and managed pursuant to established tire 

collection programs and concluded that (1) these materials would 

meet the legitimacy criteria for fuels, and (2) these materials 

were not discarded when transferred off-site from the generating 

facility9

. 

Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA has 

received information that tire manufacturers, including 

downstream distribution channels, may produce tires that are not 

suitable for use on vehicles, but like the tires removed from 

vehicles, are usable as legitimate fuels. They are, for all 

intents and purposes, the same as the vehicle tires managed 

under the oversight of established tire collection programs. As 

a result, the revised definition of “established tire collection 

program,” would encompass off-specification tires (including 

factory scrap tires) that are contractually arranged to be 

 

9

 See 76 FR 15490-15499. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 106 of 405 

collected, managed, and transported between a tire manufacturer, 

which would include retailers and other parties involved in the 

distribution and sale of new tires and a combustor. We note that 

tires coming from vehicles continue to be included in the 

definition of established tire collection programs and would be 

a non-waste fuel. EPA is not reopening this determination in 

today's proposed rule. 

For clarity, the Agency is proposing to add scrap tires 

that are not discarded and are managed under the oversight of 

established tire collection programs, including tires removed 

from vehicles and off-specification tires, to the categorical 

list of non-waste fuels (see 40 CFR 241.4(a)). For more on this 

determination and the off-specification tires from tire 

manufacturers or downstream distribution channels, see Section 

II.D.3 of today’s proposed rule. 

b. Resinated Wood 

The 2011 NHSM final rule determined that resinated wood is 

not a solid waste when used a fuel regardless of whether it 

remained within the control of the generator (see 40 CFR 

241.3(b)(2)(ii)). This determination was made after EPA analyzed 

resinated wood and concluded that (1) resinated wood generally 

would meet the legitimacy criteria for fuels, and (2) resinated 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 107 of 405 

wood was not discarded when transferred off-site from the 

generating facility10. Today’s action proposes to revise Part 

241 to state affirmatively that resinated wood, when used as a 

fuel, is not being burned for discard and is not a solid waste. 

We are proposing to codify this determination based on our 

belief that the use of resinated wood as fuel represents an 

integral component to the wood manufacturing process and, as 

such, resinated wood is not being discarded, and therefore not 

solid waste, when burned as fuel. For more on this proposed 

revision, see Section II.D.3 of today’s proposed rule. 

c. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Non-Waste 

Determinations 

 Under today’s rule, the Agency is proposing to create a 

rulemaking petition process that would provide persons an 

opportunity to submit a rulemaking petition to the 

Administrator, seeking a categorical determination for 

additional NHSMs to be listed in section 241.4(a) as non-waste 

fuels. The process for submitting a rulemaking petition to the 

Agency, as well as the factors a successful application must 

include, is proposed in 241.4(b). For more information regarding 

 

10 For a full discussion and rationale for why EPA reached this conclusion, 

see 76 FR 15499-15502. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 108 of 405 

the rulemaking petition process, see Section II.D.4 of today’s 

proposal. 

4. Additional Request for Comment

 As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the Agency may 

identify additional NHSMs to be included on the categorical list 

of non-waste fuels by balancing the legitimacy criteria and such 

other relevant factors that the Administrator may identify. 

Specifically, as discussed in Section II.E of today’s proposal, 

EPA requests additional information regarding pulp and paper 

sludge in order for the Agency to determine whether a 

categorical determination that pulp and paper sludge is a nonwaste when used as fuel is appropriate. 

5. Effective Date of NHSM Final Rule

 EPA is proposing to amend the effective date provided in 

the original NHSM final rule. In the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA 

established the effective date as May 20, 2011, which was the 

same date as the CISWI and boiler final rules. However, on May 

16, 2011, EPA announced it was delaying the effective dates for 

the CISWI and major source boiler final rules under the 

authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) until the 

proceedings for judicial review of these rules are completed or 

the Agency completes its reconsideration of the rules, whichever 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 109 of 405 

is earlier. The NHSM rule, however, remains in effect. Because 

EPA is now proposing certain clarifying amendments, the Agency 

believes it is also appropriate to establish a new effective 

date for the rule. 

 EPA is proposing to make the effective date of this rule 

the same as the effective date of the CISWI and major source 

boilers rules when the final rule is issued. Under the current 

schedule, EPA intends to issue the final CISWI and boiler rules 

in by April 2012. EPA would adopt the same effective date 

established under those rules. 

5. Clarification Letters Issued After Promulgation of the NHSM 

Final Rule 

 After promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, a number 

of questions were raised regarding certain issues, including 

whether EPA was changing its position regarding “contained 

gaseous materials” and whether they are solid wastes when burned 

in combustion units. While there was no regulatory text or 

discussion in the preamble to the final NHSM rule, the Agency 

did respond to several comments that were submitted to EPA 

during the comment period. Specifically, its response to the 

fourth comment in Part 3b.I3 of the document entitled, 

“Responses to Comments Document for the Identification of Non-
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 110 of 405 

Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (February 

2011),”11 created concerns among the regulated community that the 

Agency had changed a long-standing interpretation of what 

constitutes a “contained gaseous material” for purposes of 

defining the term solid waste under RCRA. 

In a letter sent to the American Forest and Paper 

Association, EPA clarified that it was not changing its previous 

interpretations and, that such interpretations still were the 

Agency’s position.12 Specifically, as we state in the letter, 

“EPA was responding to a comment requesting that we include in 

the NHSM final rule a definition of ‘contained gaseous 

material.’ The Agency does not believe that including such a 

definition in the rule is necessary. However, our response seems 

to have caused confusion about whether the Agency was changing 

its prior interpretations regarding the burning of gaseous 

materials, for example in fume incinerators, and whether or not 

such burning is considered to be treatment of a solid waste by 

burning. The response does not change any previous EPA 

positions. We clarify here that the Agency’s previous statements 

 

11 See “Responses to Comments Document for the Identification of Non-Hazardous 

Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (February 2011). A copy of this 

document can be found at www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm. 

12 May 13, 2011 Letter to Tim Hunt, American Forest and Paper Association. A 

copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for today’s proposed rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 111 of 405 

and interpretations remain effective. Thus, burning of gaseous 

material, such as in fume incinerators (as well as other 

combustion units, including air pollution control devices that 

may combust gaseous material) does not involve treatment or 

other management of a solid waste (as defined in RCRA section 

1004(27).” Thus, we are stating again in the preamble to 

today’s proposed rule that we are not changing any of our 

previous interpretations as it relates to whether “contained 

gaseous material” is a solid waste. 

In addition to this letter, the Agency has also issued a 

number of other letters in which we clarify how the 2011 NHSM 

final rule addresses certain materials or activities. For 

example, EPA has issued clarification letters covering the 

following materials and issues: (1) July 21, 2011 letter to 

Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion Resources Services, regarding 

materials that are used in recirculation/reinjection processes 

and carbon burn-out (CBO) units; (2) August 5, 2011 letter to 

Sue Briggum, Waste Management, regarding landfill gas; (3) 

August 5, 2011 letter to Tracey Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers 

Association, regarding off-specification tires (including 

factory scrap tires); and (4) August 15, 2011 letter to Jeff A. 

McNelly, ARIPPA, regarding coal refuse in legacy piles. We are 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 112 of 405 

not taking comment on these letters, since they reflect the 

Agency’s interpretation of its existing March 21, 2011 NHSM 

rule. 

D. Rationale for the Proposed Revisions to the Part 241 

Requirements 

 As noted above, the intent of this proposal is to reconsider 

certain specific aspects of the rule to address some of the 

issues raised by the regulated community. The Agency is not 

reopening the entire rule for reconsideration and will not 

respond to comments directed toward rule provisions that are not 

specifically identified in this proposal. Thus, the Agency is 

not providing additional discussion of the background or 

rationale for the NHSM rule in general. For a detailed 

discussion of the NHSM final rule, see 76 FR 15532-15545. EPA is 

proposing the revisions discussed below. 

1. Revised Definitions

 In today’s action, EPA is proposing to revise several 

definitions codified in §241.2, including the definitions of 

“clean cellulosic biomass,” “contaminants,” and “established 

tire collection programs.” 

a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 113 of 405 

In today’s action, we are proposing to revise the 

definition of “clean cellulosic biomass.” In particular, 

following promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the Agency 

received additional information regarding other types of biomass 

not explicitly listed in the definition of clean cellulosic 

biomass codified in §241.2, which persons believe also are clean 

cellulosic biomass. However, there was some confusion as to 

whether the definition included these materials. For example, 

questions arose whether EPA would consider orchard trees, vines, 

and hulls, to be within the definition of clean cellulosic 

biomass (and, therefore, a traditional fuel) if the biomass 

material was not specifically listed within the regulatory 

definition. Consequently, we are proposing to revise the 

definition of “clean cellulosic biomass” in two ways: (1) to 

clarify that the list of biomass materials are examples within 

the definition and is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and 

(2) to provide a more comprehensive list of clean cellulosic 

biomass to guide the regulated community. 

 Specifically, we are proposing to make the following 

revisions and additions to the definition: (1) explicitly 

acknowledge that the list of biomass materials is not exclusive 

by adding the phrase, “including, but not limited to”; (2) 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 114 of 405 

revise the category “forest-derived biomass” to include 

“agricultural biomass”; (3) add hogged fuel, wood pellets, and 

untreated wood pallets as examples of forest-derived biomass; 

(4) add the category of “urban wood” and provide examples, 

including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived 

biomass from urban settings (note that “urban wood” is limited 

to forest-derived biomass from urban settings and does not 

include construction and demolition materials. Construction and 

demolition materials are included as a separate type of biomass 

within the definition of “clean cellulosic biomass”); (5) add 

more examples of types of crop residues (vines, orchard trees, 

hulls, seeds spent grains, cotton byproducts, corn and peanut 

production residues, rice milling and grain elevator operation 

residues); and (6) revise the category of “other biomass crops 

used specifically for energy production” to read as “other 

biomass crops used specifically for the production of cellulosic 

biofuels and include “byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation 

processes” as an example of this type of biomass. 

 These proposed revisions and additional examples more 

clearly recognize and describe the various categories of biomass 

materials that we consider to be within the definition of “clean 

cellulosic biomass” and, therefore, within the definition of 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 115 of 405 

traditional fuels. We believe that these additional examples 

clearly meet the definition of clean cellulosic biomass, in that 

they will not contain contaminants at concentrations not 

normally associated with virgin biomass materials. In fact, many 

of the examples being added in today’s proposal are themselves 

virgin materials (e.g., tree trimmings, stumps, orchard trees, 

etc.). We believe that providing these additional examples 

within the definition of clean cellulosic biomass is consistent 

with the intent of the 2011 NHSM final rule. Further, we believe 

that such revisions make it clear that the types of biomass 

materials the Agency would consider to be within the definition 

of clean cellulosic biomass (and a traditional fuel) are not 

limited to those explicitly listed in the definition, as we 

believe that it would be impractical if not impossible to 

capture all types of biomass materials that can be used as fuels 

within this single definition. 

 Thus, in today’s proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revise 

the definition of “clean cellulosic biomass” as follows: “Clean 

cellulosic biomass means those residuals that are akin to 

traditional cellulosic biomass, including, but not limited to: 

agricultural and forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, 

forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 116 of 405 

tree harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill materials, 

hogged fuel, wood pellets, untreated wood pallets); urban wood 

(e.g., tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived 

biomass from urban settings); corn stover and other biomass 

crops used specifically for the production of cellulosic 

biofuels (e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses, 

byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation processes); bagasse 

and other crop residues (e.g., peanut shells, vines, orchard 

trees, hulls, seeds, spent grains, cotton byproducts, corn and 

peanut production residues, rice milling and grain elevator 

operation residues); wood collected from forest fire clearance 

activities, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, clean 

biomass from land clearing operations, and clean construction 

and demolition wood. These fuels are not secondary materials or 

solid wastes unless discarded. Clean biomass is biomass that 

does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally 

associated with virgin biomass materials.” 

b. Contaminants 

 In today’s action, we are proposing a number of changes 

to the definition of “contaminants” in an effort to clarify what 

constituents are subject to the contaminant legitimacy 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 117 of 405 

criterion. The proposed definition is as follows: “Contaminants 

means all pollutants listed in Clean Air Act sections 112(b) and 

129(a)(4), with modifications outlined in this definition to 

reflect constituents found in non-hazardous secondary materials 

prior to combustion. The definition includes the following 

elemental contaminants that commonly form Clean Air Act section 

112(b) and 129(a)(4) pollutants: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, fluorine, lead, manganese, 

mercury, nickel, nitrogen, selenium, and sulfur. The definition 

does not include the following Clean Air Act section 112(b) and 

129(a)(4) pollutants that are either unlikely to be found in 

non-hazardous secondary materials prior to combustion or are 

adequately measured by other parts of this definition: hydrogen 

chloride (HCl), chlorine gas (Cl2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine mineral fibers, 

particulate matter, coke oven emissions, diazomethane, white 

phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride, m-cresol, o-cresol, pcresol, m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene.” 

 Before discussing these changes, we first want to note that 

the 2011 NHSM final rule and today’s proposed rule identify the 

same three ways a chemical can be labeled a contaminant. First, 

it may be one of the 187 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 118 of 405 

currently listed in CAA section 112(b); second, it may be one of 

the nine pollutants listed under CAA section 129(a)(4); and 

third, it may be one of a handful of chemicals whose combustion 

will result in the formation of listed CAA section 112(b) and 

section 129(a)(4) pollutants (e.g., sulfur that will result in 

sulfur dioxide). Today’s proposed definition provides 

clarification by listing the constituents that belong to the 

third group.13 Specifically, several pollutants listed in CAA 

sections 112(b) and section 129(a)(4) form during combustion, so 

elemental precursors to those pollutants that are found in the 

NHSM prior to combustion are being added to the contaminant 

definition in place of the pollutants themselves. For example, 

when present in a NHSM undergoing combustion, chlorine readily 

forms hydrogen chloride (HCl), fluorine readily forms hydrogen 

fluoride (HF), nitrogen readily forms nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 

sulfur readily forms sulfur dioxide (SO2). Because forms of these 

four elements found in materials prior to combustion are not 

directly identified as CAA air pollutants, yet the forms they 

take due to combustion are directly identified as CAA air 

 

13 Eleven metal elements directly identified in CAA section 112(b) are listed 

in the definition to provide the regulated community with a complete list of 

elements that are considered “contaminants” under the rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 119 of 405 

pollutants, we believe it would be less confusing to include 

these elements in the “contaminants” definition. 

 Also, we are proposing to exclude from the definition of 

contaminants those pollutants in the CAA section 112(b) and 

129(a)(4) lists that we do not expect to find in any NHSM. 

Specifically: 

• Hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine gas (Cl2), hydrogen 

fluoride (HF), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) are identified as CAA list pollutants that are 

excluded from the definition since they are unlikely to be 

found in NHSM and have been replaced by the elements 

chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, and sulfur as discussed 

above;14 

• Fine mineral fibers, particulate matter, and coke oven 

emissions are excluded because they are unlikely to exist 

prior to combustion; 

 

14 Carbon monoxide (CO) is unlikely to be found in solid or liquid NHSMs, and 

EPA expects that combustors can use process knowledge to justify not testing 

for CO in these cases. CO remains in the contaminants definition, however, 

because no clear surrogate exists to replace it—neither the 2011 NHSM final 

rule nor today’s proposed rule considers the elements carbon and oxygen to be 

contaminants. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 120 of 405 

• Cresol isomers m-cresol, o-cresol, and p-cresol are 

excluded because the listed pollutant cresols/cresylic acid 

includes these three isomers; 

• Xylene isomers m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene are 

excluded because the listed pollutant xylenes includes 

these three isomers; and 

• Diazomethane, white phosphorus, and titanium tetrachloride 

are excluded because their high reactivity makes their 

presence in NHSMs very unlikely. 

 In addition, two phrases present in the 2011 NHSM final 

rule “contaminants” definition are not present in today’s 

proposed definition. First, the phrase concerning constituents 

“that will result in emissions of air pollutants” has been 

removed since the regulated community appears to be confused 

that in determining whether or not a NHSM meets the “contaminant 

legitimacy criterion,” emissions from the combustion unit were 

to be considered in making the evaluation. EPA disagrees and 

directs readers to the language in sections 241.3(d)(1)(iii) and 

241.3(d)(2)(iv), which clearly states that the contaminant 

comparisons are based on the presence of contaminants in the 

NHSM that enters the combustion unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 121 of 405 

 Second, the phrase “including those constituents that could 

generate products of incomplete combustion,” also referred to as 

PICs, has been removed because it is duplicative and potentially 

misleading. Specifically, this phrase has been removed because 

all PICs that the Agency considers air pollutants—including 

dioxins, dibenzofurans, PCBs, and PAHs—are already listed in CAA 

sections 112(b) or 129(a)(4) and are thus included in the 

“contaminants” definition. More importantly, it is potentially 

misleading because PIC formation depends heavily on combustion 

conditions, such as air/fuel ratio and mixing. These conditions 

are controlled to limit emissions, and neither these conditions 

nor emissions are the subject of this rule. The NHSM itself, and 

what it contains prior to combustion, is the subject of this 

rule. Thus, both changes clarify—but do not alter—the 

constituents subject to the contaminant legitimacy criterion. 

c. Established Tire Collection Programs 

Under the 2011 NHSM final rule, whole scrap tires (that are 

removed from vehicles) had to be managed under an “established 

tire collection program” in addition to other criteria in order 

to be considered a non-waste fuel. The 2011 NHSM final rule 

defined “established tire collection program” as meaning “a 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 122 of 405 

comprehensive collection system that ensures scrap tires are not 

discarded and are handled as valuable commodities in accordance 

with section 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of removal from the 

vehicle through arrival at the combustion facility” (codified in 

40 CFR 241.2). 

 However, this definition does not directly account for 

“factory scrap” tires or “off-specification” tires that are 

contractually arranged to be collected, managed, and transported 

between a tire manufacturer (including retailers and other 

parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires) and 

a combustor—a fact pattern the Agency views as being within the 

intent of the regulatory definition of “established tire 

collection program.” Thus, the Agency is proposing to define 

“established tire collection program” to mean “a comprehensive 

collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures scrap 

tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities 

from the point of removal from the vehicle or the point at which 

they are generated at a tire manufacturer (including retailers 

or other parties involved in the distribution and sale of new 

tires) through arrival at the combustion facility.” 

 The Agency did not include the provisions for the “factory 

scrap” or “off-specification” tires in the 2011 NHSM final rule 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 123 of 405 

since information or comments were not provided to EPA during 

the rulemaking process and thus, the Agency was not aware of the 

issue. The Agency did not receive comments about factory scrap 

or off-specification tires on the Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) or the Proposed Rule. Following promulgation 

of the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA learned that off-specification 

tires (including factory scrap tires), which include whole tires 

and tire components that do not meet manufacturer 

specifications, are collected at tire manufacturing facilities 

or manufacturer’s downstream distribution channels—retailers and 

other parties involved in the distribution and sale of new 

tires. As noted in the revised definition, we interpret the term 

“tire manufacturers” broadly to include retailers and other 

parties that are involved in the distribution and sale of new 

tires, as we believe that these parties also manage tires as 

valuable commodities, such that discard is not occurring when 

these tires are transferred to a combustor. 

 If at any point in the process, a tire component or whole 

tire is not suitable for use as a vehicle tire, it is separated 

from the other tire components (or whole tires) and is stored in 

a protected environment in order to accumulate a sufficient 

quantity for shipment. The management of these tires is tightly 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 124 of 405 

controlled. Proprietary information could be collected by 

competitors by analyzing the factory scrap tire components, 

particularly from the uncured components (not yet vulcanized 

through heat and pressure), so the tires are stored in a safe 

manner, in part, to prevent theft.15 Thus, we believe that 

factory scrap and off-specification tires are handled in the 

same protective manner as those that qualified to be managed 

under the oversight of established tire collection programs as 

described in the 2011 NHSM final rule. 

 The tire manufacturers, as well as the manufacturers’ 

downstream distribution channels, that are included in the 

definition of “established tire collection programs” (1) have 

contractual arrangements with combustors, typically cement kilns 

(due to the high heating value and beneficial contribution to 

the cement production), to take and use their tires as fuels; or 

(2) are covered under the oversight of other collection programs 

that qualify under established tire collection programs (i.e., 

oversight of state tire programs). 

