Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 1 of 2

 Page 18: The first paragraph of this section would be clearer, if the sentence that begins, “On 

August 17, 2001, EPA granted...” were moved in between the succeeding two sentences, so that 

the discussion is presented chronologically. Also, this section notably does not discuss EPA’s 

March 21, 2011, announcement to reconsider the final rule issued on that same date. It would 

be helpful for the public to have that more recent history, including the petitions for 

reconsideration that EPA received, in addition to the background information that is presented.

 Page 21: The preamble here states that EPA is “granting reconsideration” of the certain issues 

in the petitions it has received. It would be helpful if EPA presented a list of all of the issues that 

were raised in the petitions for reconsideration and provided an explanation for why EPA is not 

granting reconsideration for some. Additionally, EPA should consider explaining the whether 

the petitions raised any issues beyond those identified by EPA when it initiated reconsideration 

of the final rule on March 21, 2011.

 What is the difference between item #5 in list of provisions identified in the March 21, 2011, 

notice of reconsideration (“revisions to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements”) and 

item #2 identified in the list at the bottom of page 21 (“the removal of continuous carbon 

monoxide monitoring with CO CEMS requirements”)?

 Page 22: To preserve its discretion to consider and respond to comments, EPA should consider 

revising the phrase “will not” in the last sentence of the last paragraph of Section B to “do not 

intend to”.

 Page 29: At the end of the section discussing energy recovery units, EPA notes that it has used 

the same methodology as in the final rule for establishing emission limits and is not taking 

comment on this methodology. EPA makes similar statements regarding its methodology for 

calculating emissions limits with respect to waste-burning kilns (p. 30) and the revised 

dioxin/furan limits (p. 55). Can EPA please clarify how it can take comment on the revised 

emissions limits without taking comment on the methodology? 

 Page 78: In discussing the water and solid waste impacts of the proposed rule, EPA estimates 

that 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. How is this impact 

distributed geographically; for example, does EPA expect the impact to be in arid regions of the 

country? What are the costs of drawing down freshwater resources, particularly in arid areas, 

on agriculture, drinking water supplies and ecosystem health? What are the actual monetary 

costs of treating the water once it is used? This impact should be at least qualitatively 

discussed if it is difficult to monetize. Can EPA provide a more detailed analysis to determine 

the potential for localized adverse impacts on water availability?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 2

Additionally, we suggest the following minor typographical and grammatical corrections:

 Page 18: Consider revising this sentence as shown: “The EPA’s requested for a voluntary 

remand of the final CISWI rule was taken to allow the EPA to address concerns related to the 

EPA’s procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units in light of the Court’s decision in 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001)(Cement Kiln).”

 Page 55: There appears to be an extra period or missing text in the last sentence on page 55 

(“Therefore. , we are not accepting comment on the emission limit calculation methodology.”).

 Instructions for Item 13 on page 189 says to both add and remove paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) 

is in being added but there was no pre-2011 paragraph (g) to remove.

 Paragraph 60.2141(l)(1)(vi) on page 211 references entire paragraph 60.7(c) and specific 

subparagraphs of (c) which seem odd. 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).

 Numbering format of subparagraphs of 60.2230(b) on pages 252 and 253 use (i) through (v) but 

should be (1) through (5).

 Table 7 to Subpart CCCC on page 284. The span value for SO2 needs to be increased.

Appendix B – Rankings_101911.xls

 There appears to be some discrepancy in the total population of units for several categories. In 

many cases, the number of units in the sample appears to be too large, based on the units listed 

in the above Excel spreadsheet. This has resulted in an incorrect number of units being used in 

the MACT floor calculation. In addition, when a calculation to determine the number of floor 

units resulted in a non-integer, the result was rounded up. These are shown in the table below.

Sample 

population 

(EPA 

spreadsheet)

# of units in 

floor (12%)

Sample 

population 

(correct value)

# of units in 

floor (12%)

Kilns 23 3 (2.76 

rounded up)

20 2 (2.4)

ERU – solids 26 4 (3.12 

rounded up)

20 2 (2.4)

ERU – biomass 21 3 (2.52 

rounded up)

18 2 (2.16)

Incinerators None given 4 21 2 (2.52)

Small remote 

units

14 2 11 1 (1.32)