80452 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 241 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119 and EPA–HQ– 

RCRA 2008–0329; FRL–9503–7] 

RIN 2060–AR15 and 2050–AG44 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units: Reconsideration 

and Proposed Amendments; NonHazardous Secondary Materials That 

Are Solid Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rules; 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 units and the vacatur and 

remand of several definitions by the 

District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals in 2007. 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 commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration 

units. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to the regulations which 

were codified by the Non-Hazardous 

Secondary Materials rule. Originally 

promulgated on March 21, 2011, the 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

rule provides the standards and 

procedures for identifying whether NonHazardous Secondary Materials are 

solid waste under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act when 

used as fuels or ingredients in 

combustion units. The purpose of these 

proposed amendments is to clarify 

several provisions in order to 

implement the Non-Hazardous 

Secondary Materials rule as the Agency 

originally intended. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 21, 2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by January 3, 2012, a public 

hearing will be held on January 9, 2012. 

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. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on 

the commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration 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–HQ–OAR–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, 

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 NonHazardous Secondary Materials 

proposed rule, identified by Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0329, by one 

of the following methods: 

• http://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 

NW., 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 commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration reconsideration and 

proposal to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0119. Direct your comments 

on the Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials proposed rule to Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0329. The 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be 

confidential business information or 

otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 CD–ROM 

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 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., confidential business 

information 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, EPA West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80453 

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 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration reconsideration and 

proposed rule, contact Ms. Toni Jones, 

Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

05), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0316; fax number: (919) 541–3470; 

email address: jones.toni@epa.gov. 

For further information regarding the 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

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 NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0002; telephone number: (703) 305– 

7652; fax number: (703) 308–0509; 

email address: faison.george@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms 

and Abbreviations. The following 

acronyms and abbreviations are used in 

this document. 

7–PAH 7 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 

16–PAH 16 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 

ACI Activated Carbon Injection 

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

ARIPPA Anthracite Region Independent 

Power Producers Association 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

ATCM Air Toxic Control Measure 

BAT Best Available Technology 

Btu British Thermal Unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CBO Carbon burn-out 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

Systems 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

Catalyst Carbon Monoxide Oxidation 

Catalyst 

Cl2 Chlorine Gas 

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 

HF Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 

Hg Mercury 

HMI Hospital, Medical and Infectious 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious 

Waste Incineration 

HWC Hazardous Waste Combustor 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISO International Standards Organization 

LBMS Linkageless Burner Management 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MDL Method Detection Level 

mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard 

Cubic Meter 

mmBtu/hr Million British Thermal Units 

per Hour 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

MW Megawatts 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustor 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial 

Classification System 

ND Nondetect 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard 

Cubic Meter 

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 

RDL Reported Detection Level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review 

SBA Small Business Administration 

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 

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 

TSR Thermal Sand Reclamation 

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 

A. Does this document of 

reconsideration and proposal apply to 

me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by the proposed action are 

those that operate CISWI units, and 

those that generate potentially affected 

NHSM. The NSPS and (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. 

221 Utility providers. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Category NAICS1 Code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

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 

destruction 2.

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. 

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. 

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. 

B. 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 you mail to the EPA, mark the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80455 

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. 

C. 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. 

Worldwide Web 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the 

proposed action is available on the 

WWW through the 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? 

3. What is the relationship between this 

rule and other combustion rules? 

B. Actions We Are Taking 

C. Discussion of Issues for Reconsideration 

1. Revision of the Subcategories 

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 from CISWI Subcategories 

4. Providing an affirmative defense for 

malfunction events 

5. Revisions to the CO Monitoring 

Requirements 

6. Establishing a Full-load Stack Test 

Requirement for CO Coupled with 

Continuous Oxygen Monitoring 

7. Establishing a Definition of 

‘‘Homogeneous Waste’’ 

8. Incorporating Fuel Variability into 

Emission Limit Calculations 

9. Review of D/F Data and Non-detect 

Methodology Using Three Times the 

Detection Level 

10. Providing an Option for Sources to Use 

Emissions Averaging to Demonstrate 

Compliance 

11. Definitions 

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. Clarification Letters Issued After 

Promulgation of the NHSM Final Rule 

6. Clarification of the Process for Submittal 

of Non-Waste Petitions 

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 

1. Pulp and Paper Sludges 

2. Coal Refuse 

F. Effect of This Proposed 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 

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 January 

30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition 

for review in the Court challenging the 

EPA’s final 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 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 requested a 

voluntary remand of the final CISWI 

rule 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 (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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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). 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 commercial 

and industrial solid waste incineration 

units. 

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 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 

NHSM 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 that would otherwise 

be applicable to such units (e.g., boilers, 

process heaters and cement kilns). 

3. What is the relationship between this 

rule and other combustion rules? 

These amendments address the 

combustion of solid waste materials (as 

defined by the Administrator under 

RCRA in the concurrent Non-hazardous 

Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking) in 

combustion units at commercial and 

industrial facilities. If an owner or 

operator of a CISWI unit permanently 

ceases combusting solid waste, the 

affected unit would no longer be subject 

to this regulation under CAA section 

129. Section 112 rules of the CAA, 

applicable to boilers and process heaters 

at major sources and boilers at area 

sources, would apply to subject boilers 

and process heaters that do not combust 

solid waste. Boilers and process heaters 

that combust solid waste are subject to 

CISWI as ERUs. EPA has also finalized 

revised CAA section 112 NESHAP from 

the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry (75 FR 21136, September 9, 

2010). Cement kilns combusting solid 

waste are waste-burning kilns subject to 

CISWI, not the otherwise applicable 

NESHAP. 

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 ERUs; (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 fullload stack test requirement for CO 

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 ERU subcategories to reflect 

updated inventories and additional 

data, (2) the removal of continuous CO 

monitoring with CO CEMS 

requirements, (3) the removal of oxygen 

correction requirements for CO emission 

limits for ERUs during periods of 

startup and shutdown, and (4) the 

replacement of continuous PM 

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. 

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 ERUs 

and waste-burning kilns. Tables 1 and 2 

present the proposed emission limits for 

all subcategories for existing and new 

sources, respectively. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80457 

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 Waste-burning kilns Small, remote incinerators 

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

CO (ppmv) .................... 157 b 36 490 (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 ......................... b 0.0031 0.011 b ......................... 0.0057 

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.

b 2.9 3.6 ............................... 1,200 

Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/ 

dscm).

0.41 0.13 0.12 (biomass units)/ 

0.075 (coal units) b.

b 0.32 0.075 b ......................... 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 

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

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

calculation. 

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 Waste-burning kilns Small, remote incinerators 

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

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

(coal units).

36 90 (long kilns)/320 

(preheater/ 

precalciner).

12 

Pb (mg/dscm) ............... 0.04 b 0.0019 0.0019 (biomass units)/ 

0.0031 (coal units) c.

0.096 0.0043 c ....................... 0.26 

Cd (mg/dscm) ............... 0.004 0.0023 0.00014 (biomass 

units)/0.058 (coal 

units).

0.023 0.00082 c ..................... c 0.61 

Hg (mg/dscm) ............... 0.47 b 0.00084 0.0020 c ....................... d 0.00091 0.0037 b ....................... b 0.0035 

PM, filterable (mg/ 

dscm).

70 18 5.1 (biomass units)/86 

(coal units) c.

110 8.9 ............................... c 230 

Dioxin, furans, total (ng/ 

dscm).

(no limit) b 0.058 0.52 (biomass units)/ 

0.51 (coal units) b.

(no limit) 0.51 b ........................... c 1,200 

Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/ 

dscm).

0.41 0.13 0.076 (biomass units)/ 

0.075 (coal units) b.

d 0.093 0.075 b ......................... 31 

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

340 (coal units).

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

SO2 (ppmv) .................. 20 c 11 7.3 c (biomass units)/ 

650 (coal units).

720 130 .............................. 1.2 

aAll emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen. 

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

calculation. cThe NSPS limit equals the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit. 

d D/F 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. Energy Recovery 

Units (i.e., units that would be boilers 

and process heaters but that they 

combust solid waste) designed to burn 

gaseous fuels and liquids that are solid 

waste were included in one primary 

subcategory, and the other primary 

subcategory was for units designed to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

burn solid fuels or predominantly noncoal solid materials. 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 D/ 

F 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 D/F formation depends to 

some extent on 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 D/F 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 five 

units from the final rule inventory that 

we determined to be non-waste burning 

units, and we added three units to our 

inventory that we determined combust 

solid waste. We also received emissions 

data for the newly added units and reanalyzed the performance of ERUs in 

the solid-biomass and solid-coal ERU 

subcategories. The emission limits in 

today’s proposal reflect the new 

inventory and emission data received; 

however, we have used the same 

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. 

We determined that in the case of CO 

emissions, it is appropriate to 

subcategorize by kiln type. In this case 

we are subcategorizing into two kiln 

types, long kilns (which include both 

dry and wet process kilns) and kilns 

that have preheaters (with or without 

precalciners. A review of the available 

data for CO emissions for CISWI kilns 

indicates that there are significant 

differences between CO emissions for 

these two types of kilns. The CO 

emissions from the three long kilns were 

all below 100 ppmv. CO emissions from 

the three preheater kilns were all above 

300 ppmv. We note that the CO 

emission factors for long kilns are at 

least a factor of 5 less than those for 

preheater or preheater precalciner kilns. 

We attribute this difference to the 

presence of the preheater, which results 

in a different temperature profile than 

exists in the cold end section of a long 

kiln. 

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 PM, 

NOX, SO2 and Hg on a production basis 

for comparison. Comments should 

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) .................................................................................................................................................. 6 .7 2 .1 

SO2 (lb/ton clinker) .................................................................................................................................................. 12 .3 1 .9 

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 

sources under CISWI EG, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80459 

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 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 wasteto-non-waste fuel, or non-waste fuel-towaste switch, and that date becomes the 

date on which all of the newly 

applicable requirements apply. When a 

source begins combusting solid waste, 

the effective date of the non-waste fuelto-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-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 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 non-waste 

material, the source must comply with 

the emission limit averaged over the 

shorter time period in which the fuel or 

material is combusted. For example, if 

a source chooses to demonstrate 

compliance with the Hg limits of the 

major source Boiler NESHAP through 

fuel analysis, which has a 12-month 

rolling average limit, and opts to start 

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 is not triggered, existing 

sources that change fuels or materials 

are considered existing sources and, as 

such, they must be in compliance on the 

date they begin combusting the new fuel 

or material. For all sources that 

commence combustion of solid waste, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

CAA, we believe reconsideration and an 

additional opportunity for public review 

and comment are appropriate. 

Therefore, we are seeking comment on 

the fuel switching provisions included 

in the final CISWI rule, particularly on 

whether the provisions should include 

further clarification on the timeline and 

regulatory requirements of a fuel switch. 

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 

The 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 the 

EPA is proposing those definitions in 

this notice to provide the public an 

opportunity to comment on them. We 

discuss each definition below. 

In the proposed CISWI rule, the 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 ERU 

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 

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 for 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 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. 

The 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 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 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, the 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, wasteburning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart.’’ We solicit comment our 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80461 

decisions in regard to space heaters and 

our revised definition set forth above. 

4. Providing an affirmative defense for 

malfunction events 

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 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 22.77. 

While we believe the final rule 

reflects reasonable approaches 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA, 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 CO Monitoring 

Requirements 

In the March 21, 2011, notice of 

reconsideration, the EPA initiated 

reconsideration of the requirements to 

continuously monitor for CO. 

Petitioners have identified 

computational issues for correcting CO 

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 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 shutdowns. 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 shutdown. During all other 

operating periods, the CEMS data are 

corrected to a 7 percent oxygen 

concentration prior to calculating the 

rolling average. 

We received data for one unit in one 

subcategory (coal ERUs) that indicates 

startups usually occur over a 4 hour 

period, and shutdowns occur over a 1 

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 shutdown 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 are proposing to remove 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 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 CO Coupled with 

Continuous Oxygen Monitoring 

In the March 21, 2011, notice of 

reconsideration, the EPA initiated 

reconsideration on the requirement of 

coupling a full-load stack test for CO 

coupled with continuous oxygen 

monitoring to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the CO emission 

limits. While this requirement pertains 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

primarily to requirements contained 

within the major source boiler NESHAP, 

there are similar requirements in the 

final CISWI rule for existing units. 

Specifically, existing ERUs 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 sources to use CO CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards. We are also requesting 

comment on whether 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. 

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, 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. MSW can never be 

homogeneous because it does not have 

a defined origin. Likewise, refuse 

derived fuel cannot be homogeneous 

because it is derived from MSW. 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-by-case 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 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. Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

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 material feed variability in 

establishing limits for Hg for wasteburning 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 

units. 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 Hg 

limits for other pollutants and 

subcategories. 

9. Review of D/F Data and Non-Detect 

Methodology Using Three Times the 

Detection Level 

Several petitioners have argued that 

the D/F 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 the 

emission tests of the best performing 

units used in the MACT floor emission 

limit calculations. We have, however, 

reviewed the D/F data in more detail to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80463 

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 D/F 

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 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 

RDL (3xRDL) that may be used as a 

minimum emission limit value that can 

be accurately measured by most 

laboratories. These 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 D/ 

F 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 

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 cannot 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 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.’’ 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 

The 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 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 asked for 

confirmation that the Agency had not 

changed its historical interpretation of 

what gases could be considered to be 

solid waste (i.e., a ‘‘contained gas’’). 

These petitioners also requested that the 

EPA reconsider the removal of the 

definition of ‘‘contained gaseous 

material’’ in the CISWI rule, since the 

same definition appears in subparts 

EEEE and FFFF of part 60 (§ 60.2977 

and § 60.3078) and subpart III of part 62 

(§ 62.14840). The Agency did not intend 

to create ambiguity by removing the 

definition of ‘‘contained gaseous 

material’’ from the CISWI rule. 

Accordingly, the proposed CISWI 

reconsideration rule includes the same 

definition of ‘‘contained gaseous 

material’’ that was removed from the 

final CISWI rule. This definition is 

consistent with the definition in the 

subparts cited above. Moreover, our 

proposal to add the definition of 

‘‘contained gaseous material’’ to the 

proposed CISWI reconsideration rule is 

consistent with the position in other 

sections of this preamble that address 

the NHSM rule where we make clear 

that the Agency is not changing any of 

its previous positions with regard to 

contained gas. The 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 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

noting that none of the four subcategory 

definitions expressly includes 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, 

ERUs or small, remote incinerators 

under subparts CCCC or DDDD. 

12. 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 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 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. These data were 

seldom provided voluntarily, and were 

not required by the EPA during the 

emission test ICR. 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 ICR. 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 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 

The final rules added monitoring 

parameters for sources that use wet 

scrubbers, ESPs, activated carbon 

sorbent injection, or SCR. 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 

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 monitor continuously 

for PM 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 PM concentration range of the 

CISWI ERU limits. Therefore, we are 

requiring continuous parameter 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80465 

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 

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 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, ERU, and waste-burning 

kiln subcategories 5 years after the date 

of publication of the final 

reconsideration rule or 3 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 compliance-related 

decisions. For new sources in the 

incinerator, ERU, 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 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, ERU, 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 ERU, and 

waste-burning kiln subcategories may 

require different control strategies 

selections than the emission limits 

finalized in March 2011. Second, when 

the 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 

EG 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 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 ERU 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 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 MWC units. We 

believe that including this definition 

will further clarify applicability for 

MWC owners who question whether 

CISWI or MWC rules are applicable to 

their solid waste combustion unit. 