 As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, the intent of the 

requirement for “removal from the vehicle” was to distinguish 

 

15 Personal communication from Tracey Norberg to EPA, September 13, 2011. A 

copy of this communication has been placed in the docket in today’s rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 125 of 405 

these tires from those that were previously abandoned, and thus 

discarded. The changes to the definition in this proposed rule 

align the codified definition of established tire collection 

programs with the intent of the definition. We also note that we 

are proposing to delete the reference to section 241.3(b)(2)(i) 

that was included in the previous definition of established tire 

collection programs, since the citation is no longer accurate 

based on other revisions being proposed today (e.g., see the 

discussion regarding scrap tires managed pursuant to established 

tire collection programs in Section II.D.3). Refer to the 2011 

NHSM final rule for more background and information regarding 

the characterization of “established tire collection programs.”16 

2. Revisions to the Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM 

Used as Fuels

Several changes are being proposed in today’s rule to the 

contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM used as fuel. These 

proposed changes to §241.3(d)(1)(iii) emphasize the flexibility 

that is already embodied in the 2011 NHSM final rule. First, 

today’s proposal replaces “contaminants” with the phrase 

“contaminants or groups of contaminants” to further highlight 

 

16 See 76 FR 15490-15499 and 15534-15535. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 126 of 405 

that the regulatory definition allows groups of contaminants to 

be evaluated, where appropriate, in determining whether a NHSM 

meets the contaminant legitimacy criterion. Second, today’s 

proposal codifies language from the preamble of the 2011 NHSM 

final rule stating that the “designed to burn” concept includes 

traditional fuels that can be burned or are burned in a 

particular unit, whether or not the unit is permitted to burn 

that traditional fuel. 

 In addition, the proposed regulations include text 

confirming that contaminant comparisons may use ranges from 

national surveys of traditional fuel data. Neither the 2011 NHSM 

final rule nor today’s proposed rule requires persons to compare 

contaminants in their NHSM to contaminants in the specific 

traditional fuel source they burn (or would otherwise burn). As 

an example, persons that would otherwise burn coal may use any 

as-burned coal available in coal markets in making a comparison 

between the contaminants in their NHSM and the contaminants in 

coal—they are not limited to coal from a specific coal supplier 

they have used in the past or currently use. Regulatory text 

confirming this flexibility is only included in today’s proposed 

regulations to clarify what is inherent in the 2011 NHSM final 

rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 127 of 405 

 Two other issues have arisen during implementation of the 

2011 NHSM final rule that, while not leading to specific 

regulatory changes in today’s proposal, still merit discussion. 

The first issue is that contaminant legitimacy criterion 

determinations do not require testing contaminant levels, in 

either the NHSM or an appropriate traditional fuel. Persons can 

use expert or process knowledge to justify decisions to rule out 

certain constituents. The second issue is that persons may use 

data from a group of similar traditional fuels for contaminant 

comparisons, provided the unit could burn each traditional fuel. 

This idea grows from the “designed to burn” concept explained in 

the 2011 NHSM final rule and codified in today’s proposal, as it 

allows a person with a unit that can or does burn similar 

traditional fuels (e.g., anthracite, lignite, bituminous, and 

sub-bituminous coal) to group those traditional fuels when 

making contaminant comparisons. See Section II.D.2.b for more 

discussion of this rationale. 

a. What are the Contaminants? 

 While persons may satisfy the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion on a contaminant-by-contaminant basis, comparing 

groups of contaminants in the NHSM to similar groups in 

traditional fuels could also be appropriate, provided the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 128 of 405 

grouped contaminants share physical and chemical properties that 

influence behavior in the combustion unit prior to the point 

where emissions occur. Volatility, the presence of specific 

elements, and compound structure are three such properties. One 

approach to grouping contaminants, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 

below, could include total organic halogens (TOX), nitrogenated 

compounds, volatile organic compounds (VOC), semi-volatile 

organic compounds (SVOC), dioxins/furans, polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and 

radionuclides. Subject to EPA enforcement review, persons may 

consider other groupings that they can show are technically 

reasonable. 

 Grouping of contaminants is a standard practice often 

employed by the Agency as it develops regulations. In fact, the 

monitoring standards included in the CAA section 112 and 129 

regulations also utilize the grouping concept, and they apply to 

the same combustion units impacted by the NHSM rule (i.e., 

industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process 

heaters and CISWI units). For example, 

• Volatile hydrocarbons and semi-volatile hydrocarbons can 

both be expected to result from incomplete combustion; 

therefore, the emission standards promulgated under the CAA 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 129 of 405 

regulations are grouped into one category: CO.17 

• Halogenated organics are expected to contribute to 

emissions of dioxin and acid gases (HCl and HF); therefore, 

the emission standards promulgated under the CAA are 

grouped into two categories: dioxins/furans and HCl.18 

• Nitrogenated compounds are expected to contribute to 

emissions of NOx; therefore, the emission standards 

promulgated under the CAA are grouped into one category: 

NOx.19 

A look at Tables 1 and 2 below also reveals that a number 

of the seemingly “individual” pollutants listed in sections 112 

and 129 of the CAA are actually classes of structurally-related 

compounds (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic organic 

matter, dioxins/furans, cyanide compounds, cresols, glycol 

ethers, radionuclides, xylenes, antimony compounds, arsenic 

compounds, beryllium compounds, cadmium compounds, etc.). 

 If persons choose to group contaminants, analytical methods 

for the NHSM and traditional fuel should account for the same 

list of compounds to the extent possible. Persons may be able to 

 

17 Area Source Boilers NESHAP, Major Source Boilers NESHAP, and Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP. 

18 Major Source Boilers NESHAP and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators NESHAP. 

19 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 130 of 405 

exclude some members of a particular contaminant group from 

testing based on process knowledge, but methods for testing the 

group as a whole should generally account for all other members 

of the contaminant group. 

 Some data sources may define contaminant groups more 

broadly than this rule, thus resulting in a definition for a 

particular group that includes compounds not considered 

contaminants under the rule. Such data sources may be all that 

is available in the literature in some cases, but they may still 

be appropriate. Total VOC and total SVOC analyses offer an 

instructive example because, depending on the test used and the 

material analyzed, such analyses may include concentrations of 

methane, acetone, or other compounds not considered contaminants 

under the NHSM final rule. Several solutions exist to make the 

results meaningful, however. One approach would be to 

specifically subtract compounds like methane that are not 

considered contaminants under the rule and are expected to boost 

a total group count in traditional fuels. Another approach would 

be to measure each applicable compound individually and add the 

totals. 

 The tables presented below would separate the list of 

potential contaminants into the 15 elements listed in today’s 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 131 of 405 

proposed definition of “contaminants” and the 163 compounds or 

groups of compounds inferred from that definition by their 

inclusion on the CAA section 112 or 129 lists. The elements 

listed in Table 1 are considered contaminants because they 

commonly form air pollutants listed on either the CAA section 

112 HAP list, the CAA section 129 list, or both lists. The 

compounds or groups of compounds listed in Table 2 are 

considered contaminants because they are directly on either the 

CAA section 112 HAP list, the CAA section 129 list, or both 

lists.20,21 The Agency wants to make clear that persons can use 

other approaches that they can show are technically reasonable, 

whether it is on a contaminant-by-contaminant basis or involves 

grouping contaminants. The Agency is only offering these tables 

to provide the regulated community with one reasonable approach 

for how a grouping of contaminants could be implemented. 

 

Table 1: Elements Considered Contaminants—With Explanation 

1 Antimony (Sb) Antimony compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

2 Arsenic (As) Arsenic compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

3 Beryllium (Be) Beryllium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

4 Cadmium (Cd) Cadmium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

5 Chlorine (Cl) 

Hydrogen chloride/hydrochloric acid is on the CAA HAP 

& 129 lists 

 

20 Clean Air Act section 112(b). See 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/atwsmod.html for modifications to the original 

list of Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

21 Clean Air Act section 129(a)(4). See www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/129/sec129.pdf 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 132 of 405 

6 Chromium (Cr) Chromium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

7 Cobalt (Co) Cobalt compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

8 Fluorine (F) 

Hydrogen fluoride/hydrofluoric acid is a CAA section 

112 HAP 

9 Lead (Pb) Lead compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

10 Manganese (Mn) Manganese compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

11 Mercury (Hg) Mercury compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

12 Nickel (Ni) Nickel compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

13 Nitrogen (N) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a CAA section 129 pollutant 

14 Selenium (Se) Selenium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP 

15 Sulfur (S) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a CAA section 129 pollutant 

Table 2: Compounds Considered Contaminants—With Group 

Information22

1 Acetaldehyde VOC23 

2 Acetamide SVOC24 Nitrogenated

3 Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide) VOC Nitrogenated

4 Acetophenone VOC 

5 2-Acetylaminofluorene Nitrogenated

6 Acrolein VOC 

7 Acrylamide VOC Nitrogenated

8 Acrylic acid VOC 

9 Acrylonitrile VOC Nitrogenated

10 Allyl chloride VOC Org. Halogen25 

11 4-Aminobiphenyl SVOC Nitrogenated

12 Aniline VOC Nitrogenated

13 o-Anisidine SVOC Nitrogenated

14 Asbestos 

15 Benzene VOC 

16 Benzidine SVOC Nitrogenated

17 Benzotrichloride SVOC Org. Halogen 

18 Benzyl chloride VOC Org. Halogen 

19 Biphenyl SVOC 

20 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) SVOC 

21 Bis(chloromethyl)ether VOC Org. Halogen 

22 Bromoform VOC Org. Halogen 

 

22 Spicer, Chester W. et al., Hazardous Air Pollutant Handbook, Lewis, Boca 

Raton, FL, 2002, pg 23-53. 

23 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are identified here as organic compounds 

with a vapor pressure greater than 0.1 mm Hg at 25°C. 

24 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) are identified here as organic 

compounds with a vapor pressure between 10-7 and 0.1 mm Hg at 25°C. 25 Organic halogens are identified here as any compound that contains both 

carbon and a halogen (chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or iodine). 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 133 of 405 

23 1,3-Butadiene VOC 

24 Calcium cyanamide Nitrogenated

25 Captan SVOC Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

26 Carbaryl SVOC Nitrogenated

27 Carbon disulfide VOC 

28 Carbon monoxide 

29 Carbon tetrachloride VOC Org. Halogen 

30 Carbonyl sulfide VOC 

31 Catechol VOC 

32 Chloramben SVOC Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

33 Chlordane SVOC Org. Halogen 

34 Chloroacetic acid VOC Org. Halogen 

35 2-Chloroacetophenone SVOC Org. Halogen 

36 Chlorobenzene VOC Org. Halogen 

37 Chlorobenzilate SVOC Org. Halogen 

38 Chloroform VOC Org. Halogen 

39 Chloromethyl methyl ether VOC Org. Halogen 

40 Chloroprene VOC Org. Halogen 

41 * Cresols/Cresylic acid26 VOC 

42 Cumene VOC 

43 * Cyanide compounds27 Nitrogenated

44 2,4-D, salts and esters SVOC Org. Halogen 

45 DDE SVOC Org. Halogen 

46 * Dibenzofurans28

Consider Dioxins & Furans as a Distinct 

Group 

47 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane VOC Org. Halogen 

48 Dibutylphthalate SVOC 

49 1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p) VOC Org. Halogen 

50 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene SVOC Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

51 

Dichloroethyl ether (bis(2-

chloroethyl)ether) VOC Org. Halogen 

52 1,3-Dichloropropene VOC Org. Halogen 

53 Dichlorvos SVOC Org. Halogen 

54 Diethanolamine SVOC Nitrogenated

55 Diethyl sulfate VOC 

56 3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine Nitrogenated

57 Dimethyl aminoazobenzene Nitrogenated

58 N,N-Dimethylaniline VOC Nitrogenated

59 3,3'-Dimethyl benzidine SVOC Nitrogenated

60 Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride VOC Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

61 Dimethyl formamide VOC Nitrogenated

62 1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine VOC Nitrogenated

63 Dimethyl phthalate SVOC 

64 Dimethyl sulfate VOC 

 

26 Cresols are a group that includes three compounds. 27 Cyanide compounds are a group that includes hydrogen cyanide, 

propionitrile, cyanogens, and a number of possible particle phase compounds. 

28 Dibenzofurans are a group that includes 135 polychlorinated dibenzofurans 

(PCDFs). 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 134 of 405 

65 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts SVOC Nitrogenated

66 2,4-Dinitrophenol SVOC Nitrogenated

67 2,4-Dinitrotoluene SVOC Nitrogenated

68 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-diethyleneoxide) VOC 

69 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine SVOC Nitrogenated

70 

Epichlorohydrin (1-chloro-2,3-

epoxypropane) VOC Org. Halogen 

71 1,2-Epoxybutane VOC 

72 Ethyl acrylate VOC 

73 Ethyl benzene VOC 

74 Ethyl carbamate (urethane) VOC Nitrogenated

75 Ethyl chloride (chloroethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

76 

Ethylene dibromide 

(dibromoethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

77 

Ethylene dichloride (1,2-

Dichloroethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

78 Ethylene glycol SVOC 

79 Ethylene imine (aziridine) VOC Nitrogenated

80 Ethylene oxide VOC 

81 Ethylene thiourea SVOC Nitrogenated

82 

Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-

Dichloroethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

83 Formaldehyde VOC 

84 * Glycol ethers29 SVOC 

85 Heptachlor SVOC Org. Halogen 

86 Hexachlorobenzene SVOC Org. Halogen 

87 Hexachlorobutadiene VOC Org. Halogen 

88 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD) SVOC Org. Halogen 

89 Hexachloroethane VOC Org. Halogen 

90 Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate SVOC Nitrogenated

91 Hexamethylphosphoramide SVOC Nitrogenated

92 Hexane VOC 

93 Hydrazine Nitrogenated

94 Hydroquinone SVOC 

95 Isophorone VOC 

96 Lindane (all isomers) SVOC Org. Halogen 

97 Maleic anhydride SVOC 

98 Methanol VOC 

99 Methoxychlor SVOC Org. Halogen 

100 Methyl bromide (bromomethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

101 Methyl chloride (chloromethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

102 

Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

103 Methyl hydrazine VOC Nitrogenated

104 Methyl iodide (Iodomethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

105 Methyl isobutyl ketone VOC 

106 Methyl isocyanate VOC Nitrogenated

107 Methyl methacrylate VOC 

 

29 Glycol ethers are a group that includes roughly 30 compounds. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 135 of 405 

108 Methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) VOC 

109 

4,4-Methylene bis(2-

chloroaniline) Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

110 

Methylene chloride 

(dichloromethane) VOC Org. Halogen 

111 4,4'-Methylenedianiline Nitrogenated

112 

Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate 

(MDI) SVOC Nitrogenated

113 Naphthalene SVOC 

114 Nitrobenzene VOC Nitrogenated

115 4-Nitrobiphenyl SVOC Nitrogenated

116 4-Nitrophenol SVOC Nitrogenated

117 2-Nitropropane VOC Nitrogenated

118 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) VOC Nitrogenated

119 N-Nitroso-N-methylurea VOC Nitrogenated

120 N-Nitrosomorpholine VOC Nitrogenated

121 Parathion SVOC Nitrogenated

122 

Pentachloronitrobenzene 

(Quintobenzene) SVOC Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

123 Pentachlorophenol SVOC Org. Halogen 

124 Phenol VOC 

125 p-Phenylenediamine SVOC Nitrogenated

126 Phosgene VOC Org. Halogen 

127 Phosphine 

128 Phthalic anhydride SVOC 

129 * Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)30 Consider PCBs as a Distinct Group 

130 * 

Polycyclic Organic Matter (or 

Total PAH)31 Consider Total PAH as a Distinct Group 

131 1,3-Propane sultone VOC 

132 β-Propiolactone VOC 

133 Propionaldehyde VOC 

134 Propoxur (Baygon) SVOC Nitrogenated

135 

Propylene dichloride (1,2-

dichloropropane) VOC Org. Halogen 

136 Propylene oxide VOC 

137 

1,2-Propylenimine (2-methyl 

aziridine) VOC Nitrogenated

138 Quinoline SVOC Nitrogenated

139 Quinone SVOC 

140 * Radionuclides (including radon)32 

141 Styrene VOC 

142 Styrene oxide VOC 

143 * 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- Consider Dioxins / Furans as a Distinct 

 

30 PCBs are a group that includes 209 congeners. 31 Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is a group that theoretically may include 

millions of compounds. Only 100 or so, however, have been identified and 

studied. 

32 Radionuclides are a group that includes uranium, radon, and radium 

isotopes. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 136 of 405 

dioxin & other dioxins33 Group 

144 1,2,2,2-Tetrachloroethane VOC Org. Halogen 

145 

Tetrachloroethylene 

(perchloroethylene) VOC Org. Halogen 

146 Toluene VOC 

147 2,4-Toluene diamine SVOC Nitrogenated

148 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate SVOC Nitrogenated

149 o-Toluidine SVOC Nitrogenated

150 Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes) SVOC Org. Halogen 

151 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene VOC Org. Halogen 

152 1,1,2-Trichloroethane VOC Org. Halogen 

153 Trichloroethylene (TCE) VOC Org. Halogen 

154 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol SVOC Org. Halogen 

155 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol SVOC Org. Halogen 

156 Triethylamine VOC Nitrogenated

157 Trifluralin SVOC Org. Halogen Nitrogenated

158 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane VOC 

159 Vinyl acetate VOC 

160 Vinyl bromide VOC Org. Halogen 

161 Vinyl chloride VOC Org. Halogen 

162 

Vinylidene chloride (1,1-

dichloroethylene) VOC Org. Halogen 

163 * Xylenes34 VOC 

 Tables 1 and 2 do not include the 17 compounds specifically 

removed from the proposed regulatory definition of contaminants 

in §241.2. As discussed in Section II.D.1., hydrogen chloride 

(HCl), chlorine gas (Cl2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are excluded from Table 2 

and replaced by the elements chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, and 

sulfur in Table 1. This is necessary because of differences 

between NHSMs prior to combustion and the emissions that will 

result from that combustion. NHSMs prior to combustion are not 

expected to contain the CAA 112/129 pollutants hydrogen 

 

33 Dioxins are a group that includes 75 polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins 

(PCDDs). 

34 Xylenes are a group that includes three compounds. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 137 of 405 

chloride, chlorine gas, hydrogen fluoride, nitrogen oxides, or 

sulfur dioxide, and measuring forms of their precursors (the 

elements chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur) is the only 

way to account for these pollutants prior to combustion. 

 In addition, fine mineral fibers, particulate matter, and 

coke oven emissions are excluded because they are unlikely to 

exist in NHSMs prior to combustion. Diazomethane, white 

phosphorus, and titanium tetrachloride are also excluded because 

their reactivity makes their presence in NHSMs very unlikely.35 

Finally, the three cresol isomers are included in Table 2 under 

cresols/cresylic acid, itself a listed HAP; and similarly, the 

three xylene isomers are included in Table 2 under xylenes, also 

a listed HAP. 

b. What Does “Designed to Burn” Mean? 

 To meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion, persons must 

compare contaminants in the NHSM they wish to burn to 

contaminants in the traditional fuel the unit is “designed to 

burn.”36 Today’s proposal codifies that data for any traditional 

fuel the unit can burn or does burn may be used for these 

comparisons, whether or not the unit’s air permit lists the 

 

35 Spicer, Chester W. et al., Hazardous Air Pollutant Handbook, Lewis, Boca 

Raton, FL, 2002, pp 11-21. 

36 As explained in Section II.D.2.a, today’s proposed rule makes it clear that 

“contaminants” may be an individual contaminant or group of contaminants. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 138 of 405 

traditional fuel. The reason such comparisons to traditional 

fuel(s) are conducted is to assist in making a determination of 

whether or not the NHSM is being discarded, which makes 

differentiating between “can burn” and “does burn” irrelevant. 

Please note that for a unit to be able to burn a traditional 

fuel, it needs an appropriate feed mechanism (e.g., a way to 

load solid fuel of a particular size into the unit). The unit 

would also need the ability to adjust physical parameters to 

ensure spatial mixing and flame stability per unit 

specifications. 

 Traditional fuels are defined in §241.2 as follows: 

“Traditional fuels means materials that are produced as fuels 

and are unused products that have not been discarded and 

therefore, are not solid wastes, including: (1) fuels that have 

been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than 

being managed as waste materials, including fossil fuels (e.g., 

coal, oil and natural gas), their derivatives (e.g., petroleum 

coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, synthetic 

fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered 

gaseous butane, and coke oven gas) and cellulosic biomass 

(virgin wood); and (2) alternative fuels developed from virgin 

materials that can now be used as fuel products, including used 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 139 of 405 

oil which meets the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 279.11, 

currently mined coal refuse that previously had not been usable 

as coal, and clean cellulosic biomass. These fuels are not 

secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded.” 

