6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60

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

RIN 2060-AO12

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On December 1, 2000, EPA adopted new source 

performance standards and emission guidelines for 

commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units 

established under Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air 

Act. In 2001, EPA granted a petition for reconsideration 

regarding the definitions of "commercial and industrial 

waste" and "commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration unit." In 2001, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA’s 

voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the 2000 rule. In 

2005, EPA proposed and finalized the commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration definition rule which 

revised the definition of “solid waste,” "commercial and 

industrial waste," and "commercial and industrial waste 

incineration unit." In 2007, the United States Court of 
2

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and 

remanded the 2005 commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration definition rule. 

This action provides EPA’s response to the 2001 

voluntary remand of the 2000 rule and the vacatur and 

remand of the commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration definition rule in 2007. In addition, this 

action includes the five-year technology review of the new 

source performance standards and emission guidelines 

required under Section 129. This action also proposes 

other amendments that EPA believes are necessary to 

adequately address air emissions from commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration units.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before 

[INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection provisions must be 

received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER.] 

Public Hearing. We will hold a public hearing 

concerning this proposed rule and the interrelated proposed 

Boiler and RCRA rules, discussed in this proposal and 

published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal 
3

Register, on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Persons requesting to speak at a 

public hearing must contact EPA by [INSERT THE DATE 10 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119, by one of the following methods:

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

for submitting comments.

E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to 

a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0119.

Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. 

Mail: Send your comments to: 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: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. Such deliveries are 
4

accepted only during the normal hours of operation (8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays), and special arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in the public docket and 

may be made available on-line at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” 

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 

EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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, EPA recommends that you include your name and 

other contact information in the body of your comment and 
5

with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, 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.

Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing 

concerning the proposed rule on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Persons interested 

in presenting oral testimony at the hearing should contact 

Ms. Joan Rogers, Natural Resources and Commerce Group, at 

(919) 541-4487 by [INSERT THE DATE 10 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The public hearing 

will be held in the Washington DC area at a location and 

time that will be posted at the following web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion. Please refer to 

this website to confirm the date of the public hearing as 

well. If no one requests to speak at the public hearing by 

[INSERT THE DATE 13 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] then the public hearing will be cancelled and a 

notification of cancellation posted on the following web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion.

Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. All documents in 
6

the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically at 

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

Center EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Charlene Spells, 

Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541-5255; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: spells.charlene@epa.gov or Ms. Toni 

Jones, Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
7

telephone number: (919) 541-0316; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: jones.toni@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The following outline 

is provided to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 

rules?

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions and current controls?

C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and 

other combustion rules?

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response

B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review 

Response

C. EPA’s Approach in Conducting the Five-Year Review

D. Other Proposed Amendments

E. Proposed State Plan Implementation Schedule for 

Existing CISWI

F. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 2000 

NSPS and EG

IV. Rationale

A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand and

the Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review 

Response

B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories

C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission Limits

D. Rationale for Beyond-the-floor Alternatives

E. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments

V. Impacts of the Proposed Action

A. What are the primary air impacts?

B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

C. What are the energy impacts?

D. What are the secondary air impacts?

E. What are the cost and economic impacts?

F. What are the benefits?
8

VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 

112(c)(6) of the CAA

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

affected by the proposed action are those which operate 

commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) 

units. The new source performance standards (NSPS) and 

emission guidelines (EG), hereinafter referred to as 

“standards,” for CISWI affect the following categories of

sources:

Category NAICS 

Code

Examples of potentially regulated 

entities1

Any industrial 

or commercial 

211, 212, 

486

Mining, oil and gas exploration 

operations; pipeline operators

 

1 Note that the rule contains definitions of the 

subcategories of CISWI units and a list of types of 

combustion units that are excluded. For further discussion, 

see Section III.D.1 of this preamble.
9

Category NAICS 

Code

Examples of potentially regulated 

entities1

221 Utility providers

321, 322, 

337

Manufacturers of wood products; 

manufacturers of pulp, paper and

paperboard; manufacturers of furniture 

and related products 

325, 326 Manufacturers of chemicals and allied 

products; manufacturers of plastics 

and rubber products

327 Manufacturers of cement

333, 336 Manufacturers of machinery; 

manufacturers of transportation 

equipment 

facility using 

a solid waste 

incinerator

42, 44, 

45

Wholesale merchants; retail merchants

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 and 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart 

DDDD. 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?

1. Submitting CBI

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send 

or deliver information identified as CBI to only the 
10

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

Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0119. 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 EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 

CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the 

disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as 

CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

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.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, remember to:

Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 

identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register

date and page number).
11

Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to 

specific questions or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest 

alternatives and substitute language for your requested 

changes.

Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 

information and/or data that you used.

If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain 

how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced.

Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns 

and suggest alternatives.

Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding 

the use of profanity or personal threats.

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment 

period deadline identified in the preceding section titled 

DATES.

3. Docket

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-OAR2003-0119.

4. Worldwide Web (WWW)
12

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the proposed action is available on the 

WWW through the Technology Transfer Network website (TTN 

Web). Following signature, EPA posted a copy of the 

proposed action on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 

control. 

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 

rules?

Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), entitled 

“Solid Waste Combustion,” requires EPA to develop and adopt 

standards for solid waste incineration units pursuant to 

CAA Sections 111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA 

requires EPA to establish performance standards, including

emission limitations, for “solid waste incineration units”

generally and, in particular, for “solid waste incineration

units combusting commercial or industrial waste” (CAA 

Section 129(a)(1)(D)). Section 129 of the CAA defines 

“solid waste incineration unit” as “a distinct operating 

unit of any facility which combusts any solid waste 

material from commercial or industrial establishments or 
13

the general public” (Section 129(g)(1)). Section 129 of 

the CAA also provides that “solid waste” shall have the 

meaning established by EPA pursuant to its authority under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

(Section 129(g)(6)).

In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 

1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated 

the CISWI Definitions Rule, 70 FR 55568 (September 22, 

2005), which EPA issued pursuant to CAA Section 

129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA defined the term 

“commercial or industrial solid waste incineration unit” to 

mean a combustion unit that combusts “commercial or 

industrial waste.” The rule defined “commercial or 

industrial waste” to mean waste combusted at a unit that 

does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a 

useful purpose. Under these definitions, only those units 

that combusted commercial or industrial waste and were not 

designed to, or did not operate to, recover thermal energy

from the combustion, were subject to Section 129 standards. 

In vacating the rule, the Court found that the definitions 

in the CISWI Definitions Rule were inconsistent with the 

CAA. Specifically, the Court held that the term “solid 

waste incineration unit” in CAA Section 129(g)(1) 
14

“unambiguously include[s] among the incineration units 

subject to its standards any facility that combusts any

commercial or industrial solid waste material at all —

subject to the four statutory exceptions identified [in CAA

Section 129(g)(1)].” NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1257–58.

In response to the Court’s vacatur of the CISWI 

Definitions rule, EPA initiated a rulemaking to define

which non-hazardous secondary materials are “solid waste”

for purposes of subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) of the 

RCRA when burned in a combustion unit. (See Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (74 FR 41, January 2, 2009)

soliciting comment on whether certain non-hazardous 

secondary materials used as alternative fuels or

ingredients are solid wastes within the meaning of Subtitle 

D of the RCRA). That definition, in turn, would determine 

the applicability of CAA Section 129(a) to commercial and 

industrial combustion units.

In a parallel action, EPA is proposing a definition of 

solid waste pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA. That action is 

relevant to this proceeding because some energy recovery 

units and kilns combust solid waste as alternative fuels. 

Such units that combust solid waste (as defined pursuant to 

Subtitle D of RCRA) would be subject to standards under the 

CAA Section 129 CISWI rules rather than under Section 112 
15

rules applicable to boilers and kilns (e.g. cement kilns).

EPA recognizes that it has imperfect information on 

the exact nature of the non-hazardous secondary materials

which energy recovery units and kilns combust, including, 

for example, information as to the provider(s) of the nonhazardous secondary materials, how much processing the nonhazardous secondary materials may have undergone, if any,

and other issues potentially relevant in a determination as 

to whether non-hazardous secondary materials are solid 

waste, as the Administrator has proposed to define that 

term under RCRA. We nevertheless used the information 

currently available to EPA to determine which materials are 

solid waste, the burning of which would subject a unit to 

CAA Section 129, and which materials are not solid waste. 

Energy recovery units and kilns that are burning nonhazardous secondary materials that are not solid waste 

would be subject to the standard under CAA Section 112 that 

is applicable to such units. We based the standards in 

this proposed rule on the sources we determined would be 

subject to CISWI because they combust solid waste as 

defined in EPA’s proposed Solid Waste Definition 

Rulemaking, which, as noted above, is being proposed in 

parallel with this proposed rule.
16

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

address emissions from new CISWI units and CAA Sections 

111(d) and 129(b) (EG program) address emissions from 

existing CISWI units. The NSPS are directly enforceable 

federal regulations and under CAA Section 129(f)(1) become 

effective six months after promulgation. Under CAA Section 

129(f)(2), the EG become effective and enforceable no later 

than three years after EPA approves a state plan 

implementing the EG or five years after the date they are 

promulgated, whichever is earlier.