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 ERUs 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 ERUs 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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 goal, may 

find it cost-effective to discontinue use 

of their CISWI unit altogether. 

Therefore, we have estimated emissions 

reductions attributable to existing 

sources complying with the limits, as 

well as those reductions that would 

occur if the facilities with incinerators 

and small, remote incinerators decide to 

discontinue the use of their CISWI unit 

and use alternative waste disposal 

options. 

For units combusting wastes for 

energy production, such as ERUs and 

waste-burning kilns, the decision to 

combust or not to combust waste will 

depend on several factors. One factor is 

the cost to replace the energy provided 

by the waste material with a traditional 

fuel, such as natural gas. Another factor 

would be whether the owner or operator 

is purchasing the waste or obtaining it 

at no cost from other generators, or if 

they are generating the waste on-site 

and will have to dispose of the materials 

in another fashion, such as landfills. 

Lastly, these units would have to 

compare the control requirements 

needed to meet the CISWI emission 

limits with those needed if they stop 

burning solid waste and are then subject 

to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned 

before, we have attempted to align the 

monitoring requirements for similar 

non-waste-burning sources as closely as 

possible in an effort to make them 

consistent and to help sources make the 

cross-walk between waste and nonwaste regulatory requirements as simple 

as possible. 

The emissions reductions that would 

be achieved under this 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 

aThe estimated emission reduction does not 

account for any secondary impacts associated 

with alternate disposal of diverted ERU fuel. 

The EPA expects that many existing 

CISWI owners and operators may find 

that alternate disposal options are 

preferable to complying with the 

standards for the incinerator and small, 

remote incinerator subcategories. Our 

experience with regulations for MWC, 

HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI, has shown 

that negative growth in the source 

category historically occurs upon 

implementation of CAA section 129 

standards. Since CISWI rules were 

promulgated in 2000 and have been in 

effect for existing sources since 2005, 

many existing units have closed. At 

promulgation in 2000, the 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. 

The 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, the 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 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 waste-burning kiln 

units will be constructed and will 

instead use alternative waste disposal 

methods or alternative fuels that will 

not subject them to the CISWI rule. For 

example, whole tires obtained from 

approved tire management programs 

and tire-derived fuel from which the 

metal has been removed is not 

considered solid waste under the 

definition of solid waste. Consequently, 

new cement kiln owners will assess 

their regulatory requirements under 

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

removed against the costs associated 

with removing the metal or obtaining 

tires from an approved source and 

complying with the applicable NESHAP 

instead of the CISWI rule. Our research 

suggests that metal removal is routinely 

practiced and that several state waste 

tire management programs are already 

in place, and would most likely be a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80467 

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? 

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 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. 

As discussed earlier, there could be 

instances where owners and operators 

of ERUs and waste-burning kilns decide 

to cease burning waste materials. In 

these cases, the energy provided by the 

burning of waste would need to be 

replaced with a traditional fuel, such as 

natural gas. Assuming an estimate that 

50 percent of the energy input to ERUs 

and kilns are from waste materials, an 

estimate of the energy that would be 

replaced with a traditional fuel if all 

existing units stopped burning waste 

materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr. 

For new CISWI units, we anticipate 

that 511 MW-hours per year would be 

required for additional and improved 

control devices. Since we do not 

anticipate any new energy recovery or 

waste-burning kiln units to be 

constructed, there would be no 

additional estimate for energy that 

would be replaced with a traditional 

fuel. 

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 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 the 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? 

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, the 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). 

The EPA performed a screening 

analysis for impacts on small entities by 

comparing compliance costs to sales/ 

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

The EPA’s analysis found the tests were 

below 3 percent for five of the nine 

small entities included in the screening 

analysis. 

In addition to estimating this rule’s 

social costs and benefits, the 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Roman, 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. 

2Fann, 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. 

3Pope, et al., 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term 

Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal 

of the American Medical Association. 287:1132– 

1141. 

4Laden, et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

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 $330 million 

to $800 million (2008$), 3 percent 

discount rate) in the implementation 

year (2015). The monetized benefits of 

the regulatory action at a 7 percent 

discount rate are $300 million to $720 

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$] a, thnsp;b

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emission 

Reductions 

(tpy) 

Total Monetized Benefits (3% Discount Rate) Total Monetized Benefits (7% Discount Rate) 

PM2.5 .......................................... 670 $150 to $370 .................................................. $140 to $340. 

PM2.5 Precursors 

SO2 ............................................ 5,033 $150 to $360 .................................................. $130 to $330. 

NOX ........................................... 5,405 $26 to $64 ...................................................... $24 to $58. 

Total ................................... ........................ $330 to $800 .................................................. $300 to $720. 

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

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

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

which is discussed further in the RIA. bThe 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 percent and 

increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4 percent from those shown here. 

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 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 the EPA 

to consider a variety of assumptions, 

including estimates based on both 

empirical (epidemiological) studies and 

judgments elicited from scientific 

experts, to characterize the uncertainty 

in the relationship between PM2.5

concentrations and premature mortality. 

For this rule, we cite two key empirical 

studies, the American Cancer Society 

cohort study 3 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. 

The 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80469 

5U.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. 

6 76 FR 15456. 

7See 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), Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units (76 FR 15704), and Standards of Performance 

for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units (76 FR 15372). 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. 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific 

literature and recent scientific advice, 

we have determined that the nothreshold 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 a LML 

assessment provides some insight into 

the level of uncertainty in the estimated 

PM mortality benefits, the EPA does not 

view the LML as a threshold and 

continues to quantify PM-related 

mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related 

benefits in this rule would accrue to 

populations exposed to higher levels of 

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

study, 85 percent of the population is 

exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 mg/ 

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

study, 40 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 10 mg/m3. It 

is important to emphasize that we have 

high confidence in PM2.5-related effects 

down to the lowest LML of the major 

cohort studies. This fact is important, 

because as we estimate PM-related 

mortality among populations exposed to 

levels of PM2.5 that are successively 

lower, our confidence in the results 

diminishes. However, our analysis 

shows that the great majority of the 

impacts occur at higher exposures. 

This analysis does not include the 

type of detailed uncertainty assessment 

found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA 

because we lack the necessary air 

quality input and monitoring data to run 

the benefits model. In addition, we have 

not conducted any air quality modeling 

for this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

benefits analysis 5 provides an 

indication of the sensitivity of our 

results to various assumptions. 

It should be emphasized that the 

monetized benefits estimates provided 

above do not include benefits from 

several important benefit categories, 

including reducing other air pollutants, 

ecosystem effects, and visibility 

impairment. The benefits from reducing 

HAP have not been monetized in this 

analysis, including reducing 25,000 tons 

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

0.95 tons of Cd, 260 pounds of Hg and 

92 grams of total D/F each year. 

Although we do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to 

provide monetized estimates for this 

rulemaking, we include a qualitative 

assessment of the health effects of these 

air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, 

which is available in the docket. 

In addition, the monetized benefits 

estimates provided in Table 12 of this 

preamble do not reflect the disbenefits 

associated with increased electricity and 

fuel consumption to operate the control 

devices. We estimate that the increases 

in emissions of CO2 would have 

disbenefits valued at $3.8M at a 3 

percent discount rate. Carbon Dioxiderelated disbenefits were calculated 

using the social cost of carbon, which is 

discussed further in the RIA. However, 

these disbenefits do not change the 

rounded total monetized benefits. In the 

RIA, we also provide the monetized CO2

disbenefits using discount rates of 5 

percent (average), 2.5 percent (average), 

and 3 percent (95th percentile). 

II. NHSM Proposed Revisions 

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 RCRA, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and 6903(27). Section 

129(a)(1)(D) of the CAA directs the EPA 

to establish standards for CISWI, which 

burn solid waste. Section 129(g)(6) 

provides that the term ‘‘solid waste’’ is 

to be established by the EPA under 

RCRA (42 U.S.C. 7429). 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). 

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 

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, the EPA 

promulgated final emissions standards 

for both area and major source boilers 

and process heaters under section 112 of 

the CAA and for CISWI under section 

129 of the CAA, as well as for new and 

existing sewage sludge incinerators.7

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. 

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 offspecification tires (including factory 

scrap tires) that have never been placed 

on an automobile, even though they are 

not discarded. 

The Agency has re-examined the 2011 

NHSM final rule and is proposing 

amendments and clarifications on 

certain issues on which we have 

received new information, as well as 

specific targeted revisions that are 

appropriate in order to allow 

implementation of the rule as the 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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, the 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 CFR. 

The 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 will not be addressed by the 

Agency when it finalizes today’s 

proposed rule. 

1. Revised Definitions 

In today’s action, the EPA is 

proposing to revise certain definitions 

codified in § 241.2. Specifically, the 

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 

The 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 forestderived 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, 

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, the 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, the 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, 

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.’’ 

In accordance with the above 

traditional fuels definition, clean 

construction and demolition wood 

could be combusted as a traditional fuel 

if it does not contain contaminants at 

concentrations not normally associated 

with virgin wood. However, the final 

NHSM rule also addressed construction 

and demolition wood that may contain 

contaminated material (76 FR 15485). 

Additionally, construction and 

demolition wood that has been 

processed (e.g., sorted) to remove 

contaminants (such as lead-painted 

wood, treated wood containing 

contaminants such as arsenic and 

chromium, metals and other non-wood 

materials), and is size-reduced prior to 

burning likely meets the processing and 

legitimacy criteria for contaminants, and 

thus can be combusted as a non-waste 

fuel. Such construction and demolition 

wood may contain de minimis amounts 

of contaminants and other materials 

provided it meets the legitimacy criteria 

for contaminant levels (76 FR 154586). 

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 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). 

The 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 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 (see 

discussion in section II.D.1.b). 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80471 

8For example, see 76 FR 15524–5. 

9See, 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. 

NHSM could be indicative of burning 

for discard. Thus, the EPA is clearing up 

any inadvertent ambiguity in the 

regulation itself. The rationale for this 

approach can be found in the 

rulemaking record for the final rule.8

EPA is not proposing any revisions to 

that approach, but is simply clarifying 

the regulatory text to better 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 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 

phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride, mcresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, m-xylene, oxylene, 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 

The EPA is proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘established tire collection 

programs’’ to clarify that offspecification tires (including factory 

scrap tires) are not discarded when 

combusted, 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 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 

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 

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 contaminantby-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. 

Industry groups have expressed 

concern that the regulatory language 

does not clearly reflect the EPA’s 

intent.9 The EPA agrees that the 

regulatory language can be revised to 

better reflect the EPA’s intent in 

implementing the contaminant 

legitimacy criterion. Therefore, 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.’’ We are 

taking comment on how this revised 

contaminant legitimacy criterion would 

apply to specific fuels. 

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 

The 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 selfimplementing 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 oversight of 

established tire collection programs, 

including tires removed from vehicles 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

10See 76 FR 15490–15499. 

11For a full discussion and rationale for why EPA 

reached this conclusion, see 76 FR 15499–15502. 

and off-specification tires, and (2) 

resinated wood. Thus, persons who 

burn these NHSMs as a fuel would not 

need to evaluate them using the selfimplementing 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 the EPA for a determination 

that a particular NHSM 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 selfimplementing legitimacy criteria yields 

a clear result or does not accurately 

reflect whether the material is being 

discarded. 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. 

a. Scrap Tires 

In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the 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 the 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 facility.10

Since promulgation of the 2011 

NHSM final rule, the 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 offspecification tires (including factory 

scrap tires) that are contractually 

arranged to be 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 that are part of an 

established tire collection program 

would be a non-waste fuel under the 

2011 NHSM final rule. The 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 as 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 the EPA 

analyzed resinated wood and concluded 

that (1) resinated wood generally would 

meet the legitimacy criteria for fuels, 

and (2) resinated wood was not 

discarded when transferred off-site from 

the generating facility.11 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 nonwaste 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 the rulemaking petition 

process, see section II.D.4 of today’s 

proposal. Parties have identified the 

potential of manure not being solid 

waste. Parties can present information 

including data demonstrating that 

manure is not discarded either through 

the existing non-waste petition process 

or the proposed categorical 

determination process. 

4. Additional Request for Comment 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, the Agency 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 non-waste, when used 

as fuel, is appropriate. Information that 

would be particularly helpful includes: 

(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; (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 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. 

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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80473 

12See ‘‘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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm. 

13May 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. 

14As discussed elsewhere in today’s proposal, 

EPA is clarifying that in making comparisons 

between the NHSM and the traditional fuel, the 

owner or operator can consider individual 

Continued 

including whether the 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 the 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 NonHazardous Secondary Materials that are 

Solid Waste (February 2011),’’ 12 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, the EPA clarified 

that it was not changing its previous 

interpretations and that such 

interpretations still were the Agency’s 

position.13 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 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, the 

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 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 not taking 

comment on these letters, since they 

reflect the Agency’s interpretation of its 

existing March 21, 2011, NHSM rule. 

6. Clarification of the Process for 

Submittal of Non-Waste Petitions 

The 2011 NHSM final rule established 

a non-waste determination process that 

provides persons with an administrative 

petition process for receiving a formal 

determination from the EPA Regional 

Administrator that a NHSM that is used 

as a fuel, and which is not managed 

within the control of the generator, can 

be considered a non-waste fuel provided 

they are able to demonstrate that such 

material has not been discarded and is 

indistinguishable in all relevant aspects 

from a fuel product. (40 CFR 241.3(c)). 

As discussed in the March 21, 2011 

final rule (76 FR 15471), EPA has not 

arbitrarily determined that secondary 

materials transferred between 

companies are wastes. Instead, EPA 

examined a number of specific recycled 

materials, both within the control of the 

generator and transferred to a third 

party for recycling and decided that 

materials are to be considered solid 

wastes except in certain instances 

described in 40 CFR 241.3(b). These 

determinations were based on the 

record available to EPA. In order to 

better reflect the evidentiary record, 

EPA is proposing to amend the language 

of 40 CFR 241.3(a) to state that except 

for materials described in 241.3(b), and 

newly proposed section 241.4, 

combusted non-hazardous secondary 

materials are ‘‘presumed’’ to be solid 

wastes. 

This petition process provides an 

opportunity under 40 CFR 241.3(c) for 

companies to show that their materials 

are not wastes. The petition process is 

essential because NHSMs are recycled 

and managed in many different ways 

and the Agency may lack the specific 

details in certain cases to know whether 

or not such NHSMs are or are not waste 

(76 FR 15472). We believe that the 

petition process provides an important 

assurance to the community on waste 

status and relevant standards and also 

provides an opportunity to demonstrate 

that the particular NHSM was not 

discarded. The Agency solicits comment 

on the petition process as it relates this 

approach, and on whether or not the 

regulatory text should also be changed 

to address this situation as it relates to 

the petition process where such NHSM 

has not in fact been discarded. 

In evaluating whether to grant or deny 

the petition, the ultimate question that 

EPA will need to answer is whether or 

not the NHSM has been discarded. If the 

applicant is able to demonstrate that 

such NHSM has not been discarded, 

including meeting the legitimacy 

criteria, it is likely that the Agency will 

grant the petition. Under the existing 

regulations, until EPA acts on such 

petition, the NHSM is considered to be 

a solid waste. However, we would note 

that if the NHSM has not been 

discarded, EPA’s grant of the petition 

would apply as of the date that the 

petition was submitted to the Agency. 

The Agency solicits comment on 

whether or not the regulatory text 

should also be changed to address this 

situation where such NHSM has not in 

fact been discarded. 