 Because most combustion units can burn different—but 

related—traditional fuels, broad groups of similar traditional 

fuels may be used when comparing contaminants. The most common 

traditional fuel categories burned at major source boilers are 

coal, wood, oil, and natural gas, as evidenced by data submitted 

to EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS).37,38

 To further clarify the impact of the new proposed “designed 

to burn” language on contaminant comparisons, potential 

categories for coal, wood, and oil are described below. A coal 

group could include data on anthracite, lignite, bituminous, and 

sub-bituminous coal. A wood or biomass group could include data 

on unadulterated lumber, timber, bark, biomass, and hogged fuel. 

An oil group could include data on fuel oils 1-6, diesel fuel, 

 

37 EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Emissions 

Database for Boilers and Process Heaters Containing Stack Test, CEM & Fuel 

Analysis Data Reported Under ICR No. 2286.01 and ICR No. 2286.03 (Version 6). 

February 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html#TECH 38 The fuel analysis information in this OAQPS database is one example of a 

“national survey” of traditional fuel information, as referenced in the 

proposed contaminant legitimacy criterion at §241.3(d)(1)(iii). 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 140 of 405 

kerosene, and other petroleum based oils.39,40 In cases where a 

unit can burn traditional fuels from several categories, such as 

a boiler that can burn either coal or biomass, contaminant 

comparisons could be made using data from either fuel category 

at the combustor’s discretion. In other words, if a facility 

burns biomass in its combustion unit, but that same combustion 

unit could also burn coal, the facility could compare its 

secondary material to either traditional fuel. Data in the 

materials characterization paper “Traditional Fuels and Key 

Derivatives,” originally developed in February 2011, have been 

reorganized to better reflect these points.41

 Some fossil fuel derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, coal 

tar oil) and alternative fuels (e.g., clean cellulosic biomass) 

are defined as traditional fuels and, therefore, do not need to 

meet the legitimacy criteria to be burned. EPA lacks sufficient 

contaminant data, however, to assist those wishing to compare 

NHSM to these traditional fuels. In addition, other units 

 

39 We do not believe that the oil group should include unrefined crude oil or 

gasoline, as neither is typically burned in combustion units subject to the 

CAA section 112 or 129 standards. 

40 Used oil is a special case and does not need to undergo the contaminant 

comparison. If it meets the specifications in 40 CFR Part 279.11, it is a 

traditional fuel. If it does not meet the specifications (i.e., it is “offspec” oil), it is a solid waste under the 2011 NHSM final rule. 

41 The “Traditional Fuels and Key Derivatives” Materials Characterization 

Paper, as well as the twenty-two other NHSM-specific materials 

characterization papers that were developed during the rulemaking, can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 141 of 405 

currently exist that burn only NHSMs. Both situations raise the 

question of what traditional fuel(s) to use for contaminant 

comparisons. In addition to being able to burn derivative fuels, 

alternative fuels, or NHSM, most combustion units can also burn 

other traditional fuel(s). In such cases, it is appropriate to 

make the comparison to one of the traditional fuel categories 

discussed above: either coal or wood for solids or oil for 

liquids. For example, if a combustion unit only burns a solid 

form of NHSM, the combustor could compare contaminants in the 

NHSM against either coal or wood in order to demonstrate 

compliance with the contaminant legitimacy criterion, provided 

the combustion unit is designed to burn such solid forms of 

fuel. 

c. What Contaminant Comparisons Are Allowed? 

 Regardless of the specific methodology chosen, a comparison 

will have to be made for each contaminant or group of 

contaminants between a traditional fuel or group of traditional 

fuels and the NHSM. Generators or combustors can choose from 

either EPA’s materials characterization paper “Traditional Fuels 

and Key Derivatives” or their own data for traditional fuel 

comparison values. Generators or combustors are responsible, 

however, for either providing NHSM comparison values in cases 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 142 of 405 

where testing is required or documenting why testing is 

unnecessary. Examples of acceptable NHSM data could include both 

laboratory test results from a specific generator or combustor 

and industry-recognized values provided by a national trade 

organization. 

 Given data for a particular traditional fuel, it makes 

intuitive sense to base the traditional fuel comparison value on 

the upper end of its statistical range. Anything less could 

result in “traditional fuel” samples being considered 

“illegitimate” if burned in the very combustion units designed 

to burn them—not the Agency’s intent in either the 2011 NHSM 

final rule or today’s proposed rule.42 Given that selection, 

acceptable NHSM comparison values would include the upper end of 

a statistical range, a calculation involving the mean and 

standard deviation, or perhaps a single data point in situations 

where data is limited. It would not be appropriate to compare an 

average NHSM contaminant value to the high end of a traditional 

fuel range, as the existence of an average implies multiple data 

points from which a more suitable statistic (e.g., range or 

standard deviation) could have been calculated. 

 

42 Traditional fuels, as defined in §241.2, are not required to meet the 

legitimacy criteria, and this scenario is only used to explain the logic 

behind basing a traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of a 

statistical range. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 143 of 405 

 If each NHSM comparison value is comparable to or lower 

than its corresponding traditional fuel value, the material 

would be considered to meet the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion. An initial assessment would not generally need to be 

repeated, provided the facility continues to operate in the same 

manner and use the same type of NHSMs as when the original 

assessment was made. 

 We would finally note that despite presenting several 

approaches for calculating NHSM comparison values, such as the 

upper end of a statistical range or a calculation involving the 

mean and standard deviation, today’s preamble discussion does 

not preclude other reasonable methodologies. In the context of 

an inspection or enforcement action, the Agency will evaluate 

the appropriateness of alternative methodologies and data 

sources on a case-by-case basis when determining whether the 

legitimacy criteria have been met. 

 Even when analytical testing is not necessary, combustors 

burning NHSM under CAA section 112 must document the basis of 

their determinations pertaining to the Part 241 criteria 

(including the contaminant legitimacy criteria) in accordance 

with applicable air regulations. These regulations can be found 

in §63.11225(c)(2)(ii) for area source boilers, in 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 144 of 405 

§63.7555(d)(2) for major source boilers, and in §60.2175(v) for 

incinerators. 

3. Categorical Determinations That Specific NHSM Are Not Solid 

Wastes When Used as a Fuel

Issues were raised after promulgation of the 2011 NHSM 

final rule concerning application of the legitimacy criteria, 

and the extent of the information required to make 

demonstrations that a NHSM was not a solid waste. To provide 

additional clarity and assist in implementation of the rule, the 

Agency is proposing to codify in §241.4 determinations that 

certain NHSMs are not solid wastes when used as a fuel, where 

the Agency has sufficient information and knowledge that these 

NHSMs are not wastes. The practical effect of these categorical 

listings is that persons that generate or burn these materials 

will not need to make individual determinations, as required 

under the existing rules, that these materials meet the 

legitimacy criteria. Except where noted, combustors of these 

materials will not be required to provide further information 

demonstrating their non-waste status.43 

 

43 In the 2011 NHSM final rule, scrap tires managed under established tire 

collection programs and resinated wood were designated as non-wastes when 

used both within and outside generator control (see§ 241.3(b)(2). The final 

rule indicated that the Agency would solicit comment in the future on 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 145 of 405 

Thus, the Agency is proposing a list of secondary materials 

that are non-wastes when used as a fuel in a combustion unit, 

based on a balancing of the legitimacy criteria and other such 

relevant factors that the Administrator may identify. Such 

additional factors may include, but are not limited to, whether 

the NHSM’s use as a fuel has been integrally tied to the 

industrial production process and the extent to which the NHSM 

is functionally the same as the comparable traditional fuel. 

We note that a balancing approach to considering the 

legitimacy criteria along with other relevant factors is not 

included in the standards and procedures for making individual 

non-waste determinations under §241.3. The Agency is not 

considering any change to the self-implementing, mandatory 

nature of the §241.3 standards for individual facilities, and 

will not respond to any comments on this topic. 

Regarding the proposed categorical determinations in 

§241.4, where a particular NHSM may not meet all the legitimacy 

criteria outlined in §241.3(d)(1), it is necessary to require a 

formal determination in order to prevent sham recycling (i.e., 

materials being discarded under the guise of recycling). EPA has 

 

additional non-hazardous secondary materials that can be used as a non-waste 

fuel both by the generator and outside the control of the generator (76 FR 

15472). 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 146 of 405 

long acknowledged that, “[w]ith respect to the issue of whether 

[an] activity is sham recycling, this question involves 

assessing the intent of the owner or operator by evaluating 

circumstantial evidence, always a difficult task.”44 In cases 

where the difference between recycling and treatment is 

difficult to distinguish, “[t]he potential for abuse is such 

that great care must be used when making a determination that a 

particular activity is to go unregulated (i.e., it is one of 

those activities which is beyond the scope of our 

jurisdiction).”45 However, the Agency also believes that there 

are cases where a secondary material may not fully meet the 

self-implementing legitimacy criteria, but upon consideration of 

other relevant factors, it can be determined that the material 

is a legitimate fuel and is not merely being discarded by being 

burned. 

 In addition to the proposed categorical determination that 

certain secondary materials are not wastes when combusted as a 

fuel, the Agency is proposing a rulemaking petition process for 

individuals to request categorical determinations for additional 

NHSM as not being a solid waste when burned as a fuel in 

 

44 See April 26, 1989 Memorandum from Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of 

Solid Waste to Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X. A 

copy of this document has been placed in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 

45 Id. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 147 of 405 

combustion units. This process is outlined in Section II.D.4. 

Materials Identified in Rulemaking Petition. 

The information and rationale that the Agency is relying 

upon to propose the section 241.4 categorical determinations for 

certain secondary materials is discussed below. 

a. Scrap Tires 

In the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA determined that scrap 

tires removed from vehicles and managed pursuant to established 

tire collection programs would not be considered a solid waste, 

provided they meet the legitimacy criteria in §241.3(d)(1). The 

2011 NHSM final rule preamble also concluded that, as a 

category, scrap tires managed pursuant to established tire 

collection programs would meet the legitimacy criteria for NHSMs 

used as fuels. Questions have arisen, however, as to whether 

persons must still demonstrate for each facility that this 

material meets the legitimacy criteria. To clarify this point, 

we are proposing to codify a categorical determination in 

today’s rule to designate scrap tires that have not been 

discarded and are managed under the oversight of established 

tire collection programs (as defined in 241.2), including tires 

removed from vehicles and off-specification tires, are not solid 

wastes when used as fuels in combustion units. Thus, persons 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 148 of 405 

that generate and/or burn such scrap tires would not need to 

make an individual legitimacy determination that such scrap 

tires are non-waste fuels. 

 As discussed in Section II.D.1 of today’s action, the term 

“established tire collection program” is proposed to encompass 

off-specification tires (including factory scrap tires) that are 

contractually arranged to be collected, managed, and transported 

between a tire manufacturer, including retailers or other 

parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires, and 

a combustor. Thus, under the proposal, “established tire 

collection program” means “a comprehensive collection system or 

contractual arrangement that ensures scrap tires are not 

discarded and are handled as valuable commodities from the point 

of removal from the vehicle or the point at which they are 

generated at a tire manufacturer (including retailers or other 

parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires) 

through arrival at the combustion facility.” The established 

tire collection programs ensure the tires are not discarded. The 

rationale for the related edits to the definition of established 

tire collection programs are described in the Section II.D.1. 

 As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, scrap tires from 

vehicles meet the legitimacy criteria (§241.3(d)(1)) for being 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 149 of 405 

handled as a valuable commodity, for having meaningful heating 

value, and for comparable contaminants.46 Specifically, scrap 

tires are considered to be handled as a valuable commodity when 

they are collected under established tire collection programs. 

Because scrap tires have an exceptionally high heating value 

(12,000 Btu/lb to 16,000 Btu/lb), they are considered to meet 

the legitimacy criteria for meaningful heating value. In fact, 

the heating value of scrap tires is higher than typical coal 

values and other solid fuels.47 In developing the 2011 NHSM 

final rule, EPA analyzed contaminant concentrations in scrap 

tires and determined that contaminant levels were comparable to 

or lower than levels in traditional fuels; therefore, scrap 

tires are considered to meet the legitimacy criterion for 

comparable contaminants.48 

 The term “scrap tire” is a general term for tires and can 

include, for example, whole tires, chipped tires, offspecification tires, or off-specification tire components (i.e., 

 

46 76 FR at 15535. 47 ASTM Standard D6700-01, 2006, “Standard Practice for Use of Scrap TireDerived Fuel," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 

10.1520/C0033-03, www.astm.org 48 76 FR at 15492. Data cited submitted as comments on the 2010 NHSM Proposed 

Rule and can be found in the docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. See also Materials 

Characterization Papers in Support of the Final Rulemakings - 

Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes: 

Scrap Tires (February 3, 2011); Traditional Fuels and Key Derivatives 

(February 7, 2011) in docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 150 of 405 

tread, sidewall, or base) that are removed from vehicles or are 

generated by tire manufacturers, including retailers or other 

parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires; it 

does not include whole tires that have been discarded and burned 

directly without processing as a fuel. The provision in §241.4 

specifically references only those scrap tires that have not be 

discarded and are managed under the oversight of established 

tire collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles 

and off-specification tires. Thus, the regulatory text has been 

revised to make this point clear.

b. Resinated Wood49

 EPA is proposing to designate resinated wood as not being 

a solid waste when used as a fuel. This determination was 

previously codified under §241.3 (b)(2)(ii) of the NHSM final 

rule, provided the resinated wood met the legitimacy criteria in 

§241.3(d)(1). However, based on the available information, as 

well as how this material is handled and used in the process, 

resinated wood is not being discarded when used as a fuel, and 

thus, should not be considered a solid waste when burned as a 

fuel. 

 

49 40 CFR 241.2 defines resinated wood as wood products (containing resin 

adhesives) derived from primary and secondary wood products manufacturing and 

comprised of such items as board trim, sander dust and panel trim. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 151 of 405 

As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, wood product 

plants have been designed to specifically utilize these 

residuals that the wood manufacturing process creates and would 

not be able to operate as designed without this material. For 

example, sander dust injector systems have been specifically 

developed to accommodate the unique combustion requirements of 

this material and these injector systems have been installed on 

many boiler and wood drying systems within the industry.50 

Burners designed to combust sander dust or trim may not be 

suitable for combusting other fuels—thus, the cost of these 

residual materials relative to the cost of using other fuels 

would be a major consideration.51 Overall, in composite panel 

manufacturing, plants typically reuse 58 percent of these 

 

50 American Forest and Paper Association, August 3, 2010. EPA Docket ID EPAHQ-RCRA-2008-0329. 

51 For example, Composite Panel Association, in comments on the NHSM Proposed 

Rule, stated, “Estimates for the cost of a composite panel plant to switch 

boiler fuel from a trim/sander dust mix to natural gas ranged from $1 million 

to $3.5 million a year depending on boiler size and the price of natural gas. 

For direct fired dryers alone, the cost to switch from sander dust to natural 

gas ranged from $350,000 to $1.4 million a year, again depending on dryer 

size and gas prices. These costs do not include the re-engineering costs that 

would be necessitated nor do they include the cost of transportation or offsite disposal of this valuable fuel. Moreover, these costs do not take into 

account the severe costs implications on all wood product facilities that 

currently utilize resinated fuels in process heaters or dryers.” EPA Docket 

ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1358. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 152 of 405 

residual materials in the process and 35 percent is burned for 

energy recovery.52 

Resinated wood is highly valued within the wood products 

industry for its high fuel value relative to other wood fuels 

generated and burned at these facilities for energy recovery. 

Many facilities rely on mixing of these low moisture content 

wood materials with higher moisture materials. Resinated wood 

residuals are routinely transferred between either intra- or 

inter- company facilities and used as either “furnish” (i.e., 

raw materials) or fuel at the receiving facilities. The material 

being transferred off-site is used and handled in the same 

manner that resinated wood residuals are used when generated onsite. In general, the motivation to use the resinated wood as a 

fuel, even with the slightly higher formaldehyde levels, 

predominates over the motivation to dispose of the formaldehyde. 

See American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 58 (DC 

Cir. 2000) (in declaring reclaimed oily wastewater to be a waste 

EPA failed to explain why the discard motivation predominated 

the recycling motivation). Indeed, discard of the formaldehyde 

is a very distant second to the fuel product use of the 

resinated wood. 

 

52 The Generation and Utilization of Residuals from Composite Panel Products; 

Forest Products Journal 54:2, 2004; David C. Smith. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 153 of 405 

The heating value range presented (8,500 – 9,000 Btu/lb) 

indicates that resinated wood residuals have heating values 

significantly greater than the 5,000 Btu/lb level described in 

the preamble to the 2011 NHSM final rule for presuming 

compliance with the meaningful heating value legitimacy 

criterion (codified at §241.3(d)(1)(ii)). Resinated wood 

residuals also are managed as a valuable commodity since these 

residuals are managed as a primary fuel for wood products 

manufacturers. 

While we received limited contaminant information prior to 

the promulgation of the final rule, the data we have suggests 

that resins and adhesives containing formaldehyde react within 

the resin curing process, leaving “free” formaldehyde at levels 

less than 0.02 percent (or 200 ppm). In addition, new national 

rules, as mandated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

Composite Wood Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), per new Public 

Law No. 111-199, will reduce the formaldehyde levels even 

further.53 

While we acknowledge that these levels may not always meet 

the contaminant legitimacy criterion in every situation, in 

 

53 Information received from the wood manufacturing industry indicates that 

formaldehyde levels will be reduced to less than 100 ppm in resinated wood 

based on the new CARB rules. This data is provided in the docket for today’s 

proposed rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 154 of 405 

today’s action, we are proposing a categorical non-waste 

determination for resinated wood that is used as fuels. We are 

proposing to codify this determination, balancing the legitimacy 

criteria and other relevant factors based on the fact that 

resinated wood residuals that are used as fuels represents an 

integral component to the wood manufacturing process and, as 

such, resinated wood residuals are not being discarded when 

burned as fuels. That is, the purpose of burning these wood 

residuals (including the resins that they contain, which 

themselves contribute to the heating value of the material) is 

not to destroy or discard them, as they are clearly considered 

and managed as a valuable commodity to the manufacturing 

process. 

In making this determination, we note the extent to which 

resinated wood is used as fuels throughout the wood 

manufacturing industry and that often the use of resinated wood 

as fuel is essential to the wood manufacturing process. We also 

note the prevalence of wood product plants that have been 

designed specifically to utilize these residuals for their fuel 

value; in fact, many (if not most) wood products plants would 

not be able to operate as designed without the use of these 

materials as fuel. Thus, resinated wood residuals are not being 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 155 of 405 

discarded when used as fuel and, therefore, we are proposing to 

specifically identify them as a non-waste fuel in §241.4. By 

specifically listing them as a non-waste fuel, generators or 

combustors of this material will not need to make legitimacy 

determinations on a site-by-site basis. 

4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Non-Waste 

Determinations

The Agency recognizes that there may be other NHSMs that 

can also be considered non-wastes when burned as fuels in 

combustion units when balancing the legitimacy criteria and 

other relevant factors. Thus, under today’s proposed rule, we 

are proposing a process whereby persons may submit a rulemaking 

petition to the Administrator where they can identify and 

request that additional NHSMs be listed in section 241.4.54 The 

petition process would be similar to 40 CFR 260.20, where any 

person may petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provisions of the hazardous waste rules, and where procedures 

 

54 This approach is consistent with the approach EPA recently proposed in the 

July 2011 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) proposed rule (76 FR 44094), 

whereby the Agency is proposing to require that persons who claim that they 

are legitimately reclaiming a hazardous secondary material meet all four 

legitimacy criteria, but is providing a petition process whereby they can 

petition EPA that such materials, when looking at the hazardous secondary 

material and recycling activity as a whole, would still be considered 

legitimate recycling. The primary difference between the two is that in the 

DSW proposed rule, the demonstration is made on a site-specific basis, 

whereas in today’s proposed rule, the demonstration is made on a material-bymaterial basis. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 156 of 405 

governing EPA’s action on those petitions are established. The 

section 260.20 standards reflect normal, informal rulemaking 

procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act and thus 

serve as an appropriate model for the NHSM petitions under this 

section. 