Since promulgation of the 2011 

NHSM final rule, concerns have been 

raised that the information required for 

a non-waste determination petition 

would be extensive and the timeframe 

for issuance of the decision lengthy. The 

Agency wishes to clarify that we do not 

intend that the application required or 

the petition process itself to be 

burdensome or time and resource 

intensive for the applicant. 

As noted in the March 2011 final rule, 

the applicant must demonstrate that the 

NHSM that is to be burned as a fuel has 

not been discarded, is a legitimate 

product fuel (per § 241.3(d)(1)), 

considering the five criteria identified in 

§ 241.3(c)(1)(i)–(v): 

(1) Whether market participants treat 

the non-hazardous secondary material 

as a product rather than as a solid waste; 

(2) Whether the chemical and 

physical identity of the non-hazardous 

secondary material is comparable to 

commercial fuels; 14


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

constituents or grouping of constituents. See section 

II.D.2 of this preamble for further discussion. 

15The Agency included this criterion to allow the 

applicant to make additional arguments that such 

NHSMs are a non-waste fuel. For example, if there 

is a contractual or other written agreement between 

the generator of the NHSM and the facility that 

combusts the NHSM that lays out how this material 

is to be handled or used as a fuel that may indicate 

how the material would meet the legitimacy 

criteria, this would be a relevant factor that EPA 

would consider in determining whether such 

NHSM is a non-waste fuel. 

16EPA’s contaminant data are provided at the 

Web site for the NHSM rule at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm. However, as 

we have noted elsewhere, the applicant can rely on 

other data that they may have or become aware of. 

(3) Whether the non-hazardous 

secondary material will be used in a 

reasonable time frame given the state of 

the market; 

(4) Whether the constituents in the 

non-hazardous secondary material are 

released to the air, water or land from 

the point of generation to the point just 

prior to combustion of the secondary 

material at levels comparable to what 

would otherwise be released from 

traditional fuels; and 

(5) Other relevant factors.15

Overall, applicants, in many cases can 

utilize existing information already in 

hand (e.g., laboratory analysis data or 

process knowledge) rather than develop 

additional information specifically for 

the non-waste determination petition. In 

addition, as noted in the previous 

footnote, there may already be a 

contractual or other written agreement 

between the generator of the NHSM and 

the combustion facility that burns such 

NHSM that lays out how this material 

is to be handled or used as a fuel that 

may indicate how the material would 

meet the legitimacy criteria that would 

be a relevant factor that EPA would 

consider in determining whether such 

NHSM is a non-waste fuel. As noted 

elsewhere in this preamble, EPA has 

collected contaminant data for various 

traditional fuels, which are available for 

use in meeting the contaminant 

legitimacy criterion as needed, to the 

extent that the applicant wants to utilize 

these data.16 Potential applicants can 

include the generator of the NHSM, the 

facility that combusts the NHSM, an 

interested third party or a state agency 

(see FR 15530). Applications can also be 

submitted for a single combustor or a 

class of combustors, provided such 

combustion units are within the 

jurisdiction of the Regional 

Administrator. Useful information could 

also include a description of the nature 

of the relationship between the 

generator and the combustor, as well as 

a description of how the NHSM will be 

managed as it is transported off-site and 

after it arrives at the combustor. We 

believe this type of information should 

be readily available to potential 

applicants. 

In addition, the EPA does not intend 

that the application review process itself 

be either time consuming or extensive. 

Rather, the Regional Administrator will 

evaluate the petition and issue a draft 

notice tentatively granting or denying 

the petition. Notification of the decision 

will be provided by local newspaper or 

radio. Public comment will be accepted 

for thirty days and a public hearing held 

upon request. A final decision will be 

issued after consideration of the 

comments as expeditiously as possible. 

In summary, we do not envision that 

the information submitted in a petition 

for a non-waste determination would be 

more than is required for making a selfdetermination that a NHSM is a nonwaste when burned within the control 

of the generator. However, because there 

are nearly 200,000 boilers and 

incinerators that can be used to burn 

such NHSMs, the EPA believes it is 

important that the Agency have the 

information necessary to ensure that the 

legitimacy criteria are met and that 

materials are not being discarded. The 

Agency requests comment on whether 

any other changes could be made to the 

non-waste determination petition 

process to streamline the process, while 

at the same time provide EPA with the 

opportunity to ensure that such NHSMs 

are not being discarded. For example, 

because the public has had the 

opportunity to comment on the basic 

criteria in determining whether the 

NHSM should be considered a nonwaste fuel, we are seeking comment on 

whether the Agency should further 

streamline the process by not seeking 

public comment on each individual 

petition. 

D. Rationale for the Proposed Revisions 

to the Part 241 Requirements 

As noted above, the intent of this 

proposal is to identify certain specific 

aspects of the rule which EPA is 

reconsidering and on which it is 

soliciting public comment. 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. The 

EPA is proposing the revisions and 

clarifications discussed below. 

1. Revised Definitions 

In today’s action, the 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 

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 the 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) 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 forestderived 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. 

Certain 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80475 

17Eleven 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. 

18Carbon 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. 

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 

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 more 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, the 

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 forestderived 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 forestderived 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 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, mcresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, m-xylene, oxylene, 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 HAP 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 SO2). Today’s 

proposed definition provides 

clarification by listing the constituents 

that belong to the third group.17

Specifically, several pollutants listed in 

CAA section 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 HCl, 

fluorine readily forms HF, nitrogen 

readily forms NOX, and sulfur readily 

forms 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 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 sections 

112(b) and 129(a)(4) lists that we do not 

expect to find in any NHSM. 

Specifically: 

• Hydrogen chloride, Cl2, HF, NOX, 

and SO2 are identified as CAA list 

pollutants that are excluded from the 

definition since they are unlikely to be 

found in NHSM prior to combustion 

and have been replaced by the elements 

chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur as 

discussed above; 18

• Fine mineral fibers are excluded 

because they are releases from the 

manufacturing and processing (not 

combustion) of non-combustible rock, 

glass, or slag into mineral fibers; 

• Particulate matter and coke oven 

emissions are excluded because they are 

products of combustion unlikely to exist 

in NHSM prior to combustion; 

• 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

19Personal communication from Tracey Norberg 

to EPA, September 13, 2011. A copy of this 

communication has been placed in the docket in 

today’s rule. 20See 76 FR 15490–15499 and 15534–15535. 

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. The 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. 

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 meeting other criteria in 

order to be considered a non-waste fuel. 

The 2011 NHSM final rule defined 

‘‘established tire collection program’’ as 

meaning ‘‘a 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’’ because the tires 

are not discarded. 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 since information or 

comments were not provided to the 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 ANPRM or the proposed 

rule. Following promulgation of the 

2011 NHSM final rule, the 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 

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.19 Thus, we 

believe that factory scrap and offspecification 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 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.’’ 20

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 the 

wording in § 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 clarify 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80477 

21Area Source Boilers NESHAP, Major Source 

Boilers NESHAP, and Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP. 

22Major Source Boilers NESHAP and Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP. 

23Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators NESHAP. 

24Clean Air Act section 112(b). See http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/atwsmod.html for 

modifications to the original list of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants. 

25Clean Air Act section 129(a)(4). See http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/129/sec129.pdf. 

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 who 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. 

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 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 7 and 8 below, could include 

TOX, nitrogenated compounds, VOC, 

SVOC, D/F, PCB, PAH, and 

radionuclides. 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 sections 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 semivolatile hydrocarbons can both be 

expected to result from incomplete 

combustion; therefore, the emission 

standards promulgated under the CAA 

regulations are grouped into one 

category: CO.21

• 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: D/F and HCl.22

• Nitrogenated compounds are 

expected to contribute to emissions of 

NOX; therefore, the emission standards 

promulgated under the CAA are 

grouped into one category: NOX.23

A look at Tables 7 and 8 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., PCBs, POM, D/F, 

cyanide compounds, cresols, glycol 

ethers, radionuclides, xylenes, antimony 

compounds, arsenic compounds, 

beryllium compounds, Cd 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 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 proposed definition of 

‘‘contaminants’’ and the 163 compounds 

or groups of compounds inferred from 

that definition by their inclusion on the 

CAA sections 112 or 129 lists. The 

elements listed in Table 7 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 8 are considered 

contaminants because they are directly 

on either the CAA section 112 HAP list, 

the CAA section 129 list, or both 

lists.24 25 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—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. 

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 8—COMPOUNDS CONSIDERED CONTAMINANTS—WITH GROUP INFORMATION 26

1 Acetaldehyde .................................................................................................... VOC 27. 

2 Acetamide ......................................................................................................... ...................... SVOC 28 ....... ...................... 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. Halogen 29. 

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. 

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 acid 30 ............................................................................... VOC. 

42 Cumene .......................................................................................................... VOC. 

43 * Cyanide compounds 31 ................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... Nitrogenated. 

44 2, 4-D, salts and esters .................................................................................. ...................... SVOC ........... Org. Halogen. 

45 DDE ................................................................................................................ ...................... SVOC ........... Org. Halogen. 

46 * Dibenzofurans 32 .......................................................................................... 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80479 

TABLE 8—COMPOUNDS CONSIDERED CONTAMINANTS—WITH GROUP INFORMATION 26—Continued 

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. 

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 ethers 33 ............................................................................................ ...................... 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. 

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.


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

26Spicer, Chester W. et al., Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Handbook, Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, 2002, 

pg. 23–53. 27 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are 

identified here as organic compounds with a vapor 

pressure greater than 0.1 mm Hg at 25 °C. 28Semi-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. 29Organic halogens are identified here as any 

compound that contains both carbon and a halogen 

(chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or iodine). 30Cresols are a group that includes three 

compounds. 31Cyanide compounds are a group that includes 

hydrogen cyanide, propionitrile, cyanogens, and a 

number of possible particle phase compounds. 32 Dibenzofurans are a group that includes 135 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). 33 Glycol ethers are a group that includes roughly 

30 compounds. 34PCBs are a group that includes 209 congeners. 35Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is a group 

that theoretically may include millions of 

compounds. Only 100 or so, however, have been 

identified and studied. 36Radionuclides are a group that includes 

uranium, radon, and radium isotopes. 37 Dioxins are a group that includes 75 

polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins (PCDDs). 

38 Xylenes are a group that includes three 

compounds. 

39Spicer, Chester W. et al., Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Handbook, Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, 2002, 

pp 11–21. 

40As 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. 

TABLE 8—COMPOUNDS CONSIDERED CONTAMINANTS—WITH GROUP INFORMATION 26—Continued 

127 Phosphine 

128 Phthalic anhydride ........................................................................................ ...................... SVOC ........... ......................

129 * Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 34 ......................................................... Consider PCBs as a Distinct Group. 

130 * Polycyclic Organic Matter (or Total PAH) 35 .............................................. Consider Total PAH as a Distinct Group 

131 1, 3-Propane sultone .................................................................................... VOC. 

132 b-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).36

141 Styrene ......................................................................................................... VOC. ............

142 Styrene oxide ............................................................................................... VOC. ............

143 * 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin & other dioxins 37 ......................... Consider Dioxins/Furans as a Distinct 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 * Xylenes 38 .................................................................................................. VOC. ............

Tables 7 and 8 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., HCl, Cl2, HF), NOX, 

and SO2 are excluded from Table 8 and 

replaced by the elements chlorine, 

fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur in Table 7. 

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 HCl, Cl2, 

HF, NOX or SO2, 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, PM, 

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.39

Finally, the three cresol isomers are 

included in Table 8 under cresols/ 

cresylic acid, itself a listed HAP; and 

similarly, the three xylene isomers are 

included in Table 8 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.’’ 40

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80481 

41EPA, 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. 

42The 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). 

43We 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 sections 112 or 129 standards. 

44Used 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 ‘‘off-spec’’ oil), it is a solid 

waste under the 2011 NHSM final rule. 

45The EPA has collected current information on 

levels of contaminants in traditional fuels, which 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/

nonhaz/define/index and used by the regulated 

community as they so choose. The EPA will update 

this information as appropriate. 

46Traditional 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. 

air permit lists the 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 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 the EPA’s OAQPS.41 42

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, kerosene and other 

petroleum based oils.43 44 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. 

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. The 

EPA lacks sufficient contaminant data, 

however, to assist those wishing to 

compare NHSM to these traditional 

fuels. In addition, other units 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 use either traditional 

fuel data collected by the EPA or their 

own data for traditional fuel comparison 

values.45 Generators or combustors are 

responsible, however, for either 

providing NHSM comparison values in 

cases 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 industryrecognized 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 solid waste 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.46 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 are 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

47 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 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). 

48See 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. 

49 Id. 

50 76 FR at 15535. 

51ASTM Standard D6700–01, 2006, ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Use of Scrap Tire-Derived Fuel,’’ ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 

10.1520/C0033–03, http://www.astm.org. 

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 § 63.7555(d)(2) for 

major source boilers, and in § 60.2175(v) 

and § 60.2740(u) for incinerators. 

3. Categorical Determinations That 

Specific NHSM Are Not Solid Waste 

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.47

Thus, the Agency is proposing a list 

of secondary materials that are nonwastes 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 nonwaste 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). 

The EPA has 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.’’ 48 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).’’ 49 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 

combustion units. This process is 

outlined in section II.D.4. 

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, the 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 offspecification tires, are not solid wastes 

when used as fuels in combustion units. 

Thus, persons who 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 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 handled as a valuable commodity, 

for having meaningful heating value, 

and for comparable contaminants.50

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.51 In developing the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80483 

52 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. We also note 

that we have developed, in support of today’s 

proposed rulemaking, a new background document 

that includes updated information regarding scrap 

tires, as well as the other NHSM discussed in 

today’s proposal. This document is entitled 

‘‘Resinated Wood, Scrap Tire, and Pulp/Paper 

Sludge Support Document’’ and can also be found 

in docket EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0329. 

53 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. 

54American Forest and Paper Association, 

August 3, 2010. EPA Docket ID EPA–HQ–RCRA– 

2008–0329. 

55For 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 off-site 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. 

56The Generation and Utilization of Residuals 

from Composite Panel Products; Forest Products 

Journal 54:2, 2004; David C. Smith. 

57 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. These data are provided in the docket for 

today’s proposed rule. 

2011 NHSM final rule, the 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.52

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., 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 been 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 Wood 53

The 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. 

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.54

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.55 Overall, in 

composite panel manufacturing, plants 

typically reuse 58 percent of these 

residual materials in the process and 35 

percent is burned for energy recovery.56

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, the 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. 

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 suggest 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 CARB Composite 

Wood ATCM, per new Public Law 111– 

199, will reduce the formaldehyde 

levels even further.57

While we acknowledge that these 

levels may not always meet the 

contaminant legitimacy criterion in 

every situation, in today’s action, we are 

proposing a categorical non-waste 

determination for resinated wood that is 

used as fuel. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

58This 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 would be made on a 

material-by-material basis. 

materials as fuel. Thus, resinated wood 

residuals are not being 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-bysite 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 241.4.58 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 governing 

the EPA’s action on those petitions are 

established. The section 260.20 

standards reflect normal, informal 

rulemaking procedures under the APA 

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 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-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 

ANPRM, 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 

1. Pulp and Paper Sludges 

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 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. 