In the context of a rulemaking petition under section 

241.4(b), any person would be able to petition the Administrator 

for a regulatory amendment to identify and request that 

additional NHSMs be included on the list of materials in section 

241.4(a) that are not solid wastes when used as a fuel in a 

combustion unit. To be successful, the petitioner would need to 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the 

proposed regulatory amendment involves a NHSM that has not been 

previously discarded (i.e., was not initially abandoned or 

thrown away). The petitioner must also demonstrate that the 

material is used as a non-waste fuel in a combustion unit 

because it either meets the legitimacy criteria, or, after 

balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, 

such NHSM(s) is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a 

combustion unit. 

If the applicant believes that the NHSM is a legitimate 

product and not discarded despite not meeting legitimacy 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 157 of 405 

criteria, additional information must be submitted to explain or 

describe why such NHSM should be considered a non-waste fuel. 

Possible factors to address include, but are not limited to: 

• The extent that use of the NHSM has been integrally tied 

to the industrial production process. Information can 

include combustor design specifications, the extent that 

use of the material is integrated across the industry, 

and the extent that use of the NHSM is essential to the 

industrial process, and/or 

• The extent that the NHSM is functionally the same as the 

comparable traditional fuel, and 

• Other relevant factors. 

The application would be required to include (1) the 

petitioner’s name and address; (2) a statement of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proposed action; (3) a description 

of the proposed action, including the specific NHSM, the 

industry (i.e., NAICS code) and functional use (i.e., industrial 

functional code listed in 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4)(i)(C)); and (4) a 

statement of the need and justification for the proposed action, 

including any supporting tests, studies, or other information. 

Where such NHSM(s) do not meet the legitimacy criteria, the 

applicant must explain why such NHSM should be considered a non-
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 158 of 405 

waste fuel, balancing the legitimacy criteria with other 

relevant factors. 

Under this petition process, the Administrator would make a 

tentative decision to grant or deny a petition and then publish 

notice of such tentative decision, either in the form of an 

advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, a proposed rule, or a 

tentative determination to deny the petition, in the Federal 

Register for written public comment. The Administrator could, at 

its discretion, hold an informal public hearing to consider 

oral comments on the tentative decision. After evaluating all 

public comments, the Administrator would make a final decision 

by publishing in the Federal Register a regulatory amendment or 

a denial of the petition. 

E. Additional Request for Comment 

As we discuss elsewhere in this preamble, the Agency is 

proposing to identify and categorically list NHSMs as being a 

non-waste fuel, whether burned within the control of the 

generator or outside the control of the generator (see 

241.4(a)). By listing these NHSMs categorically, persons would 

not have to make individual determinations as to whether or not 

these NHSMs are solid wastes. In addition, the Agency is also 

proposing that in considering whether or not to list a NHSM as a 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 159 of 405 

non-waste fuel, that the Agency can balance the legitimacy 

criteria, and such other relevant factors that the Administrator 

may identify. Such additional factors may include, but are not 

limited to, whether the NHSM’s use as a fuel has been integrally 

tied to the industrial production process and the extent to 

which the NHSM when used as a fuel is consistent with that of 

fuel product. 

In both the proposed and final NHSM rule, EPA identified 

pulp and paper sludges (that remain within the control of the 

generator), as being a non-waste fuel, provided they meet the 

legitimacy criteria in section 241.3(d)(1). (See 76 FR 15487, 

March 21, 2011). We received several questions about these 

materials following issuance of the final rule. As discussed 

below, based on the current record, EPA believes that these pulp 

and paper sludges meet the legitimacy criteria and can be burned 

as a non-waste fuel provided such combustion units are within 

the control of the generator. In this section, we discuss the 

information we currently have on these sludges, and the 

additional information that the Agency needs before we could 

categorically list these materials in section 241.4(a) as a nonwaste fuel. If such information is provided to EPA, and after 

balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 160 of 405 

that EPA believes that these sludges are not solid wastes when 

combusted, EPA is prepared to add pulp and paper sludges to the 

list of non-waste fuels in section 241.4(a). 

Pulp and paper mill sludges, both primary and secondary, 

are produced from the wastewater treatment of process effluents. 

In the pulping and papermaking process, maximizing wood fiber 

recovery is essential in making the process efficient and cost 

effective. However, there are fibers that end up being too short 

(fines) that can be detrimental to paper quality and that 

inhibit the papermaking capacity of the paper machine. Mills 

thoroughly clean and screen the wood fibers to retain the 

suitable fibers and remove the excess fines. These fines end up 

in the wastewater stream and, eventually, in the sludge. 

Therefore, these sludges, which are approximately 90-95 percent 

biomass on a dry weight basis, are essentially no different than 

the biomass-based wood fibers that enter the pulping or 

papermaking process, except that the fibers are too short to be 

suitable for papermaking; these sludges also contain 

microorganisms that feed on organic material in the wastewater 

stream. 

EPA compared the contaminant concentrations in pulp and 

paper sludges to levels found in coal and untreated wood, since 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 161 of 405 

both these traditional fuels can be burned in pulp and paper 

mills. As we discussed in the preamble to the final NHSM rule, 

chlorine levels from one set of pulp and paper sludge samples 

submitted in the public comments had an arithmetic mean of 465 

ppm, a median of 318 ppm, a maximum level among mill means of 

2,399 ppm, and a maximum among individual analyses of 4,800 ppm 

(all on a dry weight basis). Other samples had chlorine 

concentrations of between 1,050-4,800 ppm (dry basis). When 

comparing information on pulp and paper sludge to the 

information that we have compiled on coal, we found that 

chlorine levels in coal are reported to be as high as 7,400 ppm, 

and that average chlorine values for bituminous and subbituminous coal are 1,200 ppm and 140 ppm, respectively. Thus, 

the average chlorine levels reported in most pulp and paper 

sludge are likely to be comparable with average chlorine levels 

found in bituminous coal. We also determined that the chlorine 

levels in pulp and paper sludge would be comparable to untreated 

wood, given that untreated wood had chlorine levels as high as 

11,890 ppm.55 We note that there is one sample in the submitted 

 

55 As noted in Section II.D.2 of today’s proposed rule, we have updated and reorganized the Materials 

Characterization Paper entitled, “Traditional Fuels and Key Derivatives.” The paper has been updated to reflect data 

supporting the 2011 Major Source Boiler final rule and the 2011 CISWI final rule, whereas the previous version of 

the paper relied on data supporting the 2010 Major Source Boiler proposed rule and the 2010 CISWI proposed rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 162 of 405 

data set from a pulp and paper sludge that has a chlorine 

concentration of 16,550 ppm. However, since this was the only 

sample with such a high concentration of chlorine, we did not 

think that it was representative of pulp and paper sludges 

generally. We also determined that the levels of metals were 

lower in pulp and paper sludges than in both untreated wood and 

coal. 

While pulp and paper sludges can have a heating value below 

5,000 Btu/lb, pulp and paper mills typically improve the heating 

value through dewatering. Data from the Boiler/CISWI database 

established for those rules indicate that Btu/lb values exceeded 

5,000 Btu/lb for pulp and paper sludge measured on a dry weight 

basis. Thus, we believe that pulp and paper sludges meet the 

meaningful heating value legitimacy criterion when dewatered. 

Also, since pulp and paper sludges are handled promptly (i.e., 

not stored for long periods of time and are contained in storage 

units along with traditional fuels (such as wood and bark) with 

minimal loss (similar to a valuable commodity), EPA believes 

that pulp and paper sludges are managed as a valuable commodity 

(see 76 FR 15488-89, March 21, 2011). Thus, based on the current 

 

Contaminant data has also been reorganized to better reflect revisions to the definition of “contaminants” and the 

contaminant legitimacy criterion in today’s proposed NHSM rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 163 of 405 

record, EPA believes that these pulp and paper sludges meet the 

legitimacy criteria and can be burned as a non-waste fuel 

provided such combustion units are within the control of the 

generator. To the extent industry questions, based on its own 

data and information, whether the legitimacy criteria are met in 

all instances for pulp and paper sludges, but believes that such 

materials should be categorically listed in section 241.4(a), 

industry will need to provide the Agency with appropriate 

information, as discussed later in this section. In such 

instances, the Agency can list a NHSM as a non-waste fuel by 

balancing the legitimacy criteria and such other relevant 

factors that the Administrator may identify. 

For example, the Agency is proposing to list categorically 

resinated wood residuals as a non-waste fuel balancing the 

legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors. These other 

additional factors include, but are not limited to, whether the 

NHSM’s use as a fuel has been integrally tied to the industrial 

production process and the extent to which the NHSM is 

consistent with that of a fuel product. Specifically, as 

discussed in Section II.D.3.b, we are relying on information 

about the high Btu values, the fact that wood product plants 

have been designed to specifically utilize these residuals that 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 164 of 405 

the wood manufacturing process creates and without which they 

would not be able to operate as designed, and information about 

how the materials are managed off-site as an indication that 

these materials are not being discarded. 

For pulp and paper sludges, we would need similar 

information to support adding these materials to section 

241.4(a). Specifically, the types of information that would be 

particularly helpful include: (1) documentation of how the use 

of pulp and paper sludges that are used as a fuel are integrated 

into the industrial production process and the steps taken 

industry-wide to ensure that this NHSM is consistently used as a 

legitimate fuel and is not discarded, including when transferred 

to a different person for use as a fuel, (2) documentation on 

the amount of pulp and paper sludges burned as a fuel (whether 

within the control of the generator or outside the control of 

the generator), and what determines which pulp and paper sludges 

are burned as a fuel, as opposed to being land applied or 

disposed, 56 (3) additional data regarding the contaminant 

levels of the various HAP, such as chlorine and metals, and 

what steps the industry has taken to ensure the quality of these 

 

56 The Agency’s latest data indicates that between 20 and 25 percent of these 

pulp and paper sludge are burned as a fuel. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 165 of 405 

sludges when used as a fuel are consistent with that of fuel 

product, (4) information on standard practices used to ensure 

that these sludges have a meaningful heating value, including 

the types of dewatering and other processing steps that these 

sludges are subject to, as well as information on whether any 

pulp and paper sludges that are burned as a fuel are done so 

without any processing, including dewatering, and (5) when 

shipped to a different person for use as a fuel, how these 

sludges are managed, including how they are shipped, any 

processing that may occur, and how long these sludges are 

typically stored prior to being burned as a fuel. If the 

information that EPA receives suggests that after a balancing of 

the legitimacy criteria and any other relevant factors, such 

that when the facts are viewed, as a whole, the sludges are nonwaste fuels, EPA would be prepared to add pulp and paper sludge 

to the list of non-waste fuels in 40 CFR 241.4(a). 

F. Effect of Today’s Proposed Rule on Other Programs 

1. Clean Air Act

 During the 2011 NHSM final rulemaking, EPA assessed the 

effects of that final rule on other programs. See 76 FR 15545-

15546. The reconsideration proposals for the CISWI and boiler 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 166 of 405 

rules are consistent with the proposed revisions. These proposed 

NHSM revisions resulted in only minimal changes to the 

inventories for CISWI and boilers. 

2. Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program/Definition of Solid Waste 

Rule

 The result of this rule will have no effect on the RCRA 

subtitle C hazardous waste program because it does not address 

hazardous waste. The RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste federal 

program has a long regulatory history in defining “solid waste” 

for purposes of the hazardous waste regulations. However, the 40 

CFR 261.2 definition of solid waste explicitly applies only to 

wastes that also are hazardous for purposes of the subtitle C 

regulations (see 40 CFR 261.1(b)(1)). CAA section 129 also 

specifically excludes subtitle C combustion units from coverage 

under that section. 

RCRA section 7003 gives EPA the authority to compel actions 

to abate conditions that may present an “imminent and 

substantial endangerment” involving both solid and hazardous 

wastes. EPA uses this authority on a case-by-case basis. The 

Agency can determine in a specific factual context whether a 

NHSM causes an imminent and substantial endangerment to human 

health and the environment. Also, RCRA sections 3007 and 3008 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 167 of 405 

establish EPA’s inspection and Federal enforcement authority to 

address violations of the subtitle C hazardous waste 

regulations. Nothing in this rule shall impact EPA’s ability to 

act pursuant to RCRA sections 3007, 3008 and 7003. The rule also 

does not limit or otherwise affect EPA's ability to pursue 

potentially responsible persons under section 107 of CERCLA for 

releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. 

G. State Authority 

1. Relationship to State Programs

 This proposal does not change the relationship to state 

programs as described in the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. Refer to 

Section IX of the 2011 NHSM Final Rule (76 FR 15546) for the 

discussion on state authority including: “Applicability of State 

Solid Waste Definitions and Beneficial Use Determinations” and 

“Clarifications on the Relationship to State Programs.” The 

Agency, however, would like to reiterate a few points. 

 Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states that the term 

“solid waste” shall have the meaning “established by the 

Administrator pursuant to [RCRA].” Consequently, EPA issued the 

final NHSM rule to provide a definition of “solid waste” under 

RCRA in order to determine which NHSMs would be subject to the 

emissions standards under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. In 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 168 of 405 

short, if a NHSM is not a “solid waste” under RCRA, and is 

burned in a combustion unit, then the combustion unit that burns 

the material would be subject to the applicable CAA section 112 

requirements. On the other hand, if the NHSM is considered a 

“solid waste,” then the combustion unit that burns the material 

would be subject to the applicable CAA 129 requirements, even if 

energy or material recovery also occurs. The Part 241 waste 

determination only applies to those NHSMs that are combusted and 

does not address other uses. 

 This proposed rule (like the March 2011 final rule) is not 

intended to interfere with a state’s program authority over the 

general management of waste. For a further discussion on the 

relationship to state authority, see the discussion in the 

preamble to the 2011 NHSM Final Rule at 76 FR 15546. 

2. State Adoption of the Rulemaking 

 No federal approval procedures for state adoption of 

today's proposed rule are included in this rulemaking action 

under RCRA subtitle D. Although EPA does promulgate criteria for 

solid waste landfills and approves state municipal solid waste 

landfill permitting programs, RCRA does not provide EPA with 

authority to approve state programs beyond municipal solid waste 

landfill permitting programs. While states are not required to 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 169 of 405 

adopt regulations promulgated under RCRA subtitle D, some states 

incorporate federal regulations by reference or have specific 

state statutory requirements that their state program can be no 

more stringent than the federal regulations. In those cases, EPA 

anticipates that, if required by state law, the changes being 

proposed today, if finalized, will be incorporated (or possibly 

adopted by authorized state air programs) consistent with the 

state’s laws and administrative procedures. 

H. Cost and Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

 The RCRA aspects of this proposed rule do not directly invoke 

any costs (excluding minor administrative burden/cost), or 

benefits. Any RCRA related costs to the regulated community, and 

corresponding benefits to human health and the environment, have 

been considered as part of the current CISWI action, and the 

corresponding CISWI and Boiler MACT (area source and major 

source) final rules. As such, the Agency has not prepared a 

separate cost-benefit assessment in support of this part of the 

proposal. Consequently, any potential costs or benefits, 

including impacts to small entities, indirectly associated with 

the RCRA aspects of this proposal are addressed in the 

corresponding impacts assessment prepared in support of the 

CISWI part of this action. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 170 of 405 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may 

raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

 This proposed rule does not impose any new information 

collection burden. However, OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements contained in the existing 

CISWI and Non Hazardous Secondary Materials57 (NHSM) regulations 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, and 40 CFR part 241) 

under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq., and has been assigned EPA ICR number 2384.02 for 

subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60, EPA ICR number 2385.02 for subpart 

 

57 Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste, Final 

Rule. March 11, 2011.
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 171 of 405 

DDDD, 40 CFR part 60, and EPA ICR number 2382.02 for 40 CFR part 

241. 

 This action is believed to result in no changes to the 

information collection requirements of the final NHSM rule, and 

will have no impact on the information collection estimate of 

project cost and hour burden made and approved by OMB. Due to 

changes in the CISWI inventory and monitoring requirements of 

the CISWI rule, the information collection estimate of project 

cost and hour burden have been revised. Therefore, only the 

CISWI ICR has been revised. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 172 of 405 

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 this proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule will not impose any new 

requirements on any entities because it does not impose any 

additional regulatory requirements apart from those specified in 

the March 2011 final CISWI and NHSM rules. We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on 

small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 

sector in any one year. This rule proposes amendments to the 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 173 of 405 

final CISWI rule provisions, and technical clarifications to the 

final NHSM rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. However, the final 

CISWI 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, we have prepared under section 202 of 

the UMRA a written statement, which is summarized in the 

preamble to the final CISWI rule (76 FR 15747). 

This action is not subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

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. This proposed rule will not impose direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments, and will not preempt state 

law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 174 of 405 

 In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with 

the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment 

on the proposed CISWI and NHSM regulations 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). The 

EPA is not aware of any CISWI in Indian country or owned or 

operated by Indian tribal governments. The CISWI aspects of this 

rule may, however, invoke minor indirect tribal implications to 

the extent that entities generating solid wastes on tribal lands 

could be affected. However, any indirect NHSM impacts that may 

occur as a result of the CISWI action are expected to be 

negligible due to the very limited focus of the CISWI part or 

this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 175 of 405 

 EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under 

section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 

performance and technical corrections. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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 result in a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that 

the requirements in this 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 242,283 MW-hours per year of 

additional electricity being used. 

 Given the negligible change in energy consumption expected 

to result from this rule, EPA does not expect any significant 

price increase for any energy type. The cost of energy 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 176 of 405 

distribution should not be affected by this 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 rule, they would be minimal. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not use available and applicable VCS. 

 This proposed rulemaking does not involve any revisions to 

the technical standards or test methods required in the final 

CISWI rule. Therefore, the EPA did not reconsider the use of any 

VCS for this proposal. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 177 of 405 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

 The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection for 

all affected populations without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or low-income population. The 

amendments do not relax the control measures on sources 

regulated by the CISWI rule, and, therefore, will not cause 

emissions increases from these sources. The March 2011 final 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review *** 

Page 178 of 405 

CISWI rule will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted 

from this source. Furthermore, the targeted revisions proposed 

in the NHSM section of this rule are designed to improve the 

management of these materials, thereby helping to further ensure 

against any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. 
***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 179 of 405 

List of Subjects in: 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances. 

40 CFR Part 241 

Environmental protection, air pollution control, waste 

treatment and disposal. 

 

Dated: 

 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

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

Page 180 of 405 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows: 

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

2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93). 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

c. Adding paragraph (o). 

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved April 1, 2008, IBR 

approved for §§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 

to subpart CCCC, and tables 2, 6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

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

Page 181 of 405 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4), §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), §60.106(e)(2), 

§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), 

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), §60.105a(d)(4), 

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

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

(a)(3)(v), and §60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§§60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

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

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

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 272-0167, 

http://www.epa.gov. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 405 

454/R–98–015, September 1997, IBR approved for 

§§60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

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

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as 

follows: 

Subpart CCCC-Standards of Performance for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

* * * * * 

4. Section 60.2005 is 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. 

5. Section 60.2015 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§60.2015 What is a new incineration unit?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 405 

(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 60 DAYS AFTERPUBLICATION 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 to comply with the EG in subpart DDDD of 

this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units). 

Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or 

modification under this subpart. 

6. Section 60.2020 is amended by: 

a. Revising the introductory text. 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

c. Revising paragraph (c). 

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

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

Page 184 of 405 

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 (n) of this section, 

but some units are required to provide notifications. Air 

curtain incinerators are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in §§60.2242, 

60.2250, and 60.2260. 

* * * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration 

units that are subject to subpart Ea of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors); 

subpart Eb of this part (Standards of Performance for Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this part 

(Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large 

Municipal Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part (Standards 

of Performance for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); 

or subpart BBBB of this part (Emission Guidelines for Small 

Municipal Waste Combustion Units). 

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

Page 185 of 405 

(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 

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

Page 186 of 405 

(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). 

7. Section 60.2025 is removed. 

8. Section 60.2030 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text. 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5). 

c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(10). 

§60.2030 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * * 

(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in 

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

this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) [Reserved] 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 405 

* * * * * 

(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 

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

Page 188 of 405 

* * * * * 

10. Section 60.2070 is amended by revising paragraph 

(c)(1)(vii) to read as follows: 

§60.2070 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or 

to prevent conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 60.2085 is amended by revising paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§60.2085 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

* * * * * 

(d) Prevention and correction of malfunctions or 

conditions that may lead to malfunction. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 60.2105 is 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 405 

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). 

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

Page 190 of 405 

* * * * * 

(2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate 

matter scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average pressure drop across the wet scrubber measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet 

scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

amperage to the wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter emission limitations. 

(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at 

the inlet to the wet acid gas or particulate matter 

scrubber measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission 

limitations. 

(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated 

as the lowest 1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the 

wet acid gas scrubber measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the HCl 

emission limitation. 

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

Page 191 of 405 

(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

(secondary) voltage and amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates during the particulate 

matter performance test. Calculate the average electric 

power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = 

secondary electric power) for each test run. The operating 

limit for the electrostatic precipitator is calculated as 

the lowest 1-hour average secondary electric power measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limitations. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the performance testing. The 

operating limit for the carbon sorbent injection is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average sorbent flow rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission 

limitations. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

charge rate, the secondary chamber temperature (if 

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

Page 192 of 405 

during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The 

operating limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction 

are calculated as the lowest 1-hour average charge rate, 

secondary chamber temperature, and reagent flow rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission 

limitations. 

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

precipitator, or fabric filter to comply with the emission 

limitations, and if you do not determine compliance with 

your particulate matter emission limitation with a 

particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system, 

you must maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 

percent opacity (1-hour block average). 

14. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2115 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic 

reduction, or an electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limitations?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, fabric filter, or an electrostatic 

precipitator or limit emissions in some other manner, 

including material balances, to comply with the emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 405 

limitations under §60.2105, you must petition the EPA 

Administrator for specific operating limits to be 

established during the initial performance test and 

continuously monitored thereafter. You must not conduct the 

initial performance test until after the petition has been 

approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include 

the five items listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to use as additional operating limits. 

(b) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(c) A discussion of how you will establish the upper 

and/or lower values for these parameters which will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters. 

(d) A discussion identifying the methods you will use 

to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 405 

(e) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

15. Section 60.2120 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2120 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission 

Limit During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in paragraph §60.2105, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of 

such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined 

at 40 CFR 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of 

the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 

affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 

injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

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

normal or usual manner; and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 405 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

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

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limitations were being 

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

extent practicable to make these repairs; and 

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

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions; and 

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

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

severe property damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and 

systems, as well as control systems, were kept in operation 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 405 

if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices; and 

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

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the 

facility experiencing an exceedance of its emission 

limit(s) during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (FAX) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it 

wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 405 

a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 

§60.2105 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The owner or operator may 

seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional 

days by submitting a written request to the Administrator 

before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request 

for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, 

the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 

submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

16. Section 60.2125 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c). 

b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2). 

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

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

Page 198 of 405 

(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 

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

Page 199 of 405 

You use results of performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limitations in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart. 

18. Section 60.2135 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and establish the operating limits?

You must conduct a performance test, as required under 

§§60.2125 and 60.2105 to determine compliance with the 

emission limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 

through 8 of this subpart, to establish compliance with any 

opacity operating limit in §60.2110,and to establish 

operating limits using the procedures in §§60.2110 or 

60.2115. The performance test must be conducted using the 

test methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 

through 8 of this subpart and the procedures in §60.2125. 

The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall 

invalidate the performance test. You must conduct a 

performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system 

within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. 

19. Section 60.2140 is amended by 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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 405 

(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. 

(c) If you commence combusting or recommence 

combusting a solid waste at an existing combustion unit at 

any commercial or industrial facility and you have not 

conducted a performance test consistent with the provisions 

of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste 

within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that 

solid waste in the combustion chamber, you must conduct a 

performance test within 60 days commencing or recommencing 

solid waste combustion. 

20. Section 60.2141 is added to read as follows: 

§60.2141 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 405 

(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: 

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 (x). 

§60.2145 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the emission limitations and the operating limits?

(a) Compliance with standards. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 405 

(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 

§60.2145(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 405 

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; 

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

Page 204 of 405 

(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 

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

Page 205 of 405 

(b) You must conduct an annual performance test for 

the pollutants listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 

5 through 8 of this subpart and opacity for each CISWI unit 

as required under §60.2125. The annual performance test 

must be conducted using the test methods listed in table 1 

of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and 

the procedures in §60.2125. Annual performance tests are 

not required if you use continuous emission monitoring 

systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems to 

determine compliance. 

(c) You must continuously monitor the operating 

parameters specified in §60.2110 or established under 

§60.2115 and as specified in §60.2170. Use three-hour block 

average values to determine compliance (except for baghouse 

leak detection system alarms) unless a different averaging 

period is established under §60.2115. Operation above the 

established maximum, below the established minimum, or 

outside the allowable range of the operating limits 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a 

deviation from your operating limits established under this 

subpart, except during performance tests conducted to 

determine compliance with the emission and operating limits 

or to establish new operating limits. Operating limits 

are confirmed or reestablished during performance tests. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 405 

(d) You must burn only the same types of waste and 

fuels used to establish subcategory applicability (for 

ERUs) and 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 using EPA Reference 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60 (except where particulate matter 

continuous emission monitoring system or continuous 

parameter monitoring system are used) and the pollutants 

listed in table 6 of this subpart. 

(g) You may elect to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit using a 

carbon monoxide continuous emission monitoring system 

according to the following requirements: 

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

calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. CEMS data during startup and shutdown, as 

defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen content. 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, including 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 405 

CEMS data during startup and shutdown as defined in this 

subpart, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 

of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 

of this part. 

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emission 

monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of 

performance specification 4A of appendix B of this part and 

quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part. 

(h) For 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). Energy 

recovery units with design heat input capacities greater 

than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr may elect to 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) instead of the particulate matter continuous 

parameter monitoring system (PM CPMS) specified in 

§60.2145(x). 

(i) For energy recovery units with design heat input 

capacities greater than or equal to 10 MMBtu/hour and less 

than 250 MMBtu/hr, you must install, operate, certify and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 405 

maintain a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) 

according to the procedures in §60.2165. 

(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans 

and hydrogen chloride as listed in table 7 of this subpart. 

You must determine compliance with hydrogen chloride using 

a hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring system 

if you do not use an acid gas wet scrubber. You must 

determine compliance with nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, and particulate matter using continuous 

emission monitoring systems. You must determine compliance 

with the mercury emissions limit using a mercury continuous 

emission monitoring system according to the following 

requirements: 

(1) Operate a continuous emission monitoring system 

in accordance with performance specification 12A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B or a sorbent trap based integrated 

monitor in accordance with performance specification 12B of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the performance 

test must be a calendar month. For each calendar month in 

which the waste-burning kiln operates, hourly mercury 

concentration data, and stack gas volumetric flow rate data 

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

Page 209 of 405 

(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous 

emission monitoring system must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously 

measuring and recording the mercury mass emissions rate to 

the atmosphere according to the requirements of performance 

specifications 6 and 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and 

quality assurance procedure 6 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F. 

(3) The owner or operator of a 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 operating under normal 

conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 

mill is not operating. 

(k) If you use an air pollution control device to 

meet the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 

conduct an initial and annual inspection of the air 

pollution control device. The inspection must include, at a 

minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 405 

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. 

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

Page 211 of 405 

(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. 

(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

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

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

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

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

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

Page 212 of 405 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

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

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

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

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., PM scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 405 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (l) and (o)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a twopoint calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 405 

having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating limit) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (l) and (p)(1) through (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and 

current to the precipitator collection plates. 

 (2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

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

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

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

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 405 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

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

detection system to comply with the requirements of this 

subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a bag leak detection system as 

specified in paragraphs(l) and (r)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak 

detection system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

and consistent with the guidance provided in EPA–454/R–98–

015 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17). 

 (4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a 

device to continuously record the output signal from the 

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

Page 216 of 405 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a 

system that will sound an alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level 

is detected. The alarm must be located where it is observed 

readily by plant operating personnel. 

 (s) For facilities using a continuous emission 

monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emission limit may be demonstrated by using the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in §60.2165 to measure 

sulfur dioxide and calculating a 30-day rolling average 

emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A-7 of this part. The sulfur dioxide continuous 

emission monitoring system must be operated according to 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part and 

must follow the procedures and methods specified in this 

paragraph (s). For sources that have actual inlet emissions 

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

Page 217 of 405 

difference between the reference method and the continuous 

emission monitoring systems, whichever is greater. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, 

collect sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with 

both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods 

specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C, 

or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated 

by reference, see §60.17) must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous emission 

monitoring system at the inlet to the sulfur dioxide 

control device must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated 

hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit 

subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur 

dioxide control device must be 50 percent of the maximum 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 405 

estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the 

unit subject to this rule. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and 

calibration drift tests daily in accordance with procedure 

1 in appendix F of this part. 

 (t) For facilities using a continuous emission 

monitoring system to demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the nitrogen oxides emission limit, compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limit may be demonstrated by using 

the continuous emission monitoring system specified in 

§60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a 30-

day rolling average emission concentration using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this part. The nitrogen oxides 

continuous emission monitoring system must be operated 

according to performance specification 2 in appendix B of 

this part and must follow the procedures and methods 

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

section. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, 

collect nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 405 

both the continuous emission monitoring systems and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and 

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

(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, or as an 

alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10.1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous emission 

monitoring system must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential nitrogen oxide emissions of the 

unit. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and 

calibration drift tests daily in accordance with procedure 

1 in appendix F of this part. 

 (4) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

may request that compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide 

measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent 

oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent 

corrections, the relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide levels must be established during the initial 

performance test according to the procedures and methods 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 405 

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

this section. This relationship may be re-established 

during performance compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be 

used to determine the relationship between oxygen and 

carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B, or 

as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(u) For facilities using a continuous emission 

monitoring system to demonstrate continuous compliance with 

any of the emission limits of this subpart, you must 

complete the following: 

(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate 

emission limit(s) using a 30-day rolling average, 

calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this 

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

Page 221 of 405 

(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. 

(w) For energy recovery units with a design 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 a oxygen 

analyzer system as defined in §60.2265 according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (w)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by 

the initial performance test date specified in §60.2675. 

(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the 

oxygen level set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume 

that is established as the operating limit for oxygen 

according to paragraph (w)(3) of this section. 

(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it 

is not below the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration 

measured during the most recent CO performance test. 

(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling 

average oxygen concentration using Equation 19-19 in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 405 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 of Appendix A-7 

of this part. 

(x) For energy recovery units with design heat input 

capacities greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you 

must install, certify, maintain, and operate a PM CPMS 

monitoring emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system as specified in paragraphs 

(x)(1) through (5) of this section. For other energy 

recovery units, you may elect to use PM CPMS operated in 

accordance with this section in lieu of using other CMS for 

monitoring PM compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP 

secondary power, PM scrubber pressure) 

(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM 

CPMS according to the procedures in your approved sitespecific monitoring plan developed in accordance with 

§60.2145(l) and (x)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be 

based on in-stack or extractive light scatter, light 

scintillation, or beta attenuation of the exhaust gas or 

representative exhaust gas sample. The reportable 

measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 405 

(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period 

required to complete sampling, measurement, and reporting 

for each measurement) no longer than 60 minutes. 

(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and 

responding to particulate matter concentrations of no 

greater than 0.5 mg/actual cubic meter. 

(3) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all 

energy recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS 

output as millamps, PM concentration, or other raw data 

signal value. 

(4) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of 

all of the hourly average PM CPMS output collected during 

all energy recovery unit operating hours data (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal). 

22. Section 60.2150 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2150 By what date must I conduct the annual 

performance test?

You must conduct annual performance tests between 11 

and 13 months of the previous performance test. 

23. Section 60.2151 is added to read as follows: 

§60.2151 By what date must I conduct the annual air 

pollution control device inspection?

On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following 

the previous annual air pollution control device 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 405 

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?

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

Page 225 of 405 

section, you may elect to skip conducting a performance 

test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You must 

conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the 

third year and no more than 37 months following the 

previous performance test for the pollutant. For cadmium 

and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted at emission 

levels no greater than their respective emission levels 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to 

qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead and 

dioxins/furans, the emission level equal to 75 percent of 

the applicable emission limit in table 1 or tables 5 

through 8 of this subpart, as applicable, to this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of 

combustion ash from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent 

of the time during each of the three 1-hour observations 

periods. 

 (4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for 

a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant 

indicates that your CISWI unit does not meet the emission 

level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of 

this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 405 

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. 

* * * * * 

25. Section 60.2165 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(6). 

b. Revising paragraph (c). 

c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (q) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 405 

the emission limitations under §60.2105, you must install, 

calibrate (to the manufacturers’ specifications), maintain, 

and operate the equipment necessary to monitor compliance 

with the site-specific operating limits established using 

the procedures in §60.2115. 

(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply 

with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 

measure the minimum mercury sorbent flow rate once per 

hour. 

(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Following the date on which the initial 

performance test is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2125, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not operate above 

the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or 

the minimum reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour block 

averages at all times. 

(2) Operation of the affected facility above the 

maximum charge rate, below the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum reagent flow rate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 405 

simultaneously constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit. 

(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limits of this subpart, you must 

monitor the secondary power to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-hour 

block averages at or above the operating limits established 

during the mercury or particulate matter performance test. 

(g) For waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, in place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA 

Method 321 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, an owner or 

operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring 

hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. To demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride emissions 

limit for units other than waste-burning kilns not equipped 

with a wet scrubber, a facility may substitute use of a 

hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring system for 

conducting the hydrogen chloride annual performance test, 

monitoring the minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent flow rate, 

and monitoring the minimum scrubber liquor pH. 

(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

particulate matter emissions limit, a facility may 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 405 

substitute use of a particulate matter continuous emission 

monitoring system for conducting the particulate matter 

annual performance test and monitoring the minimum pressure 

drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable. 

(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emissions limit, a facility may substitute use 

of a continuous automated sampling system for the 

dioxin/furan annual performance test. You must record the 

output of the system and analyze the sample according to 

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

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

Page 230 of 405 

and analyze the sample at set intervals using any suitable 

determinative technique that can meet performance 

specification 12B. The owner or operator who elects to 

continuously sample mercury emissions instead of sampling 

and testing using EPA Reference Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8 of this part, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), 

or an approved alternative method for measuring mercury 

emissions, must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system and must comply with 

performance specification 12A and quality assurance 

procedure 5, as well as the requirements specified in 

§60.58b(p) and (q). 

(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous emission monitoring system for the 

nitrogen oxides annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring 

nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the 

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

Page 231 of 405 

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 232 of 405 

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 but 

less than 250 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 405 

procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this section 

by the compliance date specified in §60.2105. Energy 

recovery units that use a particulate matter continuous 

emission monitoring system to demonstrate initial and 

continuing compliance according to the procedures in 

§60.2165(n) are not required to install a continuous 

opacity monitoring system and must perform the annual 

performance tests for the opacity consistent with 

§60.2145(f). 

(1) Install, operate, and maintain each continuous 

opacity monitoring system according to performance 

specification 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each 

continuous opacity monitoring system according to the 

requirements in §60.13 and according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B. 

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

opacity monitoring system must complete a minimum of one 

cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-

second period and one cycle of data recording for each 

successive 6-minute period. 

(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system 

data as specified in §60.13(h)(1). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 405 

(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages 

(and 1-hour block averages as applicable) collected. 

(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities 

greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate matter 

testing with EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

an owner or operator may 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. For wasteburning kilns, a continuous emission monitoring system for 

monitoring particulate matter emissions is required. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 405 

specification 11 of appendix B of this part and quality 

assurance requirements of procedure two of appendix F of 

this part and §60.13. Use Method 5 or Method 5I of Appendix 

A of this part for the PM CEMS correlation testing. 

(4) The initial performance evaluation must be 

completed no later than 180 days after the date of initial 

startup of the affected facility, as specified under 

§60.2125 or within 180 days of notification to the 

Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring system if 

the owner or operator was previously determining compliance 

by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may 

request that compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide 

measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent 

oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide 

levels for the affected facility must be established 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

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

(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must conduct an initial performance test for particulate 

matter emissions as required under §60.2125. Compliance 

with the particulate matter emission limit must be 

determined by using the continuous emission monitoring 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 405 

system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to 

measure particulate matter and calculating a 30-day rolling 

average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-7. 

(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limit must be determined based on the 30-day rolling 

average calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 

of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 

from the 1-hour arithmetic average continuous emission 

monitoring system outlet data. 

(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system 

hourly averages must be obtained as specified in 

§60.2170(e). 

(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under 

paragraph (n)(7) of this section must be expressed in 

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter corrected to 7 

percent oxygen (dry basis) and must be used to calculate 

the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-

hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data 

points required under §60.13(e)(2). 

(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system 

data must be used in calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum continuous emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 405 

monitoring system data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of 

this section are not met. 

(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must 

be operated according to performance specification 11 in 

appendix B of this part. 

(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part, 

particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must 

be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

following test methods. 

(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 

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

Page 238 of 405 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to 

provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for a minimum 

of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of the hours 

per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per 

calendar year that the affected facility is operated and 

combusting waste. 

(o) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emissions limit, you may elect to 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 may be determined based on the 30-

day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic average 

emission concentrations, including CEMS data during startup 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 405 

and shutdown as defined in this subpart, using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. Except for CEMS 

data during startup and shutdown, as defined in this 

subpart, 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. CEMS data during startup and 

shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 

7 percent oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen content. 

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 design 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 a oxygen 

analyzer system as defined in §60.2265 according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (q)(1) through (4) of this 

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

Page 240 of 405 

(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by 

the initial performance test date specified in §60.2675. 

(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the 

oxygen level set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume 

that is established as the operating limit for oxygen 

according to paragraph (q)(3) of this section. 

(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it 

is not below the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration 

measured during the most recent CO performance test. 

(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. 

(r) For energy recovery units with design heat input 

capacities greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you 

must install, certify, maintain, and operate a PM CPMS 

monitoring emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system as specified in paragraphs 

(r)(1) through (5) of this section. If you elect to use a 

continuous particulate matter emissions monitoring system 

as specified in paragraph (n) of this section, you are not 

required to use a PM CPMS to monitor particulate matter 

emissions. For other energy recovery units, you may elect 

to use PM CPMS operated in accordance with this section in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 405 

lieu of using other CMS for monitoring PM compliance (e.g., 

bag leak detectors, ESP secondary power, PM scrubber 

pressure) 

(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM 

CPMS according to the procedures in your approved sitespecific monitoring plan developed in accordance with 

§60.2145(l) and (r)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be 

based on in-stack or extractive light scatter, light 

scintillation, or beta attenuation of the exhaust gas or 

representative exhaust gas sample. The reportable 

measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal. 

(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period 

required to complete sampling, measurement, and reporting 

for each measurement) no longer than 60 minutes. 

(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and 

responding to particulate matter concentrations of no 

greater than 0.5 mg/actual cubic meter. 

(3) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all 

energy recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS 

output as millamps, PM concentration, or other raw data 

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

Page 242 of 405 

(4) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of 

all of the hourly average PM CPMS output collected during 

all energy recovery unit operating hours data (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal). 

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 

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

Page 243 of 405 

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, 

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

Page 244 of 405 

c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d). 

d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (v). 

§60.2175 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) as 

specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (u) of 

this section for a period of at least 5 years: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating 

limits for controls other than wet scrubbers under 

§60.2110(d) through (f) or §60.2115, you must maintain data 

collected for all operating parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for 

which data show a deviation from the operating limits in 

table 2 of this subpart or a deviation from other operating 

limits established under §60.2110(d) through (f) or 

§60.2115 with a description of the deviations, reasons for 

such deviations, and a description of corrective actions 

taken. 

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

Page 245 of 405 

(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. You must indicate which data are CEMS 

data during startup and shutdown. 

(5) All 1-hour average concentrations of particulate 

matter emissions. 

(6) All 1-hour average concentrations of mercury 

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

Page 246 of 405 

(7) All 1-hour average concentrations of hydrogen 

chloride emissions. 

(8) All 1-hour average percent oxygen concentrations. 

(9) All 1-hour average PM CPMS readings or 

particulate matter continuous emission monitor outputs. 

(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 

§60.11(d), including corrective actions to restore 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 405 

malfunctioning process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(v) For operating units that combust non-hazardous 

secondary materials that have been determined not to be 

solid waste pursuant to §241.3(b)(1), you must keep a 

record which documents how the secondary material meets 

each of the legitimacy criteria. If you combust a fuel that 

has been processed from a discarded non-hazardous secondary 

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

to how the operations that produced the fuel satisfies the 

definition of processing in §241.2. If the fuel received a 

non-waste determination pursuant to the petition process 

submitted under §241.3(c), you must keep a record that 

documents how the fuel satisfies the requirements of the 

petition process. 