With regard to pulp and paper 

sludges, the 2011 NHSM final rule 

specifically concluded the following 

‘‘The final rule will retain the proposed 

approach—pulp and paper sludges 

managed within control of the generator 

are a non-waste fuel as they would seem 

to meet all of the legitimacy criteria 

* * * ’’, (See 76 FR 15488, March 21, 

2011). We received several questions 

about these materials following issuance 

of the final rule. As discussed below, 

based on the current record, the EPA 

continues to believe that these pulp and 

paper sludges meet the legitimacy 

criteria and can be burned as a nonwaste fuel in accordance with existing 

section 241.3(b)(1) 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 

non-waste fuel. If such information is 

provided to the EPA, and after balancing 

the legitimacy criteria with other 

relevant factors that the EPA believes 

that these sludges are not solid wastes 

when combusted, the 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80485 

59Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final 

rule, the EPA has updated and reorganized its 

traditional fuel data 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. Contaminant data have also been 

reorganized to better reflect revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘contaminants’’ and the contaminant 

legitimacy criterion in today’s proposed NHSM 

rule. The updated data can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index. The 

Agency will update this information as appropriate. 

60We also note that pulp and paper sludges 

almost entirely remain on-site and within the 

control of the generator when burned as fuels. To 

the extent that pulp and paper sludges do not 

remain within the control of the generator and are 

used as fuels, the petition process established in 40 

CFR 241.3(c) could apply to these materials, as 

appropriate. 

61The Agency’s latest data indicate that between 

20 and 25 percent of these pulp and paper sludge 

are burned as a fuel. 

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. 

The EPA compared the contaminant 

concentrations in pulp and paper 

sludges to levels found in coal and 

untreated wood, since 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.59 We note that 

there is one sample in the submitted 

data set for 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. Since promulgation 

of the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA has 

received additional contaminant data 

regarding these pulp and paper sludges 

from the forest products industry, which 

demonstrate even more clearly that this 

one sample is anomalous. Regarding 

chlorine levels in particular, the forest 

products industry provided data for 93 

samples of pulp and paper sludges. This 

data set shows the mean value for 

chlorine to be 361 ppm, with a standard 

deviation of 661 ppm, and a 90 percent 

confidence interval at 1,217 ppm. We 

also determined that the levels of metals 

were lower in pulp and paper sludges 

than in both untreated wood and coal. 

Such data further support the 

conclusions outlined in the final NHSM 

rule that, based on information received 

by the Agency, pulp and paper sludge 

meets the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion (76 FR 15488). 

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), the 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 record, the 

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 

accordance with section 241.3(b)(1).60

As noted in section II. D., facilities are 

not required to test contaminant levels 

to demonstrate such legitimacy, but 

rather, persons can use expert or process 

knowledge, as well as data generated 

from similar facilities, to make those 

determinations. 

To the extent industry and other 

commenters believe that these pulp and 

paper sludges should be categorically 

listed in section 241.4(a), they 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 

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,61 (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 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80486 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 the 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 non-waste fuels, the EPA will 

consider adding pulp and paper sludge 

to the list of non-waste fuels in 40 CFR 

241.4(a). 

2. Coal Refuse 

Coal refuse is generated when coal is 

mined, and is comprised of noncombustible rock with some attached 

carbon material that is not easily 

separated due to its small size. The 

EPA‘s Coal Refuse Materials 

Characterization Paper indicates that 

there are 18 coal refuse plants (Fossil 

Fuel Electric Power Generation–NAICS 

221112), and 13 more that use it as a 

secondary fuel, with bituminous coal as 

their primary fuel. This paper did not 

provide an official estimate of the 

annual volume of coal refuse that is 

generated, nor the amount that is stored 

in legacy piles. 

In an August 15, 2011 letter to the 

Anthracite Region Independent Power 

Producers Association (ARIPPA), EPA 

addressed industry concerns about 

whether coal refuse from legacy piles, 

when used as a fuel in combustion 

units, would be considered a solid 

waste under the non-hazardous 

secondary materials (NHSM) rule. After 

reaffirming that EPA has determined 

that currently-generated coal refuse is 

an alternative fuel, EPA addressed coal 

refuse from legacy piles. While noting 

that coal refuse from legacy piles 

‘‘* * * has clearly been discarded and 

is a solid waste unless sufficiently 

processed into a new legitimate fuel 

product,’’ EPA also states that it has 

determined that such refuse is 

processed no differently than currently 

generated coal refuse, and therefore 

meets EPA‘s requirements for 

processing under 40 CFR 241.2. The 

EPA goes on to declare that postprocessed coal refuse from legacy piles 

meets the first two criteria for treatment 

as a non-waste fuel when combusted: 

materials are managed in the same 

manner, and would have similar heating 

values, as currently generated coal 

refuse, which is a traditional fuel. 

The EPA then addresses the third 

criterion—whether the material contains 

contaminants at levels comparable to or 

lower than traditional fuels. The EPA 

affirms that because currently-generated 

coal refuse is a traditional fuel, such 

fuel is the traditional fuel benchmark 

when comparing contaminant levels 

with coal refuse found in legacy piles. 

The EPA also notes that since legacy 

coal refuse is processed in the same 

manner as currently-generated coal 

refuse, EPA expects that post-processed 

coal refuse from legacy piles satisfies 

EPA‘s contaminant legitimacy criterion. 

Thus, post-processed coal refuse from 

legacy piles are not being discarded 

when used as fuel and, therefore, we are 

taking comment on specifically 

identifying them as a non-waste fuel in 

§ 241.4. 

F. Effect of This Proposed Rule on Other 

Programs 

1. Clean Air Act 

During the 2011 NHSM final 

rulemaking, the EPA assessed the effects 

of that final rule on other programs. See 

76 FR 15545–15546. The 

reconsideration proposals for the CISWI 

and boiler 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)). Section 129 of 

the CAA also specifically excludes 

subtitle C combustion units from 

coverage under that section. 

Section 7003 of the RCRA gives the 

EPA the authority to compel actions to 

abate conditions that may present an 

‘‘imminent and substantial 

endangerment’’ involving both solid and 

hazardous wastes. The 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 establish the EPA’s inspection 

and federal enforcement authority to 

address violations of the subtitle C 

hazardous waste regulations. Nothing in 

this rule shall impact the EPA’s ability 

to act pursuant to RCRA sections 3007, 

3008 and 7003. The rule also does not 

limit or otherwise affect the 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 CAA states that the 

term ‘‘solid waste’’ shall have the 

meaning ‘‘established by the 

Administrator pursuant to [RCRA].’’ 

Consequently, the 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 

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 the 

EPA does promulgate criteria for solid 

waste landfills and approves state MSW 

landfill permitting programs, RCRA 

does not provide the EPA with authority 

to approve state programs beyond MSW 

landfill permitting programs. While 

states are not required to adopt 

regulations promulgated under RCRA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80487 

62 Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Solid Waste, Final Rule. March 

11, 2011. 

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, the 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. 

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 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 

NHSM 62 regulations (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD, and 40 CFR 

part 241) under the provisions of the 

PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 2384.03 

for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60, EPA 

ICR number 2385.03 for subpart DDDD, 

40 CFR part 60, and EPA ICR number 

2382.03 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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the APA 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 

defined by the SBA’s 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 

relative to those specified in the March 

2011 final CISWI and NHSM rules. The 

March 2011 final CISWI and NHSM 

rules were both certified as not having 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

this proposed action, there are three 

fewer small entities in the CISWI than 

in the March 2011 final CISWI rule, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Economic Impact 

Analysis: Reconsideration Proposal 

Inputs Comparison’’ memorandum in 

the CISWI docket. 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 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. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

The 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. 

The EPA estimates that the 

requirements in this rule would cause 

most CISWI in the ERU and wasteburning 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, the EPA does not expect any 

significant price increase for any energy 

type. The cost of energy 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 NTTAA of 1995, 

Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) directs the EPA to use VCS in 

its regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs 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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on EJ. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make EJ part of 

their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and lowincome 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 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. 

List of Subjects 

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: December 2, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93). 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

c. Adding paragraph (o). 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 

and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), 

approved April 1, 2008, IBR approved 

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

6 and 8 to subpart CCCC, and tables 2, 

6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

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

tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], IBR 

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

and (f)(4), § 60.106(e)(2), 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 

to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80489 

(o) The following material is available 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

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

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

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997, IBR approved 

for §§ 60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 

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

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

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Revise the heading for subpart 

CCCC to read as follows: 

Subpart CCCC—Standards of 

Performance for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units 

* * * * * 

4. Section 60.2005 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2005 When does this subpart become 

effective? 

This subpart takes effect on [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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2015 What is a new incineration unit? 

(a) A new incineration unit is an 

incineration unit that meets any of the 

criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) 

through (a)(2) of this section. 

(1) A CISWI unit that commenced 

construction after [DATE OF 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) A CISWI unit that commenced 

reconstruction or modification after 

[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 subpart DDDD of 

this part (Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units). Such changes do not qualify as 

reconstruction or modification under 

this subpart. 

6. Section 60.2020 is amended by: 

a. Revising the introductory text. 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b). 

c. Revising paragraph (c). 

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

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

e. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

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

f. Removing paragraph (o). 

§ 60.2020 What combustion units are 

exempt from this subpart? 

This subpart exempts the types of 

units described in paragraphs (a), (c) 

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

some units are required to provide 

notifications. Air curtain incinerators 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in 

§§ 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260. 

* * * * * 

(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) * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

(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). 

§ 60.2025 [Removed] 

7. Section 60.2025 is removed. 

8. Section 60.2030 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text. 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(5). 

c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through 

(c)(10). 

§ 60.2030 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs 

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

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(8) Approval of alternative opacity 

emission limits in § 60.2105 under 

§ 60.11(e)(6) through (8). 

(9) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 60.2125(j), 

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

(10) Determination of whether a 

qualifying small power production 

facility or cogeneration facility under 

§ 60.2020(e) or (f) is combusting 

homogenous waste as that term is 

defined in § 60.2265. 

9. Section 60.2045 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2030 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(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 [DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(c) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you are required to submit an initial 

application for a construction permit 

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the 

reconstruction or modification of your 

CISWI unit. 

10. Section 60.2070 is amended by 

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

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80490 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

§ 60.2070 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Actions to prevent and correct 

malfunctions or to prevent conditions 

that may lead to malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 60.2085 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2085 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

* * * * * 

(d) Prevention and correction of 

malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 60.2105 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2105 What emission limitations must I 

meet and by when? 

(a) You must meet the emission 

limitations for each CISWI unit, 

including bypass stack or vent, specified 

in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 

through 8 of this subpart by the 

applicable date in § 60.2140. You must 

be in compliance with the emission 

limitations of this subpart that apply to 

you at all times. 

(b) An incinerator unit that 

commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, but no later than 

June 4, 2010, or that commenced 

reconstruction or modification on or 

after June 1, 2001, but no later than 

[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 

(4). 

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

§ 60.2110 What operating limits must I 

meet and by when? 

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

comply with the emission limitations, 

you must establish operating limits for 

up to four operating parameters (as 

specified in table 2 of this subpart) as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(4) of this section during the initial 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(2) Minimum pressure drop across the 

wet particulate matter scrubber, which 

is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average pressure drop across the wet 

scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations; or minimum 

amperage to the fan for the wet 

scrubber, which is calculated as the 

lowest 1-hour average amperage to the 

wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations. 

(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, which is calculated as the lowest 

1-hour average liquid flow rate at the 

inlet to the wet acid gas or particulate 

matter scrubber measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limitations. 

(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, 

which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet 

acid gas scrubber measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

hydrogen chloride emission limitation. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limitations, you must measure 

the (secondary) voltage and amperage of 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates during the particulate matter 

performance test. Calculate the average 

electric power value (secondary voltage 

× secondary current = secondary electric 

power) for each test run. The operating 

limit for the electrostatic precipitator is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

secondary electric power measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter emission limitations. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the 

performance testing. The operating limit 

for the carbon sorbent injection is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

sorbent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

mercury emission limitations. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

charge rate, the secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI 

unit), and the reagent flow rate during 

the nitrogen oxides performance testing. 

The operating limits for the selective 

noncatalytic reduction are calculated as 

the lowest 1-hour average charge rate, 

secondary chamber temperature, and 

reagent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limitations. 

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

electrostatic precipitator, or fabric filter 

to comply with the emission limitations, 

and if you do not determine compliance 

with your particulate matter emission 

limitation with a particulate matter 

CEMS, you must maintain opacity to 

less than or equal to 10 percent opacity 

(1-hour block average). 

14. Section 60.2115 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2115 What if I do not use a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, activated carbon 

injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, 

or an electrostatic precipitator to comply 

with the emission limitations? 

If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, 

activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, fabric filter, or 

an electrostatic precipitator or limit 

emissions in some other manner, 

including material balances, to comply 

with the emission limitations under 

§ 60.2105, you must petition the EPA 

Administrator for specific operating 

limits to be established during the 

initial performance test and 

continuously monitored thereafter. You 

must not conduct the initial 

performance test until after the petition 

has been approved by the 

Administrator. Your petition must 

include the five items listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Identification of the specific 

parameters you propose to use as 

additional operating limits. 

(b) A discussion of the relationship 

between these parameters and emissions 

of regulated pollutants, identifying how 

emissions of regulated pollutants 

change with changes in these 

parameters and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions 

of regulated pollutants. 

(c) A discussion of how you will 

establish the upper and/or lower values 

for these parameters which will 

establish the operating limits on these 

parameters. 

(d) A discussion identifying the 

methods you will use to measure and 

the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative 

accuracy and precision of these methods 

and instruments. 

(e) A discussion identifying the 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

15. Section 60.2120 is revised to read 

as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80491 

§ 60.2120 Affirmative Defense for 

Exceedance of an Emission Limit During 

Malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 60.2105, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

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

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter 

monitoring and systems, as well as 

control systems, were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, 

but no later than two business days after 

the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself 

of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The 

owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a 

written report to the Administrator 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in 

§ 60.2105 to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

16. Section 60.2125 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c). 

b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2). 

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

read as follows: 

§ 60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and 

annual performance test? 

* * * * * 

(c) All performance tests must be 

conducted using the minimum run 

duration specified in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra-through octachlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

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

measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

isomer concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in table 3 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part must be used 

to determine compliance with the 

fugitive ash emission limit in table 1 of 

this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart. 

(i) If you have an applicable opacity 

operating limit, you must determine 

compliance with the opacity limit using 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

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

blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values, unless you are 

required to install a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, consistent with 

§§ 60.2145 and 60.2165. 

17. Section 60.2130 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2130 How are the performance test 

data used? 

You use results of performance tests 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart. 

18. Section 60.2135 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

and establish the operating limits? 

You must conduct a performance test, 

as required under §§ 60.2125 and 

60.2105 to determine compliance with 

the emission limitations in table 1 of 

this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart, to establish compliance with 

any opacity operating limit in § 60.2110, 

and to establish operating limits using 

the procedures in §§ 60.2110 or 60.2115. 

The performance test must be 

conducted using the test methods listed 

in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 

through 8 of this subpart and the 

procedures in § 60.2125. The use of the 

bypass stack during a performance test 

shall invalidate the performance test. 

You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system within 60 days of 

installation of the monitoring system. 

19. Section 60.2140 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2140 By what date must I conduct the 

initial performance test? 

(a) The initial performance test must 

be conducted within 60 days after your 

CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at 

which it will operate, but no later than 

180 days after its initial startup. 

(b) If you commence or recommence 

combusting a solid waste at an existing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

combustion unit at any commercial or 

industrial facility, and you conducted a 

test consistent with the provisions of 

this subpart while combusting the solid 

waste within the 6 months preceding 

the reintroduction of that solid waste in 

the combustion chamber, you do not 

need to retest until 6 months from the 

date you reintroduce that solid waste. 