* * * * * 

28. Section 60.2210 is amended by revising paragraph 

(e) and adding paragraphs (k) through (p) 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 248 of 405 

(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 249 of 405 

(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 250 of 405 

(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 251 of 405 

(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. 

(p) For energy recovery units, include the annual 

heat input and average annual heat input rate of all fuels 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 405 

being burned in the unit to verify which subcategory of 

energy recovery unit applies. 

* * * * * 

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

Page 253 of 405 

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. 

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) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 405 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. 

* * * * * 

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

Page 255 of 405 

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 

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

Page 256 of 405 

§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. 

* * * * * 

35. Section 60.2265 is amended by: 

a. Adding definitions for “Affirmative defense”, 

“Annual heat input”, “Average annual heat input rate”, 

“Burn-off oven”, “Bypass stack”, “CEMS data during startup 

and shutdown”, “Chemical recovery unit”, “Continuous 

monitoring system”, “Cyclonic burn barrel”, “Energy 

recovery unit”, “Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

biomass (Biomass)”, “Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

coal (Coal)”, “Energy recovery unit designed to burn solid 

materials (Solids)”, “Foundry sand thermal reclamation 

unit”, “Homogeneous wastes” “Incinerator”, “Kiln”, 

“Laboratory analysis unit”, “Minimum voltage or amperage”, 

“Opacity”, “Operating day”, “Oxygen analyzer system”, 

“Oxygen trim system”, “Performance evaluation”, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 405 

“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”, and “Solid waste”. 

§60.2265 What definitions must I know?

* * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Annual heat input means the heat input for the 12 

months preceding the compliance demonstration. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 405 

Average annual heat input rate means annual heat input 

divided by the hours of operation for the 12 months 

preceding the compliance demonstration. 

* * * 

Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part 

reclamation unit, or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off oven 

is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy 

recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

* * * 

CEMS data during startup and shutdown means carbon 

monoxide CEMS data collected during the first 4 hours of 

operation of energy recovery unit startup from a cold start 

and the hour of operation following the cessation of waste 

material being fed to the energy recovery unit during a 

unit shutdown. 

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. A chemical recovery unit is not an incinerator, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 259 of 405 

waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. The following seven 

types of units are considered chemical recovery units: 

(1) Units burning only pulping liquors (i.e., black 

liquor) that are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery 

process and reused in the pulping process. 

(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric acid used to 

produce virgin sulfuric acid. 

(3) Units burning only wood or coal feedstock for the 

production of charcoal. 

(4) Units burning only manufacturing byproduct 

streams/residue containing catalyst metals which are 

reclaimed and reused as catalysts or used to produce 

commercial grade catalysts. 

(5) Units burning only coke to produce purified 

carbon monoxide that is used as an intermediate in the 

production of other chemical compounds. 

(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids 

to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or 

other gases for use in other manufacturing processes. 

(7) Units burning only photographic film to recover 

silver. 

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

Page 260 of 405 

Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration 

(CISWI) unit means any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has 

combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. If the operating 

unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as 

defined in §241.2 that have been discarded, and you do not 

keep and produce records as required by §60.2175(v), the 

material is a solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI 

unit. While not all CISWI units will include all of the 

following components, a CISWI unit includes, but is not 

limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate system, flue 

gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and 

bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air 

pollution control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit 

boundary starts at the solid waste hopper (if applicable) 

and extends through two areas: The combustion unit flue gas 

system, which ends immediately after the last combustion 

chamber or after the waste heat recovery equipment, if any; 

and the combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at 

the truck loading station or similar equipment that 

transfers the ash to final disposal. The CISWI unit 

includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom 

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

Page 261 of 405 

* * * 

Continuous monitoring system means the total 

equipment, required under the emission monitoring sections 

in applicable subparts, used to sample and condition (if 

applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent record 

of emissions or process parameters. 

* * * 

Cyclonic burn barrel means a combustion device for 

waste materials that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead 

drum. The device consists of a lid, which fits onto and 

encloses the drum, and a blower that forces combustion air 

into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing of 

waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limitation, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 405 

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 part 241) for energy 

recovery. Energy recovery units include units that would be 

considered boilers and process heaters if they did not 

combust solid waste. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass 

(Biomass) means an energy recovery unit that burns solid 

waste, biomass, and non-coal solid materials but less than 

10 percent coal, on a heat input basis on an annual 

average, either alone or in combination with liquid waste, 

liquid fuel or gaseous fuels. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal)

means an energy recovery unit that burns solid waste and at 

least 10 percent coal on a heat input basis on an annual 

average, either alone or in combination with liquid waste, 

liquid fuel or gaseous fuels. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn liquid waste 

materials and gas (Liquid/gas) means an energy recovery 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 405 

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. 

* * * 

 Foundry sand thermal reclamation unit means a type of 

part reclamation unit that removes coatings that are on 

foundry sand. A foundry sand thermal reclamation unit is 

not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery 

unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * 

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 40 CFR part 241) for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible 

matter. Incinerator designs include single chamber and twochamber. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 405 

Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any 

associated preheater or precalciner devices, used for 

processing a substance by burning, firing or drying. Kilns 

include cement kilns that produce clinker by heating 

limestone and other materials for subsequent production of 

Portland Cement. 

Laboratory analysis unit means units that burn samples 

of materials for the purpose of chemical or physical 

analysis. A laboratory analysis unit is not an incinerator, 

waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the 

lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent 

particulate matter or mercury performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission 

limits. 

Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit 

that has been changed later than June 1, 2001, and that 

meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the CISWI unit (not including the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 405 

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. 

Oxygen analyzer system means all equipment required to 

determine the oxygen content of a gas stream and used to 

monitor oxygen in the boiler flue gas or firebox. This 

definition includes oxygen trim systems. The source owner 

or operator is responsible to install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate the oxygen analyzer system in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s recommendations. 

Oxygen trim system means a system of monitors that is 

used to maintain excess air at the desired level in a 

combustion device. A typical system consists of a flue gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 405 

oxygen and/or carbon monoxide monitor that automatically 

provides a feedback signal to the combustion air 

controller. 

* * * 

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

Page 267 of 405 

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 in 40 CFR part 241) and combusts 3 tons per 

day or less solid waste and is more than 25 miles driving 

distance to the nearest municipal solid waste landfill. 

Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats 

petroleum contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site 

remediation. A soil treatment unit may be direct-fired or 

indirect fired. A soil treatment unit is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct 

operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid 

waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 

CFR part 241) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 405 

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 

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. A space heater is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 405 

* * * 

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 in 40 CFR part 241). 

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: 

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 

30 day rolling 

average 

Performance test 

(Method 10 at 40 

CFR part 60, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

volume appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration of 

300 ppm or less. 

Dioxin/Furan 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

0.41 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

2 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part). 

Hydrogen 

Chloride 

62 parts per 

million by 

dry volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 60 

liters per run. 

For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 

26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Lead 0.04 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meter per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Mercury 0.47 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)b, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meter per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Performance test 

(Method 29 or 

30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-8) or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)b. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A) 

Opacity 10 percent Three 1-hour 

blocks consisting 

of ten 6-minute 

averages opacity 

values 

Performance test 

(Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

388 parts 

per million 

by dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration of 

800 ppm or less.

Particulate 

matter 

70 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meter per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3

or A-8). 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

20 parts per 

million by 

dry volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 6, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 200 

liters per run. 

For Method 6C, 

collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of 1 

hour per run) 

Performance test

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4. Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration of 

50 ppm or less. 

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard 

conditions. 

b Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 405 

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 test 

was conducted during 

the reporting period, 

the results of the test 

• If a performance test 

was not conducted 

during the reporting 

period, a statement 

that the requirements 

of §60.2155(a) were met 

• Documentation of 

periods when all 

qualified CISWI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for more 

than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks

• If you are conducting 

performance tests once every 3 

years consistent with 

§60.2155(a), the date of the last 

2 performance tests, a 

§§60.2205

and 

60.2210
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 405 

Report Due date Contents Reference

comparison of the emission 

level you achieved in the last 2 

performance tests to the 75 

percent emission limit threshold 

required in §60.2155(a) and a 

statement as to whether there 

have been any operational 

changes since the last 

performance test that could 

increase emissions. 

* * * * *

Emission 

limitation 

or operating 

limit 

deviation 

report

By August 1 of 

that year for data 

collected during 

the first half of 

the calendar year. 

By February 1 of 

the following year 

for data collected 

during the second 

half of the 

calendar year

• Dates and times of 

deviation 

• Averaged and recorded 

data for those dates 

• Duration and causes 

of each deviation and 

the corrective actions 

taken 

• Copy of operating 

limit monitoring data 

and any test reports 

• Dates, times and 

causes for monitor 

downtime incidents

§60.2215 

and 

60.2220

* * * * *

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, 

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

Page 274 of 405 

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 A-8 of 

this part). 

Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish. 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

12 parts per 

million by 

dry volume 

30 day rolling 

average 

Performance test 

(Method 10 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration of 

20 ppm or less. 

Dioxin/furan 

(Total Mass 

Basis) 

0.58 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meterc

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 275 of 405 

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 0.00084 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meterc

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 

(Reapproved 

2008)b. 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

23 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7E at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration of 

50 ppm or less. 

Particulate 

matter 

(filterable) 

18 milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3

or appendix A-8 

at 40 CFR part 

60,). 

Sulfur 

dioxide 

11 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4. Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration of 

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

Page 276 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

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 A7). 

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 Limit 

or the toxic equivalency basis limit. 

b Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

c If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate 

compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant 

for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions 

are at or below this limit, you can skip testing according 

to §60.2155 if all of the other provision of §60.2155 are 

met. For all other pollutants that do not contain a 

footnote “c”, your performance tests for this pollutant for 

at least 2 consecutive years must show that your emissions 

are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for 

skip testing. 

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]

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

i thi

Cadmium 0.023 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Biomass -

0.00014 

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. Coal – 

0.058 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Carbon 

monoxide 

36 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

160 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

30 day 

rolling 

average 

Performance 

test (Method 

10 at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration 

of 300 ppm or 

less for 

liquid/gas 

boilers and 

coal-fed 

boilers. Use a 

span gas with 

a 

concentration 

of 400 ppm or 

less for 

biomass-fed 

boilers. 

Coal – 46 

parts per 

million dry 

volume 

Dioxins/furans 

(Total Mass 

Basis) 

No Total 

Mass Basis 

limit, must 

meet the 

toxic 

equivalency 

basis limit 

Biomass - 

0.52 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry 

standard 

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 278 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

i thi

below Coal – 0.51 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

cubic 

meters) 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

0.093 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

Biomass - 

0.076 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

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). 

Coal - 

0.075 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

Hydrogen 

chloride 

14 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

0.50 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

3-run 

average 

(For Method 

26, collect 

a minimum 

volume of 

200 liters 

per run. 

For Method 

26A, 

collect a 

minimum 

volume of 3 

dry 

standard 

cubic 

meters per 

run) 

Performance 

test (Method 

26 or 26A at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-8). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

i thi

Lead 0.096 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Biomass -

0.0019 

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. Coal -

0.0031 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Mercury 0.00091 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

0.0020 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run 

average 

(collect 

enough 

volume to 

meet an instack 

detection 

limit data 

quality 

objective 

of 0.03 

ug/dscm) 

Performance 

test (Method 

29 or 30B at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-8) or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)b. 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

76 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

290 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

3-run 

average (1 

hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run) 

Performance 

test (Method 

7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration 

of 150 ppm or 

less for 

liquid/gas 

fuel boilers. 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration 

of 700 ppm or 

Coal – 340 

parts per 

million dry 

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

Page 280 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

i thi

less for solid 

fuel boilers. 

Particulate 

matter 

(filterable) 

110 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Biomass - 

5.1 

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. Use 

Method 5 or 5I 

of Appendix A 

of this part 

and collect a 

minimum sample 

volume of 1 

dscm per test 

run for the PM 

CEMS 

correlation 

testing. 

Coal - 86 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Sulfur dioxide 720 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

7.3 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 Coal – 650 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

i thi

parts per 

million dry 

volume 

with a 

concentration 

of 20 ppm or 

less for a 

biomass-fed 

boiler. Use a 

span gas with 

a 

concentration 

of 1500 ppm or 

less for a 

liquid/gas 

boiler or 

coal-fed 

boiler. 

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 Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

c If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate 

compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant 

for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions 

are at or below this limit, you can skip testing according 

to §60.2155 if all of the other provision of §60.2155 are 

met. For all other pollutants that do not contain a 

footnote “c”, your performance tests for this pollutant for 

at least 2 consecutive years must show that your emissions 

are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for 

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

Page 282 of 405 

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 0.00082 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters 

per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Carbon 

monoxide 

90 (long 

kilns) / 320 

(preheater / 

precalciner) 

parts per 

million dry 

volume 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

Performance test 

(Method 10 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4).Use 

a span gas with a 

concentration of 

200 ppm or less. 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

0.51 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meterb

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) 

0.075 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meterb

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

Page 283 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

3.0 parts per 

million dry 

volumeb

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 0.0043 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic 

meters) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Mercury 0.0037 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

Mercury CEMS or 

sorbent trap 

monitoring system 

(performance 

specification 12A 

or 12B, 

respectively, of 

appendix B of this 

part.) 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

200 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

NOx Continuous 

Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 2 of 

appendix B of this 

part). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration of 

400 ppm or less. 

Particulate 

matter 

(filterable) 

8.9 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

PM Continuous 

Emissions 

Monitoring System 

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

Page 284 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

specification 11 

of appendix B of 

this part) 

Sulfur dioxide 130 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

Sulfur dioxide 

Continuous 

Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 2 of 

appendix B of this 

part). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration of 

100 ppm or less. 

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 If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate 

compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant 

for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions 

are at or below this limit, you can skip testing according 

to §60.2155 if all of the other provision of §60.2155 are 

met. For all other pollutants that do not contain a 

footnote “b”, your performance tests for this pollutant for 

at least 2 consecutive years must show that your emissions 

are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for 

skip testing. 

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 285 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

Cadmium 0.61 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8). 

Carbon 

monoxide 

12 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

24 hour block 

average 

Performance 

test (Method 10 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 25 ppm or 

less. 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

1,200 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter per run) 

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7). 

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 A7). 

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 3-run average Performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 405 

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) 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60,appendix A8). Use ICPMS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Mercury 0.0035 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)b, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run. 

For Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A) 

Performance 

test (Method 29 

or 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

or ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)b. 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

78 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance 

test (Method 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60,appendix A4). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 150 ppm or 

less. 

Particulate 

matter 

(filterable) 

230 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 5 

or 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8). 

Sulfur dioxide 1.2 parts 3-run average (1 Performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

per million 

dry volume 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

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 

total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis 

limit. 

b Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

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

Page 288 of 405 

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 

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

Page 289 of 405 

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 

units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 

2010. 

45. Section 60.2525 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2525 What if my state plan is not approvable? 

(a) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or 

a negative declaration letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA 

will develop a federal plan according to §60.27 to 

implement the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI units not covered by 

an approved state plan must comply with the federal plan. 

The federal plan is an interim action and will be 

automatically withdrawn when your state plan is approved. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or 

a negative declaration letter) to EPA that meets the 

requirements of this subpart and contains the emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 405 

limits in tables 6 through 9 of this subpart for CISWI 

units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 

2010, then EPA will develop a federal plan according to 

§60.27 to implement the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI units not 

covered by an approved state plan must comply with the 

federal plan. The federal plan is an interim action and 

will be automatically withdrawn when your state plan is 

approved. 

46. Section 60.2535 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text. 

b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (d). 

c. Adding paragraphs (b) and (c). 

§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. 

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

Page 291 of 405 

(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 and waste-burning kilns subcategories that 

commenced construction before June 4, 2010, your state plan 

must include compliance schedules that require CISWI units 

to achieve final compliance as expeditiously as practicable 

after approval of the state plan but not later than the 

earlier of the two dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) of this section. 

(1) [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. 

(c) For CISWI units in the small remote incinerator 

subcategory that commenced construction after November 30, 

1999, but on or before June 4, 2010, your state plan must 

include compliance schedules that require small remote 

incinerator CISWI units to achieve final compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable after approval of the state 

plan but not later than the earlier of the two dates 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) March 21, 2016. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 405 

(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:

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

Page 293 of 405 

requirements of this section. This is the only other option 

for a state to meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request 

must include the following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under §60.2515(a)(1), (2) and (7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on the state 

delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan 

submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation 

or written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the Regional Administrator who sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date of the delegation 

and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of 

authority. Additional guidance and information is given in 

EPA’s Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129(b)(3) federal 

plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved CISWI Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 405 

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 revising paragraph 

(b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect CISWI unit 

owners and operators in my state?

* * * * * 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 

subpart for CISWI units that commenced construction on or 

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

Page 295 of 405 

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 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 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) to read as follows: 

§60.2550 What CISWI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) * * * 

(1) Incineration units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before June 4, 2010. 

* * * * * 

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

Page 296 of 405 

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

e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n). 

f. Removing paragraph (o). 

§60.2555 What combustion units are exempt from my state 

plan?

This subpart exempts the types of units described in 

paragraphs (a), (c) through (i), (m), and (n) of this 

section, but some units are required to provide 

notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt from the 

requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in 

§§60.2805, 60.2860, and 60.2870. 

* * * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration 

units that are subject to 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.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 405 

(e) * * * 

(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a 

determination that the qualifying cogeneration facility is 

combusting homogenous waste as that term is defined in 

§60.2875. The request must include information sufficient 

to document that the unit meets the criteria of the 

definition of a small power production facility and that 

the waste material the unit is proposed to burn is 

homogeneous. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a 

determination that the qualifying cogeneration facility is 

combusting homogenous waste as that term is defined 

§60.2875. The request must include information sufficient 

to document that the unit meets the criteria of the 

definition of a cogeneration facility and that the waste 

material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous. 

(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which 

you are required to get a permit under section 3005 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

* * * * * 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) [Reserved] 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 405 

(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). 

53. Section 60.2558 is removed. 

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?

* * * * * 

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

Page 299 of 405 

§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. 

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

Page 300 of 405 

b. Revising paragraph (b). 

c. Adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) to read as 

follows: 

§60.2675 What operating limits must I meet and by when?

(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to comply with the 

emission limitations, you must establish operating limits 

for up to four operating parameters (as specified in table 

3 of this subpart) as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section during the initial performance 

test. 

* * * * * 

(2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate 

matter scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average pressure drop across the wet scrubber measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet 

scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

amperage to the wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter emission limitations. 

(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at 

the inlet to the wet acid gas or particulate matter 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 405 

scrubber measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission 

limitations. 

(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated 

as the lowest 1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the 

wet acid gas scrubber measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the HCl 

emission limitation. 

* * * * * 

(b) You must meet the operating limits established 

during the initial performance test on the date the initial 

performance test is required or completed (whichever is 

earlier). You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and 

continuous parameter monitoring system within 60 days of 

installation of the monitoring system. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

(secondary) voltage and amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates during the particulate 

matter performance test. Calculate the average electric 

power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = 

secondary electric power) for each test run. The operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 405 

limit for the electrostatic precipitator is calculated as 

the lowest 1-hour average secondary electric power measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limitations. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the performance testing. The 

operating limit for the carbon sorbent injection is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average sorbent flow rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission 

limitations. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

charge rate, the secondary chamber temperature (if 

applicable to your CISWI unit), and the reagent flow rate 

during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The 

operating limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction 

are calculated as the lowest 1-hour average charge rate, 

secondary chamber temperature, and reagent flow rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission 

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

Page 303 of 405 

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

precipitator, or fabric filter to comply with the emission 

limitations, and if you do not determine compliance with 

your particulate matter emission limitation with a 

particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring system, 

you must maintain opacity to less than or equal to ten 

percent opacity (1-hour block average). 

58. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2680 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic 

reduction, or an electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limitations?

(a) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, fabric filter, or an electrostatic 

precipitator or limit emissions in some other manner, 

including mass balances, to comply with the emission 

limitations under §60.2670, you must petition the EPA 

Administrator for specific operating limits to be 

established during the initial performance test and 

continuously monitored thereafter. You must not conduct the 

initial performance test until after the petition has been 

approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 405 

the five items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of 

this section. 

(1) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to use as additional operating limits. 

(2) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper 

and/or lower values for these parameters which will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters. 

(4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use 

to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

59. Section 60.2685 is revised to read as follows: 

§60.2685 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission 

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

Page 305 of 405 

In response to an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in paragraph §60.2670 you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of 

such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined 

at §60.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, 

if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive 

relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

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

normal or usual manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

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

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

Page 306 of 405 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limitations were being 

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

extent practicable to make these repairs; and 

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

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions; and 

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

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

severe property damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and 

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

if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices; 

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

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

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

Page 307 of 405 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the 

facility experiencing an exceedance of its emission 

limit(s) during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (FAX) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it 

wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit 

a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 

§60.2670 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The owner or operator may 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 405 

seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional 

days by submitting a written request to the Administrator 

before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request 

for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, 

the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 

submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedances. 

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?

* * * * * 

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

Page 309 of 405 

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 

table 4 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must be 

used to determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission 

limit in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of 

this subpart. 

(i) If you have an applicable opacity operating 

limit, you must determine compliance with the opacity limit 

using Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, based on 

three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average 

opacity values, unless you are required to install a 

continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent with 

§60.2710 and §60.2730. 

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

Page 310 of 405 

You must conduct a performance test, as required under 

§§60.2690 and 60.2670, to determine compliance with the 

emission limitations in table 2 of this subpart and tables 

6 through 9 of this subpart, to establish compliance with 

any opacity operating limits in §60.2675, and to establish 

operating limits using the procedures in §60.2675 or 

§60.2680. The performance test must be conducted using the 

test methods listed in table 2 of this subpart and tables 6 

through 9 of this subpart and the procedures in §60.2690. 

The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall 

invalidate the performance test. You must conduct a 

performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system 

within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. 

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

Page 311 of 405 

given solid waste within the 6 months preceding the 

reintroduction of that solid waste in the combustion 

chamber, you do not need to retest until 6 months from the 

date you reintroduce that solid waste. 

(c) If you commence combusting or recommence 

combusting a solid waste at an existing combustion unit at 

any commercial or industrial facility and you have not 

conducted a performance test consistent with the provisions 

of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste 

within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that 

solid waste in the combustion chamber, you must conduct a 

performance test within 60 days commencing or recommencing 

solid waste combustion. 

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

Page 312 of 405 

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). 

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

Page 313 of 405 

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 

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

Page 314 of 405 

You must provide 30 days prior notice of the effective 

date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The notification must 

identify: 

(i) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI 

unit, the location of the source, the emissions unit(s) 

that will cease burning solid waste, and the date of the 

notice; 

(ii) The currently applicable subcategory under this 

subpart, and any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease combusting solid 

waste; 

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

waste(s) the CISWI unit is currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and the fuel(s) or 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 405 

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 

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. Opacity must be measured using 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 405 

EPA Reference Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60. Annual 

performance tests are not required if you use continuous 

emission monitoring systems or continuous opacity 

monitoring systems to determine compliance. 

(c) You must continuously monitor the operating 

parameters specified in §60.2675 or established under 

§60.2680 and as specified in §60.2735. Operation above the 

established maximum or below the established minimum 

operating limits constitutes a deviation from the 

established operating limits. Three-hour block average 

values are used to determine compliance (except for 

baghouse leak detection system alarms) unless a different 

averaging period is established under §60.2680. Operating 

limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance 

tests. 

(d) You must burn only the same types of waste and 

fuels used to establish subcategory applicability (for 

ERUs) and 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 opacity using EPA Reference 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60 (except where particulate matter 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 405 

continuous monitoring system or continuous parameter 

monitoring systems are used) and 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. CEMS data during startup and shutdown, as 

defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen content. 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, including 

CEMS data during startup and shutdown as defined in this 

subpart, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 

of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. 

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system in accordance with the applicable 

requirements of performance specification 4A of appendix B 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 405 

and the quality assurance procedures of appendix F of this 

part. 

(h) For 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). Energy 

recovery units with design heat input capacities greater 

than 250 MMBtu/hr may elect to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit 

using a particulate matter continuous emission monitoring 

system according to the procedures in §60.2730(n) instead 

of the continuous parameter monitoring system specified in 

§60.2710(i). 

(i) For energy recovery units with design capacities 

greater than or equal to 10 MMBTU/hour but less than 250 

MMBtu/hr you must install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) according to 

the procedures in §60.2730. 

(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for the pollutants (except mercury 

and particulate matter, and hydrogen chloride if no acid 

gas wet scrubber is used) listed in table 8 of this 

subpart. If your waste-burning kiln is not equipped with a 

wet scrubber, you must determine compliance with the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 405 

hydrogen chloride emission limit using a continuous 

emission monitoring system as specified in §60.2730. You 

must determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit 

using a mercury continuous emission monitoring system 

according to the following requirements: 

(1) Operate a continuous emission monitoring system 

in accordance with performance specification 12A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B or a sorbent trap based integrated 

monitor in accordance with performance specification 12B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the performance 

test must be a calendar month. For each calendar month in 

which the waste-burning kiln operates, hourly mercury 

concentration data and stack gas volumetric flow rate data 

must be obtained. 

(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring systems must install, operate, 

calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously 

measuring and recording the mercury mass emissions rate to 

the atmosphere according to the requirements of performance 

specifications 6 and 12A at 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 405 

continuous emission monitor while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is operating under normal conditions and 

while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not 

operating. 

(k) If you use an air pollution control device to 

meet the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 

conduct an initial and annual inspection of the air 

pollution control device. The inspection must include, at a 

minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under 

§60.13(i). 

(l) For each continuous monitoring system required in 

this section, you must develop and submit to the EPA 

Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring plan 

according to the requirements of this paragraph (l) that 

addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 

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

Page 321 of 405 

(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring 

plan at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and 

acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

in accordance with the general requirements of 

§60.7(b),(c), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f) and (g). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 322 of 405 

(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 monitoring system, you must meet the 

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

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

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

Page 323 of 405 

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

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

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

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., PM scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 324 of 405 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

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

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

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

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., PM scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

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

Page 325 of 405 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (l) and (p)(1) through (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 

and current to the precipitator collection plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

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

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (l) and (q)(1) through (3) of this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 326 of 405 

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

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

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

detection system to comply with the requirements of this 

subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a bag leak detection system as 

specified in paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak 

detection system in accordance with your monitoring plan 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 327 of 405 

and consistent with the guidance provided in EPA–454/R–98–

015 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17). 

 (4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a 

device to continuously record the output signal from the 

sensor. 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a 

system that will sound an alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level 

is detected. The alarm must be located where it is observed 

readily by plant operating personnel. 

(s) For facilities using a continuous emission 

monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emission limit may be demonstrated by using the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in §60.2730 to measure 

sulfur dioxide and calculating a 30-day rolling average 

emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. The sulfur dioxide continuous emission 

monitoring system must be operated according to performance 

specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must follow 

the procedures and methods specified in this paragraph (s). 

For sources that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 

parts per million dry volume, the relative accuracy 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 328 of 405 

criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous emission 

monitoring systems should be no greater than 20 percent of 

the mean value of the reference method test data in terms 

of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per 

million dry volume absolute value of the mean difference 

between the reference method and the continuous emission 

monitoring systems, whichever is greater. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, 

collect sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with 

both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods 

specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C, 

or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated 

by reference, see §60.17) must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system at the inlet to the sulfur dioxide 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 329 of 405 

control device must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated 

hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit 

subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur 

dioxide control device must be 50 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the 

unit subject to this rule. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and 

calibration drift tests daily in accordance with procedure 

1 in appendix F of this part. 

(t) For facilities using a continuous emission 

monitoring system to demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the nitrogen oxides emission limit, compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limit may be demonstrated by using 

the continuous emission monitoring system specified in 

§60.2730 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a 30-

day rolling average emission concentration using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-7. The nitrogen oxides continuous 

emission monitoring system must be operated according to 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part and 

must follow the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (t)(1) through (t)(5) of this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 330 of 405 

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, 

collect nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with 

both the continuous emission monitoring systems and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and 

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

(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous emission 

monitoring system must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential nitrogen oxide emissions of 

unit. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and 

calibration drift tests daily in accordance with procedure 

1 in appendix F of this part. 

(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility may 

request that compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission 

limit be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 331 of 405 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through (t)(4)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be reestablished during performance 

compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be 

used to determine the relationship between oxygen and 

carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A, 3B, or as 

an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of 3 runs must be performed. 

(u) For facilities using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate continuous compliance with 

any of the emission limits of this subpart, you must 

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

Page 332 of 405 

(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 design 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 a oxygen 

analyzer system as defined in §60.2875 according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (w)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by 

the initial performance test date specified in §60.2675. 

(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the 

oxygen level set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume 

that is established as the operating limit for oxygen 

according to paragraph (w)(3) of this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 333 of 405 

(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it 

is not below the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration 

measured during the most recent CO performance test. 

(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. 

(x) For energy recovery units with design heat input 

capacities greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you 

must install, certify, maintain, and operate a PM CPMS 

monitoring emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system as specified in paragraphs 

(x)(1) through (5) of this section. For other energy 

recovery units, you may elect to use PM CPMS operated in 

accordance with this section in lieu of using other CMS for 

monitoring PM compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP 

secondary power, PM scrubber pressure) 

(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM 

CPMS according to the procedures in your approved sitespecific monitoring plan developed in accordance with 

§60.2710(l) and (x)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be 

based on in-stack or extractive light scatter, light 

scintillation, or beta attenuation of the exhaust gas or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 334 of 405 

representative exhaust gas sample. The reportable 

measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal. 

(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period 

required to complete sampling, measurement, and reporting 

for each measurement) no longer than 60 minutes. 

(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and 

responding to particulate matter concentrations of no 

greater than 0.5 mg/actual cubic meter. 

(3) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all 

energy recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS 

output as millamps, PM concentration, or other raw data 

signal value. 

(4) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of 

all of the hourly average PM CPMS output collected during 

all energy recovery unit operating hours data (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal). 

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 between 11 

and 13 months of the previous performance test. 

67. Section 60.2716 is added to read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 335 of 405 

§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?

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

Page 336 of 405 

conduct a performance test for the pollutant in response to 

a request by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section or a process change in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, you may elect to skip conducting a performance 

test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You must 

conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the 

third year and no more than 37 months following the 

previous performance test for the pollutant. For cadmium 

and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted at emission 

levels no greater than their respective emission levels 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to 

qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

mercury, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans, the emission level equal 

to 75 percent of the applicable emission limit in table 2 

or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as applicable, to 

this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of 

combustion ash from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent 

of the time during each of the three 1-hour observations 

periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 337 of 405 

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. 

69. Section 60.2730 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(b)(6) and (c) and adding paragraphs (d) through (r) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 338 of 405 

reduction, or an electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limitations under §60.2670, you must install, 

calibrate (to the manufacturers' specifications), maintain 

and operate the equipment necessary to monitor compliance 

with the site-specific operating limits established using 

the procedures in §60.2680. 

(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply 

with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 

measure the minimum sorbent flow rate once per hour. 

(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Following the date on which the initial 

performance test is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2690, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not operate above 

the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or 

the minimum reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour block 

averages at all times. 

(2) Operation of the affected facility above the 

maximum charge rate, below the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum reagent flow rate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 339 of 405 

simultaneously constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit. 

(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limits of this subpart, you must 

monitor the secondary power to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-hour 

block averages at or above the operating limits established 

during the mercury or particulate matter performance test. 

(g) For waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, in place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA 

Method 321 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, an owner or 

operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring 

hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. To demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride emissions 

limit for units other than waste-burning kilns not equipped 

with a wet scrubber, a facility may substitute use of a 

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

Page 340 of 405 

substitute use of a particulate matter continuous emissions 

monitoring system for conducting the particulate matter 

annual performance test and monitoring the minimum pressure 

drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable. 

(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emissions limit, a facility may substitute use 

of a continuous automated sampling system for the 

dioxin/furan annual performance test. You must record the 

output of the system and analyze the sample according to 

EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 341 of 405 

determinative technique that can meet performance 

specification 12B criteria. This option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to mercury from 

monitors is published in the Federal Register. The owner or 

operator who elects to continuously sample mercury 

emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method 

29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), 

or an approved alternative method for measuring mercury 

emissions, must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system and must comply with 

the requirements specified in §60.58b(p) and (q). 

(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous emissions monitoring system for the 

nitrogen oxides annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring 

nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the 

quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 342 of 405 

and the procedures under §60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial performance 

test for nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2690, compliance with the emission 

limit for nitrogen oxides required under §60.52b(d) must be 

determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the 

hourly emission concentrations using continuous emission 

monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be expressed in parts per million by volume 

(dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-day rolling 

average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must 

be calculated using the data points required under 

§60.13(e)(2). 

(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

sulfur dioxide emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling system for the 

sulfur dioxide annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring sulfur 

dioxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record 

the output of the system. The requirements under 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 343 of 405 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the 

quality assurance requirements of procedure 1 of appendix F 

of this part and the procedures under §60.13 must be 

followed for installation, evaluation and operation of the 

continuous emission monitoring system. 

(2) Following the date that the initial performance 

test for sulfur dioxide is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2690, compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit may be determined based on the 30-

day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic average 

emission concentrations using continuous emission 

monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be expressed in parts per million corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 

30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data 

points required under §60.13(e)(2). 

(m) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter with bag leak detection system, or 

particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system, 

you must install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this section 

by the compliance date specified in §60.2670. Energy 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 344 of 405 

recovery units that use a particulate matter continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate initial and 

continuing compliance according to the procedures in 

§60.2730(n) are not required to install a continuous 

opacity monitoring system and must perform the annual 

performance tests for opacity consistent with §60.2710(f). 

(1) Install, operate and maintain each continuous 

opacity monitoring system according to performance 

specification 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each 

continuous opacity monitoring system according to the 

requirements in §60.13 and according to performance 

specification 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

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

opacity monitoring system must complete a minimum of one 

cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-

second period and one cycle of data recording for each 

successive 6-minute period. 

(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system 

data as specified in §60.13(h)(1). 

(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages 

(and 1-hour block averages as applicable) collected. 

(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities 

greater than 250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, in place 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 345 of 405 

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

Page 346 of 405 

date for meeting the amended emission limitations, as 

specified under §60.2690 or within 180 days of notification 

to the Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring 

system if the owner or operator was previously determining 

compliance by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

performance tests, whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may 

request that compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide 

measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent 

oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide 

levels for the affected facility must be established 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

§60.2710(s)(5)(i) through (s)(5)(iv). 

(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must conduct an initial performance test for particulate 

matter emissions as required under §60.2690. Compliance 

with the particulate matter emission limit must be 

determined by using the continuous emission monitoring 

system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to 

measure particulate matter and calculating a 30-day rolling 

average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in 

section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-7 of this part. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 347 of 405 

(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 348 of 405 

(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 349 of 405 

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, including CEMS data during startup 

and shutdown as defined in this subpart, using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. Except for CEMS 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 350 of 405 

data during startup and shutdown, as defined in this 

subpart, 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. CEMS data during startup and 

shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 

7 percent oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen content. 

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 design 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 a oxygen 

analyzer system as defined in §60.2875 according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (q)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by 

the initial performance test date specified in §60.2675. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 351 of 405 

(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the 

oxygen level set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume 

that is established as the operating limit for oxygen 

according to paragraph (q)(3) of this section. 

(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it 

is not below the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration 

measured during the most recent CO performance test. 

(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. 

(x) For energy recovery units with design heat input 

capacities greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you 

must install, certify, maintain, and operate a PM CPMS 

monitoring emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system as specified in paragraphs 

(r)(1) through (5) of this section. For other energy 

recovery units, you may elect to use PM CPMS operated in 

accordance with this section in lieu of using other CMS for 

monitoring PM compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP 

secondary power, PM scrubber pressure) 

(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM 

CPMS according to the procedures in your approved site-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 352 of 405 

specific monitoring plan developed in accordance with 

§60.2710(l) and (r)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be 

based on in-stack or extractive light scatter, light 

scintillation, or beta attenuation of the exhaust gas or 

representative exhaust gas sample. The reportable 

measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal. 

(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period 

required to complete sampling, measurement, and reporting 

for each measurement) no longer than 60 minutes. 

(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and 

responding to particulate matter concentrations of no 

greater than 0.5 mg/actual cubic meter. 

(3) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all 

energy recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS 

output as millamps, PM concentration, or other raw data 

signal value. 

(4) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of 

all of the hourly average PM CPMS output collected during 

all energy recovery unit operating hours data (e.g., 

milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal). 

70. Section 60.2735 is revised to read as follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 353 of 405 

§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 354 of 405 

(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 (u). 

§60.2740 What records must I keep?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 355 of 405 

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 356 of 405 

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. You must indicate which data are CEMS 

data during startup and shutdown. 

(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. 

(8) All 1-hour average percent oxygen concentrations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 357 of 405 

(9) All 1-hour average PM CPMS readings or 

particulate matter continuous emission monitor outputs. 

(p) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times and durations. 

(q) If you choose to stack test less frequently than 

annually, consistent with §60.2720(a) through (c), you must 

keep annual records that document that your emissions in 

the previous stack test(s) were less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit and document that there was no 

change in source operations including fuel composition and 

operation of air pollution control equipment that would 

cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase 

within the past year. 

(r) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the 

air pollution control and monitoring equipment. 

(s) Records of all required maintenance performed on 

the air pollution control and monitoring equipment. 

(t) Records of actions taken during periods of 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§60.11(d), including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 

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

Page 358 of 405 

(u) For operating units that combust non-hazardous 

secondary materials that have been determined not to be 

solid waste pursuant to §241.3(b)(1), you must keep a 

record which documents how the secondary material meets 

each of the legitimacy criteria. If you combust a fuel that 

has been processed from a discarded non-hazardous secondary 

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

to how the operations that produced the fuel satisfies the 

definition of processing in §241.2. If the fuel received a 

non-waste determination pursuant to the petition process 

submitted under §241.3(c), you must keep a record that 

documents how the fuel satisfies the requirements of the 

petition process. 

72. Section 60.2770 is amended by revising paragraph 

(e) and adding paragraphs (k) through (p) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 359 of 405 

limitations or operating limits during the reporting 

period. 

* * * * * 

(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating 

limitation that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are 

not using a CMS to comply with the emission or operating 

limitations in this subpart, the annual report must contain 

the following information. 

(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at 

which the deviation occurred during the reporting period. 

(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of 

deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 360 of 405 

(m) If there were periods during which the continuous 

monitoring system, including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was out of control as specified in 

paragraph (o) of this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for each deviation from 

an emission or operating limitation occurring for a CISWI 

unit for which you are using a continuous monitoring system 

to comply with the emission and operating limitations in 

this subpart. 

(1) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was 

inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level 

checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out-of-control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(4) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction or during another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 361 of 405 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the CISWI unit 

at which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the CISWI unit. 

(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit. 

(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(n) If there were periods during which the continuous 

monitoring system, including the continuous emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 362 of 405 

monitoring system, was not out of control as specified in 

paragraph (o) of this section, a statement that there were 

not periods during which the continuous monitoring system 

was out of control during the reporting period. 

(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if any of the following occur. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system 

calibration drift exceeds two times the limit in the 

applicable performance specification in the relevant 

standard. 

(p) For energy recovery units, include the annual 

heat input and average annual heat input rate of all fuels 

being burned in the unit to verify which subcategory of 

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

Page 363 of 405 

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? 

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

Page 364 of 405 

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. 

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

Page 365 of 405 

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. 

* * * * * 

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

Page 366 of 405 

(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) * * * 

(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,” 

“Annual heat input,” “Average annual heat input rate,” 

“Burn-off oven,” “Bypass stack,” “CEMS data during startup 

and shutdown”, “Chemical recovery unit,” “Continuous 

monitoring system,” “Cyclonic burn barrel”, “Energy 

recovery unit,” “Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

biomass (Biomass),” “Energy recovery unit designed to burn 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 367 of 405 

coal (Coal),” “Energy recovery unit designed to burn liquid 

wastes material and gas (Liquid/gas),” “Energy recovery 

unit designed to burn solid materials (Solid),” “Foundry 

sand thermal reclamation unit,” “Homogeneous wastes,” 

“Incinerator,” “Kiln,” “Laboratory analysis unit,” “Minimum 

voltage or amperage,” “Opacity,” “Operating day,” “Oxygen 

analyzer system,” “Oxygen trim system,” “Performance 

evaluation,” “Performance test,” “Process change,” “Raw 

mill,” “Small remote incinerator,” “Soil treatment unit,” 

“Solid waste incineration unit,” “Space heater” and “Wasteburning kiln,” in alphabetical order. 

b. Revising the definition for “Commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit,” 

“Modification,” and “Wet scrubber.” 

c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for 

“Deviation.” 

d. Removing the definition for “Agricultural waste,” 

“Commercial or industrial waste,” 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 368 of 405 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Annual heat input means the heat input for the 12 

months preceding the compliance demonstration. 