(c) If you commence combusting or 

recommence combusting a solid waste 

at an existing combustion unit at any 

commercial or industrial facility and 

you have not conducted a performance 

test consistent with the provisions of 

this subpart while combusting the given 

solid waste within the 6 months 

preceding the reintroduction of that 

solid waste in the combustion chamber, 

you must conduct a performance test 

within 60 days commencing or 

recommencing solid waste combustion. 

20. Section 60.2141 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2141 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device 

inspection? 

(a) The initial air pollution control 

device inspection must be conducted 

within 60 days after installation of the 

control device and the associated CISWI 

unit reaches the charge rate at which it 

will operate, but no later than 180 days 

after the device’s initial startup. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless the owner or operator 

obtains written approval from the state 

agency establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the designated 

facility must be completed. 

21. Section 60.2145 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2145 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and the operating limits? 

(a) Compliance with standards. 

(1) The emission standards and 

operating requirements set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(2) If you cease combusting solid 

waste, you may opt to remain subject to 

the provisions of this subpart. 

Consistent with the definition of CISWI 

unit, you are subject to the requirements 

of this subpart at least 6 months 

following the last date of solid waste 

combustion. Solid waste combustion is 

ceased when solid waste is not in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., the solid 

waste feed to the combustor has been 

cut off for a period of time not less than 

the solid waste residence time). 

(3) If you cease combusting solid 

waste, you must be in compliance with 

any newly applicable standards on the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

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

that must be at least 6 months from the 

date that you ceased combusting solid 

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

Your source must remain in compliance 

with this subpart until the effective date 

of the waste-to-fuel switch. 

(4) If you own or operate an existing 

commercial or industrial combustion 

unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste 

material, and you commence or 

recommence combustion of solid waste, 

you are subject to the provisions of this 

subpart as of the first day you introduce 

or reintroduce solid waste to the 

combustion chamber, and this date 

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

initial compliance demonstrations for 

any section 112 standards that are 

applicable to your facility before you 

commence or recommence combustion 

of solid waste. You must provide 30 

days prior notice of the effective date of 

the waste-to-fuel switch. The 

notification must identify: 

(i) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(ii) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

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

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(iv) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(v) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

(i.e., the effective date of the waste-tofuel 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-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and 

drift checks must be performed as of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy 

tests must be performed as of the 

performance test deadline for PM 

CEMS. Relative accuracy testing for 

other CEMS need not be repeated if that 

testing was previously performed 

consistent with Clean Air Act section 

112 monitoring requirements or 

monitoring requirements under this 

subpart. 

(b) You must conduct an annual 

performance test for the pollutants 

listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 

5 through 8 of this subpart and opacity 

for each CISWI unit as required under 

§ 60.2125. The annual performance test 

must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 1 of this subpart 

or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and 

the procedures in § 60.2125. Annual 

performance tests are not required if you 

use CEMS 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 3- 

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. 

(d) You must burn only the same 

types of waste and fuels used to 

establish subcategory applicability (for 

energy recovery units) 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 CEMS or 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system are used) and the pollutants 

listed in table 6 of this subpart. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80493 

(g) You may elect to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emission limit using a carbon 

monoxide CEMS 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 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 

CEMS 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 CEMS 

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 CEMS 

according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2165(n) instead of the particulate 

matter continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) specified in § 60.2145. 

(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 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 CEMS 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 

CEMS. You must determine compliance 

with the mercury emissions limit using 

a mercury CEMS according to the 

following requirements: 

(1) Operate a CEMS system in 

accordance with performance 

specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B or a sorbent trap based 

integrated monitor in accordance with 

performance specification 12B of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration 

of the performance test must be a 

calendar month. For each calendar 

month in which the waste-burning kiln 

operates, hourly mercury concentration 

data, and stack gas volumetric flow rate 

data must be obtained. 

(2) Owners or operators using a 

mercury CEMS must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously measuring and 

recording the mercury mass emissions 

rate to the atmosphere according to the 

requirements of performance 

specifications 6 and 12A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B, and quality assurance 

procedure 6 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F. 

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

compliance by operating a mercury 

CEMS while the raw mill of the in-line 

kiln/raw mill is operating under normal 

conditions and while the raw mill of the 

in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating. 

(k) If you use an air pollution control 

device to meet the emission limitations 

in this subpart, you must conduct an 

initial and annual inspection of the air 

pollution control device. The inspection 

must include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation. 

(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring 

plan according to the requirements in 

paragraph (l) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you 

petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under 

§ 60.13(i). 

(l) For each continuous monitoring 

system required in this section, you 

must develop and submit to the EPA 

Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan according to 

the requirements of this paragraph (l) 

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

through (vi) of this section. 

(1) You must submit this site-specific 

monitoring plan at least 60 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your continuous monitoring system. 

(i) Installation of the continuous 

monitoring system sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement 

location relative to each affected process 

unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 

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

last control device). 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 60.11(d). 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), (c) 

introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), 

(f), and (g). 

(2) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system in accordance with 

your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

the continuous monitoring system in 

continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(m) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow monitoring 

system, you must meet the requirements 

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

of this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of no greater 

than 2 percent of the expected process 

flow rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling 

flow or abnormal velocity distributions 

due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system 

performance evaluation in accordance 

with your monitoring plan at the time 

of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(n) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

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

through (6) of this section. 

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

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM 

scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters 

of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring 

system operating range, whichever is 

less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pressure monitoring system in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured 

pressure exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure 

range, conduct a performance 

evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and confirm that the 

pressure monitoring system continues to 

meet the performance requirements in 

your monitoring plan. Alternatively, 

install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a pH monitoring system, you 

must meet the requirements in 

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

this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pH monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation 

(including a two-point calibration with 

one of the two buffer solutions having 

a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating 

limit) of the pH monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than quarterly. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a secondary electric power 

monitoring system for an electrostatic 

precipitator, you must meet the 

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

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure 

(secondary) voltage and current to the 

precipitator collection plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the electric power monitoring system 

in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance 

test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(q) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a monitoring system 

to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper 

flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) 

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

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

that provides a representative 

measurement of the total sorbent 

injection rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the sorbent injection rate monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each 

performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

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

leak detection system to comply with 

the requirements of this subpart, you 

must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a bag leak 

detection system as specified in 

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

this section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

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

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent, or 

compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter or 

less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

and consistent with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17). 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will sound 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located where it is observed readily 

by plant operating personnel. 

(s) For facilities using a CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with 

the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be 

demonstrated by using the CEMS 

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 CEMS 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 CEMS 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 CEMS, whichever is 

greater. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the CEMS 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 emissions monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(s)(1)(i) and (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 CEMS 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 CEMS 

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 CEMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the nitrogen oxides emission limit, 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit may be demonstrated by 

using the CEMS 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 CEMS 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 (5) 

of this section. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the CEMS 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 CEMS and 

the test methods specified in paragraphs 

(t)(1)(i) and (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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80495 

(2) The span value of the CEMS must 

be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential nitrogen 

oxide emissions of the unit. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations 

quarterly and calibration drift tests daily 

in accordance with procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(4) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If 

carbon dioxide is selected for use in 

diluent corrections, the relationship 

between oxygen and carbon dioxide 

levels must be established during the 

initial performance test according to the 

procedures and methods specified in 

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

this section. This relationship may be 

re-established during performance 

compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

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

ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 

30 minutes in each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 

1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be 

performed. 

(u) For facilities using a CEMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with any of the emission limits of this 

subpart, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Demonstrate compliance with the 

appropriate emission limit(s) using a 30- 

day rolling average, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part. 

(2) Operate all CEMS 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 CEMS, you must 

install, operate, and maintain an 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 

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. 

(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 inspection), 

you must complete the air pollution 

control device inspection as described 

in § 60.2141. 

24. Section 60.2155 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2155 May I conduct performance 

testing less often? 

(a) You must conduct annual 

performance tests according to the 

schedule specified in § 60.2150, with 

the following exceptions: 

(1) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward, as 

specified in § 60.2160. The 

Administrator may request a repeat 

performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance 

test within 60 days of a process change, 

as defined in § 60.2265. 

(3) If the initial or any subsequent 

performance test for any pollutant in 

table 1 or tables 5 through 8 of this 

subpart, as applicable, demonstrates 

that the emission level for the pollutant 

is no greater than the emission level 

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

this section, as applicable, and you are 

not required to conduct a performance 

test for the pollutant in response to a 

request by the Administrator in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a 

process change in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, you may elect to skip 

conducting a performance test for the 

pollutant for the next 2 years. You must 

conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant during the third year and no 

more than 37 months following the 

previous performance test for the 

pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both 

cadmium and lead must be emitted at 

emission levels no greater than their 

respective emission levels specified in 

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

to qualify for less frequent testing under 

this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

observation 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 (ii) of 

this section, as applicable, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for 

the pollutant according to the schedule 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

until you qualify for less frequent 

testing for the pollutant as specified in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(b) [Reserved] 

25. Section 60.2165 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(6). 

b. Revising paragraph (c). 

c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (r). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2165 What monitoring equipment 

must I install and what parameters must I 

monitor? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alert automatically an operator 

when an increase in relative particulate 

matter emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located 

where it is observed easily by plant 

operating personnel. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are using something other 

than a wet scrubber, activated carbon, 

selective non-catalytic reduction, or an 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limitations under 

§ 60.2105, you must install, calibrate (to 

the manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate the equipment 

necessary to monitor compliance with 

the site-specific operating limits 

established using the procedures in 

§ 60.2115. 

(d) If you use activated carbon 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must 

measure the minimum mercury sorbent 

flow rate once per hour. 

(e) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Following the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under 

§ 60.2125, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not 

operate above the maximum charge rate, 

or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to 

your CISWI unit) or the minimum 

reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour 

block averages at all times. 

(2) Operation of the affected facility 

above the maximum charge rate, below 

the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum 

reagent flow rate simultaneously 

constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit. 

(f) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limits of this subpart, you 

must monitor the secondary power to 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates and maintain the 3-hour block 

averages at or above the operating limits 

established during the mercury or 

particulate matter performance test. 

(g) For waste-burning kilns not 

equipped with a wet scrubber, in place 

of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA 

Method 321 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, an owner or operator must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS 

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 CEMS for conducting 

the hydrogen chloride annual 

performance test, monitoring the 

minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent 

flow rate, and monitoring the minimum 

scrubber liquor pH. 

(h) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a particulate matter CEMS for 

conducting the PM 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 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 CEMS for the nitrogen oxides 

annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CEMS for measuring nitrogen 

oxides emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere and record the output of the 

system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

procedure one of appendix F of this part 

and the procedures under § 60.13 must 

be followed for installation, evaluation, 

and operation of the CEMS. 

(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 CEMS 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80497 

(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 CEMS for measuring sulfur 

dioxide emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere and record the output of the 

system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

requirements of procedure one of 

appendix F of this part and procedures 

under § 60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation, and operation 

of the CEMS. 

(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 

CEMS 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 

CEMS, you must install, operate, certify, 

and maintain a continuous opacity 

monitoring system according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(5) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in § 60.2105. Energy 

recovery units that use a CEMS to 

demonstrate initial and continuing 

compliance according to the procedures 

in § 60.2165(n) are not required to 

install a continuous opacity monitoring 

system and must perform the annual 

performance tests for the opacity 

consistent with § 60.2145(f). 

(1) Install, operate, and maintain each 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

according to performance specification 

1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each continuous opacity monitoring 

system according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13 and according to PS–1 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B. 

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

continuous opacity monitoring system 

must complete a minimum of one cycle 

of sampling and analyzing for each 

successive 10-second period and one 

cycle of data recording for each 

successive 6-minute period. 

(4) Reduce the continuous opacity 

monitoring system data as specified in 

§ 60.13(h)(1). 

(5) Determine and record all the 

6-minute averages (and 1-hour block 

averages as applicable) collected. 

(n) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate 

matter testing with EPA Method 5 at 40 

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

operator may install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate a CEMS for monitoring 

particulate matter emissions discharged 

to the atmosphere and record the output 

of the system. For waste-burning kilns, 

a CEMS 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 

CEMS and must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

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

(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before stopping use of the system. 

(3) The monitor must be installed, 

evaluated, and operated in accordance 

with the requirements of performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this 

part and quality assurance requirements 

of procedure two of appendix F of this 

part and § 60.13. Use Method 5 or 

Method 5I of Appendix A of this part for 

the PM CEMS correlation testing. 

(4) The initial performance evaluation 

must be completed no later than 180 

days after the date of initial startup of 

the affected facility, as specified under 

§ 60.2125 or within 180 days of 

notification to the Administrator of use 

of the continuous monitoring system if 

the owner or operator was previously 

determining compliance by Method 5 

performance tests, whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

The relationship between oxygen and 

carbon dioxide levels for the affected 

facility must be established according to 

the procedures and methods specified 

in § 60.2145(s)(5)(i) through (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 CEMS 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 

CEMS 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 CEMS data must be 

used in calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum 

CEMS data requirements of paragraph 

(n)(8) of this section are not met. 

(11) The CEMS must be operated 

according to performance specification 

11 in appendix B of this part. 

(12) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the CEMS 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 emissions 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 CEMS breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks, and zero and span 

adjustments, emissions data must be 

obtained by using other monitoring 

systems as approved by the 

Administrator or EPA Reference Method 

19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 to 

provide, as necessary, valid emissions 

data for a minimum of 85 percent of the 

hours per day, 90 percent of the hours 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 CEMS 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 CEMS. 

(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 and shutdown as defined 

in this subpart, using CEMS 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 CEMS, 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. 

(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 

particulate matter CEMS 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 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. 

(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 outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

out-of-control periods (as specified in 

60.2210(o) of this part), and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You are required to effect monitoring 

system repairs in response to 

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

monitoring system to operation as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(b) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions 

or out-of-control periods, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions or out-of-control periods, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. You must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(c) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions or out-of-control 

periods, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments, 

failure to collect required data is a 

deviation of the monitoring 

requirements. 

27. Section 60.2175 is amended by: 

a. Revising the introductory text. 

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

c. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c) and (d). 

d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (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: 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80499 

(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. 

* * * * * 

(e) Identification of calendar dates 

and times for which data show a 

deviation from the operating limits in 

table 2 of this subpart or a deviation 

from other operating limits established 

under § 60.2110(d) through (f) or 

§ 60.2115 with a description of the 

deviations, reasons for such deviations, 

and a description of corrective actions 

taken. 

* * * * * 

(o) Maintain records of the annual air 

pollution control device inspections 

that are required for each CISWI unit 

subject to the emissions limits in table 

1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 

of this subpart, any required 

maintenance, and any repairs not 

completed within 10 days of an 

inspection or the timeframe established 

by the state regulatory agency. 

(p) For continuously monitored 

pollutants or parameters, you must 

document and keep a record of the 

following parameters measured using 

continuous monitoring systems. 

(1) All 6-minute average levels of 

opacity. 

(2) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

(3) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of nitrogen oxides emissions. 

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of carbon monoxide emissions. 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. 

(9) All 1-hour average PM CPMS 

readings or particulate matter 

continuous emissions 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 

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) of this 

chapter, 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 nonhazardous secondary material pursuant 

to § 241.3(b)(4) of this chapter, you must 

keep records as to how the operations 

that produced the fuel satisfies the 

definition of processing in § 241.2 of 

this chapter. If the fuel received a nonwaste determination pursuant to the 

petition process submitted under 

§ 241.3(c) of this chapter, 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) If no deviation from any emission 

limitation or operating limit that applies 

to you has been reported, a statement 

that there was no deviation from the 

emission limitations or operating limits 

during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(k) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction that occurred 

during the reporting period and that 

caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

(l) For each deviation from an 

emission or operating limitation that 

occurs for a CISWI unit for which you 

are not using a continuous monitoring 

system to comply with the emission or 

operating limitations in this subpart, the 

annual report must contain the 

following information. 