Average annual heat input rate means annual heat input 

divided by the hours of operation for the 12 months 

preceding the compliance demonstration. 

* * * 

Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part 

reclamation unit, or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off oven 

is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy 

recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

* * * 

CEMS data during startup and shutdown means carbon 

monoxide CEMS data collected during the first 4 hours of 

operation of energy recovery unit startup from a cold start 

and the hour of operation following the cessation of waste 

material being fed to the energy recovery unit during a 

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

Page 369 of 405 

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. A chemical recovery unit is not an incinerator, 

waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 370 of 405 

(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids 

to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or 

other gases for use in other manufacturing processes. 

(7) Units burning only photographic film to recover 

silver. 

* * * 

Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration 

(CISWI) unit means any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has 

combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. If the operating 

unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as 

defined in §241.2 that have been discarded, and you do not 

keep and produce records as required by §60.2740(u), the 

material is a solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI 

unit. While not all CISWI units will include all of the 

following components, a CISWI unit includes, but is not 

limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate system, flue 

gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and 

bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air 

pollution control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit 

boundary starts at the solid waste hopper (if applicable) 

and extends through two areas: the combustion unit flue gas 

system, which ends immediately after the last combustion 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 371 of 405 

chamber or after the waste heat recovery equipment, if any; 

and the combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at 

the truck loading station or similar equipment that 

transfers the ash to final disposal. The CISWI unit 

includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom 

ash handling system. 

* * * 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means the total 

equipment, required under the emission monitoring sections 

in applicable subparts, used to sample and condition (if 

applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent record 

of emissions or process parameters. 

* * * 

Cyclonic burn barrel means a combustion device for 

waste materials that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead 

drum. The device consists of a lid, which fits onto and 

encloses the drum, and a blower that forces combustion air 

into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing of 

waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

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

Page 372 of 405 

(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 in 40 CFR part 241) for energy recovery. 

Energy recovery units include units that would be 

considered boilers and process heaters if they did not 

combust solid waste. 

Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass

(Biomass) means an energy recovery unit that burns solid 

waste, biomass, and non-coal solid materials 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 373 of 405 

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. 

* * * 

 Foundry sand thermal reclamation unit means a type of 

part reclamation unit that removes coatings that are on 

foundry sand. A foundry sand thermal reclamation unit is 

not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery 

unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * 

Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in 

formulation, have known fuel properties, have a defined 

origin, have predictable chemical and physical attributes, 

and result in consistent combustion characteristics and 

have a consistent emissions profile. 

Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of 

combusting solid waste (as the term is defined by the 

Administrator in 40 CFR part 241) for the purpose of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 374 of 405 

reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible 

matter. Incinerator designs include single chamber and twochamber. 

Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any 

associated preheater or precalciner devices, used for 

processing a substance by burning, firing or drying. Kilns 

include cement kilns that produce clinker by heating 

limestone and other materials for subsequent production of 

Portland Cement. 

Laboratory analysis unit means units that burn samples 

of materials for the purpose of chemical or physical 

analysis. A laboratory analysis unit is not an incinerator, 

waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the 

lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent 

particulate matter or mercury performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission 

limits. 

Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit 

that has been changed later than June 1, 2001, and that 

meets one of two criteria: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 375 of 405 

(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. 

Oxygen analyzer system means all equipment required to 

determine the oxygen content of a gas stream and used to 

monitor oxygen in the boiler flue gas or firebox. This 

definition includes oxygen trim systems. The source owner 

or operator is responsible to install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate the oxygen analyzer system in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s recommendations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 376 of 405 

Oxygen trim system means a system of monitors that is 

used to maintain excess air at the desired level in a 

combustion device. A typical system consists of a flue gas 

oxygen and/or carbon monoxide monitor that automatically 

provides a feedback signal to the combustion air 

controller. 

* * * 

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). 

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

Page 377 of 405 

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 in 40 CFR part 241) and combusts 3 tons per 

day or less solid waste and is more than 25 miles driving 

distance to the nearest municipal solid waste landfill. 

Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats 

petroleum–contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site 

remediation. A soil treatment unit may be direct-fired or 

indirect fired. A soil treatment unit is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct 

operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid (as 

that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 

241) waste material from commercial or industrial 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 378 of 405 

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 

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

Page 379 of 405 

Space heater means a usually portable appliance for 

heating a relatively small area. A space heater is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * 

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 in 40 CFR part 241). 

* * * * * 

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. For small remote incinerators, the date can be no 

later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of 

a revised state plan or March 21, 2016 for small remote 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 380 of 405 

incinerator 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. 

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 

(For Method 26, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 60 

liters per run. 

For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

* * * * * * * 

Mercury 0.47 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 or 30B 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) or 

ASTM D6784-02 

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

Page 381 of 405 

2008)c. 

Opacity 10 percent Three 1-hour 

blocks consisting 

of ten 6-minute 

average opacity 

values 

Performance test 

(Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4) 

* * * * * * * 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

388 parts 

per million 

by dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Methods 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). Use 

a span gas with a 

concentration of 

800 ppm or less. 

* * * * * * * 

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 Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

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

Page 382 of 405 

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 reporting 

period, a statement 

that the requirements 

of §60.2720(a) were met 

• Documentation of 

periods when all 

qualified CISWI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for more 

than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks

• If you are conducting 

performance tests once 

every 3 years 

consistent with 

§60.2720(a), the date 

of the last 2 

performance tests, a 

comparison of the 

emission level you 

achieved in the last 2 

performance tests to 

the 75 percent emission 

§§60.2765 

and 

60.2770
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 383 of 405 

Report Due date Contents Reference

limit threshold 

required in §60.2720(a) 

and a statement as to 

whether there have been 

any operational changes 

since the last 

performance test that 

could increase 

emissions.

* * * * * * *

Emission 

limitation 

or operating 

limit 

deviation 

report

By August 1 of 

that year for data 

collected during 

the first half of 

the calendar year. 

By February 1 of 

the following year 

for data collected 

during the second 

half of the 

calendar year

• Dates and times of 

deviation 

• Averaged and recorded 

data for those dates 

• Duration and causes 

of each deviation and 

the corrective actions 

taken 

• Copy of operating 

limit monitoring data 

and any test reports 

• Dates, times and 

causes for monitor 

downtime incidents

§60.2775 

and 

60.2780

* * * * * * *

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 0.0026 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A8). Use ICPMS for 

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

Page 384 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

meters) finish.

Carbon 

monoxide

36 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run)

Performance test 

(Method 10 at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A4). Use a maximum 

allowable drift of 

0.2 ppm and a span 

gas with a CO 

concentration of 75 

ppm or less. The 

span gas must 

contain 

approximately the 

same concentration 

of CO2 expected from 

the source.

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis)

4.6 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A7).

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 A7).

Hydrogen 

chloride

29 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 60 liters 

per run. For 

Method 26A, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Lead 0.0036 

milligrams 

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 385 of 405 

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)

part 60, appendix A8). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Mercury 0.0054 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

an ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)b, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run. 

For Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum sample 

as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A)

Performance test 

(Method 29 or 30B at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c.

Oxides of 

nitrogen

53 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A4). Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration of 

100 ppm or less. 

Particulate 

matter

filterable

34 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 5 or 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8).

Sulfur dioxide 11 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4. Use a 

maximum allowable 

drift of 0.2 ppm and 

a span gas with 

concentration of 20 

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

Page 386 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

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]. 

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 Incorporated by reference, see §60.17.

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 [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 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 

Cadmium 0.023 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Biomass - 

0.00078 

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 A8). Use ICPMS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Coal - 

0.058 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

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

Page 387 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationb Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

36 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

490 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 A4). Use a 

span gas with 

a 

concentration 

of 100 ppm or 

less for 

liquid/gas 

boilers and 

coal-fed 

boilers. Use 

a span gas 

with a 

concentration 

of 1000 ppm 

or less for 

biomass-fed 

boilers. 

Coal – 46 

parts per 

million dry 

volume 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

2.9 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Biomass -

0.52 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry 

standard 

cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A7). 

Coal -0.51 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

0.32 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

Biomass - 

0.12 

nanograms 

per dry 

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

Performance 

test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR 

part 60, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 388 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationb Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 

cubic meter standard 

cubic meter

volume of 4 

dry 

standard 

cubic 

meters) 

appendix A7). 

Coal - 

0.075 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic 

meterc

Hydrogen 

chloride 

14 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

0.50 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

Biomass - 

0.0019 

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 A8). Use ICPMS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Coal - 

0.0031 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Mercury 0.031 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

0.0020 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run 

average 

(For Method 

29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

Performance 

test (Method 

29 or 30B at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-8) or ASTM 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 389 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationb Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 

2008)b, 

collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry 

standard 

cubic 

meters per 

run. For 

Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum 

sample as 

specified 

in Method 

30B at 40 

CFR part 

60, 

appendix A) 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)d. 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

76 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

290 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 150 ppm or 

less for 

liquid/gas 

fuel boilers. 

Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 700 ppm or 

less for 

solid fuel 

boilers. 

Coal – 340 

parts per 

million dry 

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

Page 390 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationb Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 

Particulate 

matter 

filterable 

110 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

Biomass - 

11 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

or 30-day 

rolling 

average if 

PM CEMS is 

required or 

being used 

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry 

standard 

cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 

5 or 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3 

or appendix 

A-8) if the 

unit has a 

design 

capacity less 

than or equal 

to 250 

MMBtu/hr; or 

PM CEMS 

(performance 

specification 

11 of 

appendix B of 

this part) if 

the unit has 

a design 

capacity 

greater than 

250 MMBtu/hr. 

Use Method 5 

or 5I of 

Appendix A of 

this part and 

collect a 

minimum 

sample volume 

of 1 dscm for 

the PM CEMS 

correlation 

testing. 

Coal - 86 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

or 30-day 

rolling 

average if 

PM CEMS is 

required or 

being used 

Sulfur dioxide 720 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

Biomass – 

7.3 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

3-run 

average (1 

hour 

minimum 

Performance 

test (Method 

6 or 6c at 40 

CFR part 60, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 391 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this 

emission 

limitationb Using this 

averaging 

time 

And 

determining 

compliance 

using this 

Liquid/Gas Solids method 

Coal – 650 

parts per 

million dry 

volume 

sample time 

per run) 

appendix A-4. 

Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 20 ppm or 

less for 

biomass-fed 

boilers. Use 

a span gas 

with a 

concentration 

of 1500 ppm 

or less for 

liquid/gas 

and coal-fed 

boilers. 

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions 

for no more 

than 5 

percent of 

the hourly 

observation 

period 

Visible 

emissions 

for no more 

than 5 

percent of 

the hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-

hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 at 

40 CFR part 

60, appendix 

A-7). 

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] 

b 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. 

c If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate 

compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant 

for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions 

are at or below this limit, you can skip testing according 

to §60.2720 if all of the other provision of §60.2720 are 

met. For all other pollutants that do not contain a 

footnote “c”, your performance tests for this pollutant for 

at least 2 consecutive years must show that your emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 392 of 405 

are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for 

skip testing. 

d Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

 

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 [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 0.00082 

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 

120 (long 

kilns) / 410 

(preheater / 

precalciner) 

parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run 

average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time 

per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 10 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). Use 

a span gas with a 

concentration of 

200 ppm or less. 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

3.6 nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run 

average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic 

meters) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

0.075 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meterc

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 393 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationb

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

3.0 parts per 

million dry 

volumec

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 0.0043 

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 0.011 

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 

630 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run 

average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time 

per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7E at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). Use 

a span gas with a 

concentration of 

1000 ppm or less. 

Particulate 

matter 

filterable 

9.2 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

30-day 

rolling 

average 

PM CEMS 

(performance 

specification 11 

of appendix B of 

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

Page 394 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission

limitationb

Using this 

averaging 

time 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Method 5 or 5I of 

Appendix A of this 

part and collect a 

minimum sample 

volume of 2 dscm 

for the PM CEMS 

correlation 

testing.). 

Sulfur dioxide 830 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 

1600 ppm or less. 

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] 

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 If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate 

compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant 

for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions 

are at or below this limit, you can skip testing according 

to §60.2720 if all of the other provision of §60.2720 are 

met. For all other pollutants that do not contain a 

footnote “c”, your performance tests for this pollutant for 

at least 2 consecutive years must show that your emissions 

are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for 

skip testing. 

87. Table 9 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 395 of 405 

Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply to Small, Remote Incinerators 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 0.61 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Carbon 

monoxide 

20 parts per 

million dry 

volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance 

test (Method 10 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 50 ppm or 

less. 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

1,200 

nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7). 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

57 nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

220 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 60 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

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 396 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

standard cubic 

meter per run) 

Lead 2.7 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Mercury 0.0057 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)b, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run. 

For Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum sample 

as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A) 

Performance 

test (Method 29 

or 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

or ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)c. 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

240 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance 

test (Method 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration 

of 500 ppm or 

less. 

Particulate 

matter 

filterable 

230 

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter) 

Performance 

test (Method 5 

or 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 397 of 405 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must 

meet this 

emission 

limitationb

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method 

Sulfur dioxide 420 parts 

per million 

dry volume 

3-run average (1 

hour minimum 

sample time per 

run) 

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6c at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4). 

Use a span gas 

with a 

concentration 

of 1000 ppm or 

less. 

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions 

for no more 

than 5 

percent of 

the hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

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 March 16, 2016. 

b 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. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

PART 241—SOLID WASTES USED AS FUELS OR INGREDIENTS IN 

COMBUSTION UNITS

1. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 398 of 405 

SUBPART A -- General 

2. Amend §241.2 as follows: 

a.Revise the definition of “clean cellulosic biomass,” 

b.Revise the definition of “contaminants,” 

c.Revise the definition of “established tire collection 

programs.” 

§241.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Clean cellulosic biomass means those residuals that are 

akin to traditional cellulosic biomass, including, but not 

limited to: agricultural and forest-derived biomass (e.g., 

green wood, forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, 

sawdust, trim, tree harvesting residuals from logging and 

sawmill materials, hogged fuel, wood pellets, untreated 

wood pallets); urban wood (e.g., tree trimmings, stumps, 

and related forest-derived biomass from urban settings); 

corn stover and other biomass crops used specifically for 

the production of cellulosic biofuels (e.g., energy cane, 

other fast growing grasses, byproducts of ethanol natural 

fermentation processes); bagasse and other crop residues 

(e.g., peanut shells, vines, orchard trees, hulls, seeds, 

spent grains, cotton byproducts, corn and peanut production 

residues, rice milling and grain elevator operation 

residues); wood collected from forest fire clearance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 399 of 405 

activities, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, 

clean biomass from land clearing operations, and clean 

construction and demolition wood. These fuels are not 

secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean 

biomass is biomass that does not contain contaminants at 

concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass 

materials. 

Contaminants means all pollutants listed in Clean Air Act 

sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4), with modifications outlined 

in this definition to reflect constituents found in nonhazardous secondary materials prior to combustion. The 

definition includes the following elemental contaminants 

that commonly form Clean Air Act section 112(b) and 

129(a)(4) pollutants: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, fluorine, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrogen, selenium, and sulfur. 

The definition does not include the following Clean Air Act 

section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) pollutants that are either 

unlikely to be found in non-hazardous secondary materials 

prior to combustion or are adequately measured by other 

parts of this definition: hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine 

gas (Cl2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine mineral fibers, particulate 

matter, coke oven emissions, diazomethane, white 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 400 of 405 

phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride, m-cresol, o-cresol, pcresol, m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene. 

* * * * * 

Established tire collection program means a comprehensive 

collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures 

scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable 

commodities from the point of removal from the vehicle or 

the point at which they are generated at a tire 

manufacturer (including retailers or other parties involved 

in the distribution and sale of new tires) through arrival 

at the combustion facility. 

* * * * * 

SUBPART B - - Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials that are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels or 

Ingredients in Combustion Units 

3. Amend §241.3 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraph (a), 

b. Remove paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii), 

c. Reserve paragraph (b)(2)(i) 

d. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(iii). 

§241.3 Standards and Procedures for Identification of 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes 

When Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 401 of 405 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section or 

in 241.4(a) of this subpart, non-hazardous secondary 

materials that are combusted are solid wastes, unless a 

petition is submitted to, and a determination granted by, 

the Regional Administrator pursuant to paragraph (c) of 

this section. The criteria to be addressed in the petition, 

as well as the process for making the non-waste 

determination, are specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) * * * 

(2) The following non-hazardous secondary materials that 

have not been discarded and meet the legitimacy criteria 

specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when used in 

a combustion unit (by the generator or outside the control 

of the generator): 

(i) Reserved 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) The non-hazardous secondary material must contain 

contaminants or groups of contaminants at levels comparable 

in concentration to or lower than those in traditional 

fuel(s) which the combustion unit is designed to burn. In 

determining which traditional fuel(s) a unit is designed to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 402 of 405 

burn, persons can choose a traditional fuel that can be or 

is burned in the particular type of boiler, whether or not 

the combustion unit is permitted to burn that traditional 

fuel. In comparing contaminants between traditional fuel(s) 

and a non-hazardous secondary material, persons can use 

ranges of traditional fuel contaminant levels compiled from 

national surveys, as well as contaminant level data from 

the specific traditional fuel being replaced. Such 

comparisons are to be based on a direct comparison of the 

contaminant levels in both the non-hazardous secondary 

material and traditional fuel(s) prior to combustion.

* * * * * 

4. Add §241.4 as follows: 

§241.4 Non-Waste Determinations for Specific NonHazardous Secondary Materials When Used as a Fuel. 

(a) The following non-hazardous secondary materials are 

not solid wastes when used as a fuel or ingredient in a 

combustion unit: 

(1) Scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed 

under the oversight of established tire collection 

programs, including tires removed from vehicles and offspecification tires. 

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

Page 403 of 405 

(b) Any person may submit a rulemaking petition to the 

Administrator to identify additional non-hazardous 

secondary materials to be listed in paragraph (a) of this 

section. Contents and procedures for submittal of the 

petitions include the following: 

(1) Each petition must be submitted to the Administrator by 

certified mail and must include: 

 (i) The petitioner's name and address; 

(ii) A statement of the petitioner's interest in the 

proposed action; 

(iii) A description of the proposed action, including 

(where appropriate) suggested regulatory language; and 

 (iv) A statement of the need and justification for the 

proposed action, including any supporting tests, studies, 

or other information. Where the non-hazardous secondary 

material does not meet the legitimacy criteria, the 

applicant must explain why such non-hazardous secondary 

material should be considered a non-waste fuel, balancing 

the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors. 

(2) The Administrator will make a tentative decision to 

grant or deny a petition and will publish notice of such 

tentative decision, either in the form of an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking, a proposed rule, or a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 404 of 405 

tentative determination to deny the petition, in the 

Federal Register for written public comment. 

(3) Upon the written request of any interested person, the 

Administrator may, at its discretion, hold an informal 

public hearing to consider oral comments on the tentative 

decision. A person requesting a hearing must state the 

issues to be raised and explain why written comments would 

not suffice to communicate the person's views. The 

Administrator may in any case decide on its own motion to 

hold an informal public hearing. 

(4) After evaluating all public comments the Administrator 

will make a final decision by publishing in the Federal 

Register a regulatory amendment or a denial of the 

petition. 

(5) The Administrator will grant or deny a petition based 

on the weight of evidence showing the following: 

(i) The non-hazardous secondary material has not been 

discarded in the first instance and is legitimately used as 

a fuel in a combustion unit, or if discarded, has been 

sufficiently processed into a material that is legitimately 

used as a fuel. 

(ii) Where any one of the legitimacy criteria in section 

241.3(d)(1) is not met, that the use of the non-hazardous 

secondary material is integrally tied to the industrial 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Page 405 of 405 

production process, that the non-hazardous secondary 

material is functionally the same as the comparable 

traditional fuel, or other relevant factors as appropriate.