(1) The total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the deviation 

occurred during the reporting period. 

(2) Information on the number, 

duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the 

corrective action taken. 

(m) If there were periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system, including the CEMS, was out of 

control as specified in paragraph (o) of 

this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for 

each deviation from an emission or 

operating limitation occurring for a 

CISWI unit for which you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to 

comply with the emission and operating 

limitations in this subpart. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was inoperative, except for 

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

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out-of-control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction or during 

another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the CISWI unit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(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 CEMS, 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 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). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2230 Are there any other notifications 

or reports that I must submit? 

(a) Yes. You must submit notifications 

as provided by § 60.7. 

(b) If you cease combusting solid 

waste but continue to operate, you must 

provide 30 days prior notice of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch, consistent with § 60.2145(a). 

The notification must identify: 

(1) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(2) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

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

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(4) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(5) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

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

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

31. Section 60.2235 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2235 In what form can I submit my 

reports? 

(a) Submit initial, annual and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

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

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, as defined in 

§ 63.2, conducted to demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart, you must 

submit relative accuracy test audit (i.e., 

reference method) data and performance 

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

opacity data, electronically to EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

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

erttool.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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2250 What are the emission 

limitations for air curtain incinerators? 

Within 60 days after your air curtain 

incinerator reaches the charge rate at 

which it will operate, but no later than 

180 days after its initial startup, you 

must meet the two limitations specified 

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

(a) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 10 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values), except as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 35 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values) during the 

startup period that is within the first 30 

minutes of operation. 

34. Section 60.2260 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for air curtain 

incinerators? 

* * * * * 

(d) You must submit the results (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values) of the initial 

opacity tests no later than 60 days 

following the initial test. Submit annual 

opacity test results within 12 months 

following the previous report. 

* * * * * 

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’’, 

‘‘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’’, 

‘‘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’’, ‘‘Cyclonic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80501 

burn barrel’’, ‘‘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’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

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, wasteburning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

* * * * * 

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, 

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. 

* * * * * 

Commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration (CISWI) unit means 

any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that 

combusts, or has combusted in the 

preceding 6 months, any solid waste as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. 

If the operating unit burns materials 

other than traditional fuels as defined in 

§ 241.2 that have been discarded, and 

you do not keep and produce records as 

required by § 60.2175(v), the material is 

a solid waste and the operating unit is 

a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI units 

will include all of the following 

components, a CISWI unit includes, but 

is not limited to, the solid waste feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, 

waste heat recovery equipment, if any, 

and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit 

does not include air pollution control 

equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit 

boundary starts at the solid waste 

hopper (if applicable) and extends 

through two areas: The combustion unit 

flue gas system, which ends 

immediately after the last combustion 

chamber or after the waste heat recovery 

equipment, if any; and the combustion 

unit bottom ash system, which ends at 

the truck loading station or similar 

equipment that transfers the ash to final 

disposal. The CISWI unit includes all 

ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. 

* * * * * 

Continuous monitoring system (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. A 

particulate matter continuous parameter 

monitoring system (PM CPMS) is a type 

of CMS. 

* * * * * 

Cyclonic burn barrel means a 

combustion device for waste materials 

that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead 

drum. The device consists of a lid, 

which fits onto and encloses the drum, 

and a blower that forces combustion air 

into the drum in a cyclonic manner to 

enhance the mixing of waste material 

and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an 

energy recovery unit or a small, remote 

incinerator under this subpart. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emission limitation, operating limit, or 

operator qualification and accessibility 

requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through 

octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

dibenzofurans. 

* * * * * 

Energy recovery unit means a 

combustion unit combusting solid waste 

(as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80502 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 two-chamber. 

Kiln means an oven or furnace, 

including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, used for processing 

a substance by burning, firing or drying. 

Kilns include cement kilns that produce 

clinker by heating limestone and other 

materials for subsequent production of 

Portland Cement. 

Laboratory analysis unit means units 

that burn samples of materials for the 

purpose of chemical or physical 

analysis. A laboratory analysis unit is 

not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, 

an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 

90 percent of the lowest test-run average 

voltage or amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitator measured during the most 

recent particulate matter or mercury 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits. 

Modification or modified CISWI unit 

means a CISWI unit that has been 

changed later than June 1, 2001, and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes 

over the life of the unit exceeds 50 

percent of the original cost of building 

and installing the CISWI unit (not 

including the cost of land) updated to 

current costs (current dollars). To 

determine what systems are within the 

boundary of the CISWI unit used to 

calculate these costs, see the definition 

of CISWI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the CISWI 

unit or change in the method of 

operating it that increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted for which 

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 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 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 permit under section 3005 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term 

‘‘solid waste incineration unit’’ does not 

include: 

(1) Materials recovery facilities 

(including primary or secondary 

smelters) which combust waste for the 

primary purpose of recovering metals; 

(2) 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 

(3) 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80503 

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). A waste-burning kiln does not 

include a kiln that is feeding nonhazardous secondary ingredients 

exclusively into the cold end of the kiln. 

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 revised 

to read as follows: 

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

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

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

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]. 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

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

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

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon Monoxide .......................... 157 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

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 

120 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 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

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 (for Method 7E, 1 

hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

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

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or A–8). 

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

collect sample for a minimum 

duration of 1 hour per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. 

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

b Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

37. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Annual Report’’ and ‘‘Emission limitation or operating limit deviation 

report.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80504 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

Report Due date Contents Reference 

* * * * * * * 

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

than 12 months following the previous report.

• Name and address 

• Statement and signature by responsible official.

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

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

• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded for the 

calendar year being reported.

§§ 60.2205 and 

60.2210. 

• 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 comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 2 performance tests to the 75 percent emission 

limit threshold required in § 60.2155(a) and 

a statement as to whether there have been 

any operational changes since the last performance test that could increase emissions. 

* * * * * * * 

Emission limitation or 

operating limit deviation report.

By August 1 of that year for data collected 

during the first half of the calendar year. By 

February 1 of the following year for data 

collected during the second half of the calendar year.

• Dates and times of deviation. 

• Averaged and recorded data for those 

dates.

• Duration and causes of each deviation and 

the corrective actions taken.

• Copy of operating limit monitoring data and 

any test reports.

• Dates, times and causes for monitor downtime incidents.

§ 60.2215 and 

60.2220. 

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

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

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

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

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

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 

of this part). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical finish. 

Carbon Monoxide .......................... 12 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxin/furan (Total Mass Basis) ..... 0.58 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter c.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxin/furan (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.13 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80505 

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—Continued 

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

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

collect a minimum volume of 

360 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 3 dry standard cubic meter 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

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

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 of 

appendix A–8 at 40 CFR part 

60). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish. 

Mercury .......................................... 0.00084 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter c.3-run average (collect enough volume to meet a detection limit 

data quality objective of 0.03 

μg/dry standard cubic meter).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

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

(Reapproved 2008) b. 

Nitrogen Oxides ............................. 23 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 

hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Particulate matter (filterable) .......... 18 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8 at 40 CFR 

part 60). 

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

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. 

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

than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

7). 

aAll emission limitations 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

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this emission 

limitation a

Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Liquid/Gas Solids 

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

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—0.00014 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

Coal—0.058 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic 

meter. 

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 4 

dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 

29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8). Use 

ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

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

volume.

Biomass—160 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—46 parts per million 

dry volume. 

3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 

10 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (Total Mass 

Basis).

No Total Mass Basis limit, 

must meet the toxic 

equivalency basis limit 

below.

Biomass—0.52 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic 

meter c.

Coal—0.51 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter c. 

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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80506 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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—Continued 

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet this emission 

limitation a

Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method 

Liquid/Gas Solids 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis).

0.093 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter c.

Biomass—0.076 

nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter c.

Coal—0.075 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic 

meter c. 

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 4 

dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 

23 of appendix A–7 of 

this part). 

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

volume.

0.50 parts per million dry 

volume.

3-run average (For Method 

26, collect a minimum 

volume of 360 liters per 

run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard 

cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 

26 or 26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8). 

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

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—0.0019 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

Coal—0.0031 milligrams 

per dry standard cubic 

meter. 

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 4 

dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 

29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8). Use 

ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .............................. 0.00091 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter c.

0.0020 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (collect 

enough volume to meet 

an in-stack detection 

limit data quality objective of 0.03 μg/dscm).

Performance test (Method 

29 or 30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8) 

or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008) b. 

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

volume.

Biomass—290 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—340 parts per million dry volume 

3-run average (for Method 

7E, 1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 

7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–4). 

Particulate matter (filterable).110 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—5.1 milligrams 

per dry standard cubic 

meter.

Coal—86 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic 

meter. 

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter 

per run).

Performance test (Method 

5 or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3 or appendix A–8) if the unit 

has a design capacity 

less than 250 MMBtu/hr; 

or PM CEMS (performance specification 11 of 

appendix B and procedure 2 of appendix F of 

this part) if the unit has 

a design capacity equal 

to or greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr. Use Method 

5 or 5I of Appendix A of 

this part and collect a 

minimum sample volume 

of 1 dscm per test run 

for the PM CEMS correlation testing. 

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

volume.

Biomass—7.3 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—650 parts per million dry volume. 

3-run average (for Method 

6, collect a minimum of 

60 liters, for Method 6C, 

1 hour minimum sample 

time per run).

Performance test (Method 

6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–4. 

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

more than 5 percent of 

the hourly observation 

period.

Visible emissions for no 

more than 5 percent of 

the hourly observation 

period.

Three 1-hour observation 

periods.

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7). 

aAll emission limitations 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80507 

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

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a 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.

3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 0.51 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter b.

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 meter b.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 3.0 parts per million dry volume b 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 

and procedure 1 of appendix F 

of this part). Use a span value 

of 400 ppm. 

Particulate matter (filterable) .......... 8.9 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

30-day rolling average .................. PM Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (performance 

specification 11 of appendix B 

and procedure 2 of appendix F 

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 and procedure 1 of 

appendix F of this part). Use a 

span value of 260 ppm. 

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

mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. b 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

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.61 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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— 

Continued 

[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 12 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 1,200 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

31 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 200 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 0.26 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0035 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) b, collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum volume as specified in Method 

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

Performance test (Method 29 or 

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

(Reapproved 2008) b. 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 78 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 

hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Particulate matter (filterable) .......... 230 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 1.2 parts per million dry volume ... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. 

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

than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

7). 

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 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) 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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2505 Am I affected by this subpart? 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an 

air quality program in a state or United 

States protectorate with one or more 

existing CISWI units that meets the 

criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of 

this section, you must submit a state 

plan to EPA that implements the 

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 [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for 

incinerators that commenced 

construction after November 30, 1999, 

but no later than June 4, 2010, or 

commenced modification or 

reconstruction after June 1, 2001 but no 

later than [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80509 

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 

[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 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 (2) of this section. 

(1) [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 (2) of 

this section. 

(1) March 21, 2016. 

(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-bycase 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 requirements of this section. 

This is the only other option for a state 

to meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/ 

129 obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan 

delegation request must include the 

following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate 

resources and legal authority to 

administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under § 60.2515(a)(1), 

(2), and (7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on 

the state delegation request, similar to 

the hearing for a state plan submittal, 

was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, 

appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or 

written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Regional Administrator who sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date 

of the delegation and that serves as the 

mechanism for the transfer of authority. 

Additional guidance and information is 

given in EPA’s Delegation Manual, Item 

7–139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/ 

129(b)(3) federal plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved 

CISWI Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation 

request for the revised federal plan, 

providing the requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section are met, and at the 

time of the delegation request, the state 

also requests withdrawal of EPA’s 

previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations are separate from 

its obligations under Title V of the Clean 

Air Act. 

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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

guidelines contained in this subpart by 

[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 [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). 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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) * * * 

(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 in § 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. 

* * * * * 

(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). 

§ 60.2558 [Removed] 

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: 

§ 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) 

through (4). 

b. Revising paragraph (b). 

c. Adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and 

(g). 

The revisions and addtions read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2675 What operating limits must I 

meet and by when? 

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

comply with the emission limitations, 

you must establish operating limits for 

up to four operating parameters (as 

specified in table 3 of this subpart) as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(4) of this section during the initial 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(2) Minimum pressure drop across the 

wet particulate matter scrubber, which 

is calculated as the lowest 1-hour 

average pressure drop across the wet 

scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations; or minimum 

amperage to the fan for the wet 

scrubber, which is calculated as the 

lowest 1-hour average amperage to the 

wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limitations. 

(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, which is calculated as the lowest 

1-hour average liquid flow rate at the 

inlet to the wet acid gas or particulate 

matter scrubber measured during the 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80511 

acid gas scrubber measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the HCl 

emission limitation. 

(b) You must meet the operating 

limits established during the initial 

performance test on the date the initial 

performance test is required or 

completed (whichever is earlier). You 

must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system and continuous 

parameter monitoring system within 60 

days of installation of the monitoring 

system. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limitations, you must measure 

the (secondary) voltage and amperage of 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates during the particulate matter 

performance test. Calculate the average 

electric power value (secondary voltage 

× secondary current = secondary electric 

power) for each test run. The operating 

limit for the electrostatic precipitator is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

secondary electric power measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter emission limitations. 

(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent 

injection to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

sorbent flow rate during the 

performance testing. The operating limit 

for the carbon sorbent injection is 

calculated as the lowest 1-hour average 

sorbent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

mercury emission limitations. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 

limitations, you must measure the 

charge rate, the secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI 

unit), and the reagent flow rate during 

the nitrogen oxides performance testing. 

The operating limits for the selective 

noncatalytic reduction are calculated as 

the lowest 1-hour average charge rate, 

secondary chamber temperature, and 

reagent flow rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limitations. 

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

electrostatic precipitator, or fabric filter 

to comply with the emission limitations, 

and if you do not determine compliance 

with your particulate matter emission 

limitation with a particulate matter 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system, you must maintain opacity to 

less than or equal to ten percent opacity 

(1-hour block average). 

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 the five items listed in 

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

section. 

(1) Identification of the specific 

parameters you propose to use as 

additional operating limits. 

(2) A discussion of the relationship 

between these parameters and emissions 

of regulated pollutants, identifying how 

emissions of regulated pollutants 

change with changes in these 

parameters and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions 

of regulated pollutants. 

(3) A discussion of how you will 

establish the upper and/or lower values 

for these parameters which will 

establish the operating limits on these 

parameters. 

(4) A discussion identifying the 

methods you will use to measure and 

the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative 

accuracy and precision of these methods 

and instruments. 

(5) A discussion identifying the 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

(b) [Reserved] 

59. Section 60.2685 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2685 Affirmative Defense for 

Exceedance of an Emission Limit During 

Malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 60.2670 you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 

§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

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

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions and/or parameter 

monitoring and systems, as well as 

control systems, were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, 

but no later than two business days after 

the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself 

of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The 

owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a 

written report to the Administrator 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in 

§ 60.2670 to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45-day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedances. 

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 (tetrathrough octa-chlorinated) isomer 

measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

isomer concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in table 4 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 must be used to 

determine compliance with the fugitive 

ash emission limit in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this 

subpart. 

(i) If you have an applicable opacity 

operating limit, you must determine 

compliance with the opacity limit using 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4, based on three 1-hour blocks 

consisting of ten 6-minute average 

opacity values, unless you are required 

to install a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, consistent with 

§ 60.2710 and § 60.2730. 

61. Section 60.2695 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2695 How are the performance test 

data used? 

You use results of performance tests 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this 

subpart. 

62. Section 60.2700 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2700 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the amended emission 

limitations and establish the operating 

limits? 

You must conduct 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 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 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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2710 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the amended 

emission limitations and the operating 

limits? 

(a) Compliance with standards. 

(1) The emission standards and 

operating requirements set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(2) If you cease combusting solid 

waste you may opt to remain subject to 

the provisions of this subpart. 

Consistent with the definition of CISWI 

unit, you are subject to the requirements 

of this subpart at least 6 months 

following the last date of solid waste 

combustion. Solid waste combustion is 

ceased when solid waste is not in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., the solid 

waste feed to the combustor has been 

cut off for a period of time not less than 

the solid waste residence time). 

(3) If you cease combusting solid 

waste you must be in compliance with 

any newly applicable standards on the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

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

that must be at least 6 months from the 

date that you ceased combusting solid 

waste, consistent with § 60.2710(a)(2). 

Your source must remain in compliance 

with this subpart until the effective date 

of the waste-to-fuel switch. 

(4) If you own or operate an existing 

commercial or industrial combustion 

unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80513 

material, and you commence or 

recommence combustion of solid waste, 

you are subject to the provisions of this 

subpart as of the first day you introduce 

or reintroduce solid waste to the 

combustion chamber, and this date 

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

initial compliance demonstrations for 

any section 112 standards that are 

applicable to your facility before you 

commence or recommence combustion 

of solid waste. You must provide 30 

days prior notice of the effective date of 

the waste-to-fuel switch. The 

notification must identify: 

(i) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(ii) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

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

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(iv) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(v) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

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

fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and 

drift checks must be performed as of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel, or 

fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy 

tests must be performed as of the 

performance test deadline for PM 

CEMS. Relative accuracy testing for 

other CEMS need not be repeated if that 

testing was previously performed 

consistent with section 112 monitoring 

requirements or monitoring 

requirements under this subpart. 

(b) You must conduct an annual 

performance test for the pollutants 

listed in table 2 of this subpart or tables 

6 through 9 of this subpart and opacity 

for each CISWI unit as required under 

§ 60.2690. The annual performance test 

must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 2 of this subpart 

or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and 

the procedures in § 60.2690. Opacity 

must be measured using EPA Reference 

Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60. Annual 

performance tests are not required if you 

use CEMS 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 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 CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emission limit may be demonstrated by 

using the CEMS 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 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 CEMS 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 

hydrogen chloride emission limit using 

a CEMS as specified in § 60.2730. You 

must determine compliance with the 

mercury emissions limit using a 

mercury CEMS according to the 

following requirements: 

(1) Operate a CEMS 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80514 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial 

compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emissions monitor while the 

raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

operating under normal conditions and 

while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/ 

raw mill is not operating. 

(k) If you use an air pollution control 

device to meet the emission limitations 

in this subpart, you must conduct an 

initial and annual inspection of the air 

pollution control device. The inspection 

must include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation. 

(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring 

plan according to the requirements in 

paragraph (l) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you 

petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under 

§ 60.13(i). 

(l) For each CMS 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). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 60.11(d). 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system in accordance with 

your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

the continuous monitoring system in 

continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(m) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow monitoring 

system, you must meet the requirements 

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

of this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that 

provides a representative flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of no greater 

than 2 percent of the expected process 

flow rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling 

flow or abnormal velocity distributions 

due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system 

performance evaluation in accordance 

with your monitoring plan at the time 

of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(n) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

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

through (6) of this section. 

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

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM 

scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters 

of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring 

system operating range, whichever is 

less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pressure monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured 

pressure exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure 

range, conduct a performance 

evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and confirm that the 

pressure monitoring system continues to 

meet the performance requirements in 

your monitoring plan. Alternatively, 

install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(o) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

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

through (6) of this section. 

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

position that provides a representative 

measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM 

scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters 

of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring 

system operating range, whichever is 

less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the pressure monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured 

pressure exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure 

range, conduct a performance 

evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and confirm that the 

pressure monitoring system continues to 

meet the performance requirements in 

your monitoring plan. Alternatively, 

install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(p) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a secondary electric power 

monitoring system for an electrostatic 

precipitator, you must meet the 

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

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure 

(secondary) voltage and current to the 

precipitator collection plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the electric power monitoring system 

in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance 

test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(q) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a monitoring system 

to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper 

flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) 

and (q)(1) through (3) of this section. 

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

that provides a representative 

measurement of the total sorbent 

injection rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the sorbent injection rate monitoring 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80515 

system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each 

performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

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

leak detection system to comply with 

the requirements of this subpart, you 

must install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a bag leak 

detection system as specified in 

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

this section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

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

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent, or 

compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter or 

less. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

and consistent with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17). 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. 

(5) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will sound 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located where it is observed readily 

by plant operating personnel. 

(s) For facilities using a CEMS to 

demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with 

the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be 

demonstrated by using the CEMS 

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 

CEMS 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 CEMS 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 CEMS, whichever is 

greater. 

(1) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the CEMS 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 emissions monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

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

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference 

Method 6 or 6C, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) 

must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, or as 

an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(2) The span value of the continuous 

emissions monitoring system at the inlet 

to the sulfur dioxide control device 

must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential sulfur 

dioxide emissions of the unit subject to 

this rule. The span value of the CEMS 

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 CEMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the nitrogen oxides emission limit, 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit may be demonstrated by 

using the CEMS 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 

CEMS 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 CEMS 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 CEMS and 

the test methods specified in paragraphs 

(t)(1)(i) and (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 CEMS must 

be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential nitrogen 

oxide emissions of unit. 

(3) Conduct accuracy determinations 

quarterly and calibration drift tests daily 

in accordance with procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(4) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If 

carbon dioxide is selected for use in 

diluent corrections, the relationship 

between oxygen and carbon dioxide 

levels must be established during the 

initial performance test according to the 

procedures and methods specified in 

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

this section. This relationship may be 

reestablished during performance 

compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

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

PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 

30 minutes in each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1- 

hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of 3 runs must be 

performed. 

(u) For facilities using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with any of the emission limits of this 

subpart, you must complete the 

following: 

(1) Demonstrate compliance with the 

appropriate emission limit(s) using a 30- 

day rolling average, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. 

(2) Operate all continuous emissions 

monitoring 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 an carbon monoxide CEMS, you 

must install, operate, and maintain a 

oxygen analyzer system as defined in 

§ 60.2875 according to the procedures in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 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. 

(2) 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. 

(3) 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: 

§ 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 (ii) of 

this section, as applicable, and you are 

not required to conduct a performance 

test for the pollutant in response to a 

request by the Administrator in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a 

process change in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, you may elect to skip 

conducting a performance test for the 

pollutant for the next 2 years. You must 

conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant during the third year and no 

more than 37 months following the 

previous performance test for the 

pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both 

cadmium and lead must be emitted at 

emission levels no greater than their 

respective emission levels specified in 

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

to qualify for less frequent testing under 

this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, mercury, carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans, the 

emission level equal to 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit in table 2 or 

tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as 

applicable, to this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible 

emissions (of combustion ash from the 

ash conveying system) for 2 percent of 

the time during each of the three 1-hour 

observations periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent 

testing for a pollutant as provided in 

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

subsequent performance test for the 

pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit 

does not meet the emission level 

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

this section, as applicable, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for 

the pollutant according to the schedule 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

until you qualify for less frequent 

testing for the pollutant as specified in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(b) [Reserved] 

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 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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80517 

(1) Following the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under 

§ 60.2690, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not 

operate above the maximum charge rate, 

or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to 

your CISWI unit) or the minimum 

reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour 

block averages at all times. 

(2) Operation of the affected facility 

above the maximum charge rate, below 

the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum 

reagent flow rate simultaneously 

constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit. 

(f) If you use an electrostatic 

precipitator to comply with the 

emission limits of this subpart, you 

must monitor the secondary power to 

the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates and maintain the 3-hour block 

averages at or above the operating limits 

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 CEMS 

for monitoring hydrogen chloride 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. To 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the hydrogen chloride emissions 

limit for units other than waste-burning 

kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, 

a facility may substitute use of a 

hydrogen chloride continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

conducting the hydrogen chloride 

annual performance test, monitoring the 

minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent 

flow rate and monitoring the minimum 

scrubber liquor pH. 

(h) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a particulate matter continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

conducting the particulate matter 

annual performance test and monitoring 

the minimum pressure drop across the 

wet scrubber, if applicable. 

(i) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the dioxin/furan annual 

performance test. You must record the 

output of the system and analyze the 

sample according to EPA Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. This 

option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification 

applicable to dioxin/furan from 

continuous monitors is published in the 

Federal Register. The owner or operator 

who elects to continuously sample 

dioxin/furan emissions instead of 

sampling and testing using EPA Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 

must install, calibrate, maintain and 

operate a continuous automated 

sampling system and must comply with 

the requirements specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) and (q). 

(j) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the mercury emissions 

limit, a facility may substitute use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for the mercury annual performance 

test. You must record the output of the 

system and analyze the sample at set 

intervals using any suitable 

determinative technique that can meet 

performance specification 12B criteria. 

This option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system takes effect 

on the date a final performance 

specification applicable to mercury from 

monitors is published in the Federal 

Register. The owner or operator who 

elects to continuously sample 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 CEMS for measuring nitrogen 

oxides emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere and record the output of the 

system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

procedure 1 of appendix F of this part 

and the procedures under § 60.13 must 

be followed for installation, evaluation 

and operation of the CEMS. 

(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 CEMS 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 CEMS for measuring sulfur 

dioxide emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere and record the output of the 

system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix 

B of this part, the quality assurance 

requirements of procedure 1 of 

appendix F of this part and the 

procedures under § 60.13 must be 

followed for installation, evaluation and 

operation of the CEMS. 

(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 

CEMS 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 CEMS, you must install, operate, 

certify and maintain a continuous 

opacity monitoring system according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (5) of this section by the 

compliance date specified in § 60.2670. 

Energy recovery units that use a 

particulate matter continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

initial and continuing compliance 

according to the procedures in 

§ 60.2730(n) are not required to install a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

and must perform the annual 

performance tests for opacity consistent 

with § 60.2710(f). 

(1) Install, operate and maintain each 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

according to performance specification 

1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each continuous opacity monitoring 

system according to the requirements in 

§ 60.13 and according to performance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

specification 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. 

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

continuous opacity monitoring system 

must complete a minimum of one cycle 

of sampling and analyzing for each 

successive 10-second period and one 

cycle of data recording for each 

successive 6-minute period. 

(4) Reduce the continuous opacity 

monitoring system data as specified in 

§ 60.13(h)(1). 

(5) Determine and record all the 6- 

minute averages (and 1-hour block 

averages as applicable) collected. 

(n) For energy recovery units with 

design capacities greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, in 

place of particulate matter testing with 

EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, an owner or operator 

must install, calibrate, maintain and 

operate a CEMS 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 CEMS 

and must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(14) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month 

before stopping use of the system. 

(3) The monitor must be installed, 

evaluated and operated in accordance 

with the requirements of performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this 

part and quality assurance requirements 

of procedure 2 of appendix F of this part 

and § 60.13. 

(4) The initial performance evaluation 

must be completed no later than 180 

days after the final compliance date for 

meeting the amended emission 

limitations, as specified under § 60.2690 

or within 180 days of notification to the 

Administrator of use of the continuous 

monitoring system if the owner or 

operator was previously determining 

compliance by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3 performance tests, 

whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

The relationship between oxygen and 

carbon dioxide levels for the affected 

facility must be established according to 

the procedures and methods specified 

in § 60.2710(s)(5)(i) through (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 CEMS specified in paragraph 

(n) of this section to measure particulate 

matter and calculating a 30-day rolling 

average emission concentration using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 of this part. 

(7) Compliance with the particulate 

matter emission limit must be 

determined based on the 30-day rolling 

average calculated using Equation 19–19 

in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference 

Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7 of the part from the 1-hour 

arithmetic average of the CEMS 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 CEMS data must be 

used in calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum 

CEMS data requirements of paragraph 

(n)(8) of this section are not met. 

(11) The CEMS must be operated 

according to performance specification 

11 in appendix B of this part. 

(12) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the CEMS 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 emissions 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 

CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks and zero and span adjustments, 

you must collect emissions data by 

using other monitoring systems as 

approved by the Administrator or EPA 

Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 to provide, as necessary, 

valid emissions data for a minimum of 

85 percent of the hours per day, 90 

percent of the hours per calendar 

quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per 

calendar year that the affected facility is 

operated and combusting waste. 

(o) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling 

system for the carbon monoxide annual 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CEMS 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 CEMS. 

(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 CEMS 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 CEMS, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a oxygen 

analyzer system as defined in § 60.2875 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80519 

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. 

(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. 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 

(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. 

(2) 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. 

(3) 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: 

§ 60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of 

monitoring data I must obtain? 

For each continuous monitoring 

system required or optionally allowed 

under § 60.2730, you must monitor and 

collect data according to this section: 

(a) You must operate the monitoring 

system and collect data at all required 

intervals at all times compliance is 

required except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

out-of-control periods (as specified in 

§ 60.2770(o) of this part), and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments. A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You are required to effect monitoring 

system repairs in response to 

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

monitoring system to operation as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(b) You may not use data recorded 

during the monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof control periods, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. 

You must use all the data collected 

during all other periods in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(c) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions or out-of-control 

periods, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments, 

failure to collect required data is a 

deviation of the monitoring 

requirements. 

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). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2740 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 

§ 60.2675(d) through (f) or § 60.2680, 

you must maintain data collected for all 

operating parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits. 

* * * * * 

(e) Identification of calendar dates 

and times for which data show a 

deviation from the operating limits in 

table 3 of this subpart or a deviation 

from other operating limits established 

under § 60.2675(d) through (f) or 

§ 60.2680 with a description of the 

deviations, reasons for such deviations, 

and a description of corrective actions 

taken. 

* * * * * 

(n) Maintain records of the annual air 

pollution control device inspections 

that are required for each CISWI unit 

subject to the emissions limits in table 

2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 

of this subpart, any required 

maintenance and any repairs not 

completed within 10 days of an 

inspection or the timeframe established 

by the state regulatory agency. 

(o) For continuously monitored 

pollutants or parameters, you must 

document and keep a record of the 

following parameters measured using 

continuous monitoring systems. 

(1) All 6-minute average levels of 

opacity. 

(2) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

(3) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of nitrogen oxides emissions. 

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of carbon monoxide emissions. 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. 

(9) All 1-hour average PM CPMS 

readings or particulate matter 

continuous emissions monitor outputs. 

(p) Records indicating use of the 

bypass stack, including dates, times and 

durations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(q) If you choose to stack test less 

frequently than annually, consistent 

with § 60.2720(a) through (c), you must 

keep annual records that document that 

your emissions in the previous stack 

test(s) were less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit and document 

that there was no change in source 

operations including fuel composition 

and operation of air pollution control 

equipment that would cause emissions 

of the relevant pollutant to increase 

within the past year. 

(r) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(s) Records of all required 

maintenance performed on the air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(t) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(u) For operating units that 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 limitations or operating limits 

during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(k) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction that occurred 

during the reporting period and that 

caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

(l) For each deviation from an 

emission or operating limitation that 

occurs for a CISWI unit for which you 

are not using a CMS to comply with the 

emission or operating limitations in this 

subpart, the annual report must contain 

the following information. 

(1) The total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the deviation 

occurred during the reporting period. 

(2) Information on the number, 

duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the 

corrective action taken. 

(m) If there were periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system, including the CEMS, was out of 

control as specified in paragraph (o) of 

this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for 

each deviation from an emission or 

operating limitation occurring for a 

CISWI unit for which you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to 

comply with the emission and operating 

limitations in this subpart. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was inoperative, except for 

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

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out-of-control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction or during 

another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the CISWI unit. 

(9) A brief description of the CISWI 

unit. 

(10) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(n) If there were periods during which 

the continuous monitoring system, 

including the CEMS, 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. 

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80521 

§ 60.2790 Are there any other notifications 

or reports that I must submit? 

(a) Yes. You must submit notifications 

as provided by § 60.7. 

(b) If you cease combusting solid 

waste but continue to operate, you must 

provide 30 days prior notice of the 

effective date of the waste-to-fuel 

switch, consistent with § 60.2710(a). 

The notification must identify: 

(1) The name of the owner or operator 

of the CISWI unit, the location of the 

source, the emissions unit(s) that will 

cease burning solid waste, and the date 

of the notice; 

(2) The currently applicable 

subcategory under this subpart, and any 

40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory 

that will be applicable after you cease 

combusting solid waste; 

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

and solid waste(s) the CISWI unit is 

currently combusting and has 

combusted over the past 6 months, and 

the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the 

unit will commence combusting; 

(4) The date on which you became 

subject to the currently applicable 

emission limits; 

(5) The date upon which you will 

cease combusting solid waste, and the 

date (if different) that you intend for any 

new requirements to become applicable 

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

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

75. Section 60.2795 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2795 In what form can I submit my 

reports? 

(a) Submit initial, annual and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(b) After December 31, 2011, within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance evaluation or 

performance test, as they are defined in 

§ 63.2, conducted to demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart, the owner 

or operator of the affected facility must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data and performance test data, except 

opacity data, to EPA by successfully 

submitting the data electronically to 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by 

using the Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/ert_tool.html). 

76. Section 60.2805 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2805 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a Title V operating permit for my 

unit? 

Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain 

incinerator subject to standards under 

this subpart must operate pursuant to a 

permit issued under Clean Air Act 

sections 129(e) and Title V. 

77. Section 60.2860 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2860 What are the emission 

limitations for air curtain incinerators? 

After the date the initial stack test is 

required or completed (whichever is 

earlier), you must meet the limitations 

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

(a) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 10 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values), except as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 35 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 1- 

hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute 

average opacity values) during the 

startup period that is within the first 30 

minutes of operation. 

78. Section 60.2870 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for air curtain 

incinerators? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(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,’’ 

‘‘Energy recovery unit,’’ ‘‘Energy 

recovery unit designed to burn biomass 

(Biomass),’’ ‘‘Energy recovery unit 

designed to burn coal (Coal),’’ ‘‘Energy 

recovery unit designed to burn liquid 

wastes material and gas (Liquid/gas),’’ 

‘‘Energy recovery unit designed to burn 

solid materials (Solid),’’ ‘‘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 

‘‘Waste-burning kiln,’’ in alphabetical 

order. 

b. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration (CISWI) unit,’’ ‘‘Cyclonic 

burn barrel’’, ‘‘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.’’ 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 60.2875 What definitions must I know? 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

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, wasteburning kiln, an energy recovery unit or 

a small, remote incinerator under this 

subpart. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

* * * * * 

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, 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

a pulping liquor recovery process and 

reused in the pulping process. 

(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric 

acid used to produce virgin sulfuric 

acid. 

(3) Units burning only wood or coal 

feedstock for the production of charcoal. 

(4) Units burning only manufacturing 

byproduct streams/residue containing 

catalyst metals that are reclaimed and 

reused as catalysts or used to produce 

commercial grade catalysts. 

(5) Units burning only coke to 

produce purified carbon monoxide that 

is used as an intermediate in the 

production of other chemical 

compounds. 

(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon 

liquids or solids to produce hydrogen, 

carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or 

other gases for use in other 

manufacturing processes. 

(7) Units burning only photographic 

film to recover silver. 

* * * * * 

Commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration (CISWI) unit means 

any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that 

combusts, or has combusted in the 

preceding 6 months, any solid waste as 

that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. 

If the operating unit burns materials 

other than traditional fuels as defined in 

§ 241.2 that have been discarded, and 

you do not keep and produce records as 

required by § 60.2740(u), the material is 

a solid waste and the operating unit is 

a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI units 

will include all of the following 

components, a CISWI unit includes, but 

is not limited to, the solid waste feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, 

waste heat recovery equipment, if any, 

and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit 

does not include air pollution control 

equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit 

boundary starts at the solid waste 

hopper (if applicable) and extends 

through two areas: the combustion unit 

flue gas system, which ends 

immediately after the last combustion 

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. A 

particulate matter continuous parameter 

monitoring system (PM CPMS) is a type 

of CMS. 

* * * * * 

Cyclonic burn barrel means a 

combustion device for waste materials 

that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead 

drum. The device consists of a lid, 

which fits onto and encloses the drum, 

and a blower that forces combustion air 

into the drum in a cyclonic manner to 

enhance the mixing of waste material 

and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an 

incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an 

energy recovery unit or a small, remote 

incinerator under this subpart. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emission limitation, operating limit, or 

operator qualification and accessibility 

requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit. 

* * * * * 

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 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 (Solid) 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 reducing the volume of 

the waste by removing combustible 

matter. Incinerator designs include 

single chamber and two-chamber. 

Kiln means an oven or furnace, 

including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, used for processing 

a substance by burning, firing or drying. 

Kilns include cement kilns that produce 

clinker by heating limestone and other 

materials for subsequent production of 

Portland Cement. 

Laboratory analysis unit means units 

that burn samples of materials for the 

purpose of chemical or physical 

analysis. A laboratory analysis unit is 

not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, 

an energy recovery unit or a small, 

remote incinerator under this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 

90 percent of the lowest test-run average 

voltage or amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitator measured during the most 

recent particulate matter or mercury 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits. 

Modification or modified CISWI unit 

means a CISWI unit that has been 

changed later than June 1, 2001, and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes 

over the life of the unit exceeds 50 

percent of the original cost of building 

and installing the CISWI unit (not 

including the cost of land) updated to 

current costs (current dollars). To 

determine what systems are within the 

boundary of the CISWI unit used to 

calculate these costs, see the definition 

of CISWI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the CISWI 

unit or change in the method of 

operating it that increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted for which 

Clean Air Act section 129 or section 111 

has established standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80523 

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 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 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 petroleumcontaminated 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 establishments 

or the general public (including single 

and multiple residences, hotels and 

motels). Such term does not include 

incinerators or other units required to 

have a permit under section 3005 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term 

‘‘solid waste incineration unit’’ does not 

include (A) materials recovery facilities 

(including primary or secondary 

smelters) which combust waste for the 

primary purpose of recovering metals, 

(B) qualifying small power production 

facilities, as defined in section 3(17)(C) 

of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration 

facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) 

of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous 

waste (such as units which burn tires or 

used oil, but not including refusederived fuel) for the production of 

electric energy or in the case of 

qualifying cogeneration facilities which 

burn homogeneous waste for the 

production of electric energy and steam 

or forms of useful energy (such as heat) 

which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling 

purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators 

provided that such incinerators only 

burn wood wastes, yard wastes and 

clean lumber and that such air curtain 

incinerators comply with opacity 

limitations to be established by the 

Administrator by rule. 

Space heater means a usually portable 

appliance for heating a relatively small 

area. 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). A waste-burning kiln does not 

include a kiln that is feeding nonhazardous secondary ingredients 

exclusively into the cold end of the kiln. 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 dates a

Increment 1—Submit 

final control plan.

(Dates to be specified 

in state plan). 

Increment 2—Final 

compliance.

(Dates to be specified 

in state plan).b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the 

discretion of the state. bThe date can be no later than 3 years after 

the effective date of state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced construction on or before November 

30, 1999. The date can be no later than 3 

years after the effective date of approval of a 

revised state plan or [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 incinerator CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 

2010. 

81. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is 

amended by: 

a. Revising the heading. 

b. Revising the entries for ‘‘Hydrogen 

chloride,’’ ‘‘Mercury,’’ ‘‘Opacity’’ and 

‘‘Oxides of nitrogen.’’ 

c. Adding footnotes b and c. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60-MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY BEFORE [DATE TO BE

SPECIFIED IN STATE PLAN] b

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using 

this method 

* * * * * * * 

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

collect a minimum volume of 

120 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 1 dry standard cubic meter 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

cubic meter.

3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

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

(Reapproved 2008).c

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

ten 6-minute average opacity 

values.

Performance test (Method 9 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

* * * * * * * 

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

sample time per run).

Performance test (Methods 7 or 

7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4). 

* * * * * * * 

bThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or [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 column 

headings to read as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

Dioxin/furan isomer Toxic equivalency factor 

* * * * * * * 

83. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is 

amended by: 

a. Revising the entry for ‘‘Annual 

Report’’. 

b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Emission 

limitation or operating limit deviation 

report’’. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT a

Report Due date Contents Reference 

* * * * * * * 

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

than 12 months following the previous report.

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

• Statement and signature by responsible official 

• Date of report. 

• Values for the operating limits. 

• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded for the 

calendar year being reported. 

§§ 60.2765 and 

60.2770. 

• If a performance test was conducted during 

the reporting period, the results of the test. 

• If a performance test was not conducted 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that the requirements of § 60.2720(a) were 

met. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80525 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable 

for more than 8 hours but less than 2 

weeks. 

• If you are conducting performance tests 

once every 3 years consistent with 

§ 60.2720(a), the date of the last 2 performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 2 performance tests to the 75 percent emission 

limit threshold required in § 60.2720(a) and 

a statement as to whether there have been 

any operational changes since the last performance test that could increase emissions. 

* * * * * * * 

Emission limitation or 

operating limit deviation report.

By August 1 of that year for data collected 

during the first half of the calendar year. By 

February 1 of the following year for data 

collected during the second half of the calendar year.

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

• Averaged and recorded data for those 

dates. 

• Duration and causes of each deviation and 

the corrective actions taken. 

• Copy of operating limit monitoring data and 

any test reports. 

• Dates, times and causes for monitor downtime incidents. 

§ 60.2775 and 

60.2780. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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 

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

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

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 36 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 4.6 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

0.13 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 29 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 60 

liters per run. For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic meter per 

run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 0.0036 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0054 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 an 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) b, collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters per run. For Method 

30B, collect a minimum sample 

as specified in Method 30B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Performance test (Method 29 or 

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

(Reapproved 2008).c


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation b Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 53 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 

hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Particulate matter filterable ............ 34 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8). 

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

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4. 

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

than 5% of the hourly observation period.

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

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

7). 

aThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or [THE DATE 5 

YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. bAll emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total 

mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

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 limitation b

Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method Liquid/gas Solids 

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

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—0.00078 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

Coal—0.058 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic 

meter. 

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 2 

dry standard cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 

29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8). Use 

ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 

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

volume.

Biomass—490 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—46 parts per million 

dry volume. 

3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 

10 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass 

basis).

2.9 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—0.52 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic 

meter c.

Coal—0.51 nanograms per 

dry standard cubic 

meter.c

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 1 

dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis).

0.32 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—0.12 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic 

meter.

Coal—0.075 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic 

meter.c

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 4 

dry standard cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7). 

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

volume.

0.50 parts per million dry 

volume.

3-run average (for Method 

26, collect a minimum of 

120 liters; for Method 

26A, collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).

Performance test (Method 

26 or 26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8). 

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

standard cubic meter.

Biomass—0.0019 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

Coal—0.0031 milligrams 

per dry standard cubic 

meter. 

3-run average (collect a 

minimum volume of 2 

dry standard cubic meters).

Performance test (Method 

29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8). Use 

ICPMS for the analytical 

finish. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80527 

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—Continued 

For the air pollutant 

You must meet this emission limitation b

Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method Liquid/gas Solids 

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 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) d. 

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

volume.

Biomass—290 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—340 parts per million dry volume. 

3-run average (for Method 

7E, 1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 

7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–4). 

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.

Coal—86 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 and procedure 

2 of appendix F of this 

part) if the unit has a design capacity greater 

than 250 MMBtu/hr. Use 

Method 5 or 5I of Appendix A of this part and 

collect a minimum sample volume of 1 dscm for 

the PM CEMS correlation testing. 

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

volume.

Biomass—7.3 parts per 

million dry volume.

Coal—650 parts per million dry volume. 

3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 

6 or 6c at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–4. 

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). 

aThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or [DATE 5 

YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] bAll 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 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 limitation b 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation b Using this averaging time And determining 

compliance using this method 

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). 

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 meter c.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 3.0 parts per million dry volume c 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 of 

this part) 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 (for Method 7E, 1 

hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 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 and 

procedure 2 of appendix F of 

this part; Use Method 5 or 5I of 

Appendix A of this part and collect a minimum sample volume 

of 2 dscm for the PM CEMS 

correlation testing.). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 830 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (for Method 6, collect a minimum of 20 liters; for 

Method 6C, 1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

aThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or [DATE 5 

YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] bAll emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total 

mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit. c 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: 

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 limitation b Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium ........................................ 0.61 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 20 parts per million dry volume .... 3-run average (1 hour minimum 

sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 10 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ... 1,200 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis).

57 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80529 

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—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation b Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 220 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 

120 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 1 dry standard cubic meter 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

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

Lead ............................................... 2.7 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0057 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) b, collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard 

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

sample as specified in Method 

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

Performance test (Method 29 or 

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

(Reapproved 2008) c. 

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 240 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 

hour minimum sample time per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Particulate matter filterable ............ 230 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meter).

Performance test (Method 5 or 29 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3 or appendix A–8). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 420 parts per million dry volume .. 3-run average (for Method 6, collect a minimum of 20 liters per 

run; for Method 6C, 1 hour minimum sample time per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6c 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

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). 

aThe date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or [DATE 5 

YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. bAll 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 

88. The authority citation for part 241 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429. 

Subpart A—General 

89. Section 241.2 is amended by: 

a. Revising the definition of ‘‘clean 

cellulosic biomass.’’ 

b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘contaminants.’’ 

c. Revising 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 forestderived 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 forestderived 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. 

* * * * * 

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, mcresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, m-xylene, oxylene, and p-xylene. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 through arrival at the 

combustion facility. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Identification of NonHazardous Secondary Materials that 

are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels 

or Ingredients in Combustion Units 

90. Amend 241.3 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraph (a), 

b. Remove and reserve paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) and (ii), 

c. Revise paragraph (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. 

(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 

presumed to be 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 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 nonhazardous 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. 

* * * * * 

91. Add § 241.4 to read as follows: 

§ 241.4 Non-Waste Determinations for 

Specific Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials When Used as a Fuel. 

(a) The following non-hazardous 

secondary materials are not solid wastes 

when used as a fuel 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 off-specification tires. 

(2) Resinated wood. 

(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 nonhazardous secondary material does not 

meet the legitimacy criteria, the 

applicant must explain why such nonhazardous 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 

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 production process, that 

the non-hazardous secondary material is 

functionally the same as the comparable 

traditional fuel, or other relevant factors 

as appropriate. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31648 Filed 12–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2