The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating 

emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute 

also provides EPA with substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types and sizes of incinerator 

units within a category while setting standards. In the 

first stage of setting standards, CAA Section 129(a)(2) 

requires EPA to establish technology-based emission 

standards that reflect levels of control EPA determines are 

achievable for new and existing units, after considering 

costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then directs 

EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary 

every five years. In the second stage, CAA Section 
17

129(h)(3) requires EPA to determine whether further 

revisions of the standards are necessary in order to 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

See, e.g., NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (addressing the similarly required twostage approach under CAA Sections 112(d) and (f) and 

upholding EPA’s implementation of same).

In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to 

establish the first-stage technology-based standards, CAA 

Section 129(a)(2) provides that standards “applicable to 

solid waste incineration units promulgated under Section 

111 and this section shall reflect the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of [certain listed air pollutants] 

that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost 

of achieving such emission reduction and any non-air 

quality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, determines is achievable for new and existing 

units in each category.” This level of control is referred 

to as a maximum achievable control technology, or MACT 

standard.

In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first 

calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and 

existing solid waste incineration units in a category, 

generally based on levels of emissions control achieved or 
18

required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum 

level of stringency is called the MACT “floor,” and CAA 

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

stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or 

existing sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA 

Section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable . . . shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for existing 

units may be less stringent than standards for new units, 

but “shall not be less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in the category.”

The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory 

option EPA may consider in the determination of MACT 

standards for a source category. EPA must also determine 

whether to control emissions “beyond-the-floor,” after 

considering the costs, non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements of such more 

stringent control. 

In general, all MACT analyses involve an assessment of 

the emissions from the best performing units in a source 
19

category. The assessment can be based on actual emissions 

data, knowledge of the air pollution control in place in 

combination with actual emissions data, or on state

regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the 

actual performance of the regulated units. For each source 

category, the assessment involves a review of actual 

emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be 

used provided that the methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual emissions performance of 

a source or sources. Where there is more than one method 

or technology to control emissions, the analysis may result 

in a series of potential regulations (called regulatory 

options), one of which is selected as MACT.

Each regulatory option EPA considers must be at least 

as stringent as the CAA’s minimum stringency “floor” 

requirements. EPA must examine, but is not necessarily 

required to adopt, more stringent “beyond-the-floor” 

regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the floor 

minimum stringency requirements, EPA must consider various 

impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in 

determining whether MACT standards are to reflect “beyondthe-floor” requirements. If EPA concludes that the more 

stringent regulatory options have unreasonable impacts, EPA 
20

selects the “floor-based” regulatory option as MACT. But 

if EPA concludes that impacts associated with “beyond-thefloor” levels of control are acceptable in light of 

additional emissions reductions achieved, EPA selects those 

levels as MACT.

As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new 

sources be no less stringent than the emissions control 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar unit. 

Under CAA Section 129(a)(2), EPA determines the best 

control currently in use for a given pollutant and 

establishes one potential regulatory option at the emission 

level achieved by that control with an appropriate 

accounting for emissions variability. More stringent 

potential beyond-the-floor regulatory options might reflect 

controls used on other sources that could be applied to the 

source category in question.

For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no 

less stringent than the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in a 

source category. EPA must determine some measure of the 

average emissions limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory 

option. More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options 
21

reflect other or additional controls capable of achieving 

better performance. 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions and current controls?

We are proposing to define a CISWI unit as any 

combustion unit at a commercial or industrial facility that 

is used to combust solid waste (as defined under the RCRA). 

See proposed 40 C.F.R. 60.2265 (NSPS) and 60.2875 (EG). In 

this proposed rule, CISWI units include incinerators 

designed to discard waste materials; energy recovery units 

(e.g., units that would be boilers if they did not burn 

solid waste) designed for heat recovery that combust solid 

waste materials; kilns and other industrial units that 

combust solid waste materials in the manufacture of a 

product; and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials 

off racks, parts, drums or hooks so that those items can be 

re-used in various production processes. 

Combustion of solid waste causes the release of a wide 

array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the waste 

feed material and are released unchanged during combustion 

and some of which are generated as a result of the 

combustion process itself. These pollutants include 

particulate matter (PM); metals, including lead (Pb), 

cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including 
22

chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans (dioxin, 

furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOx); and 

acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). 

Depending on the type of unit and currently applicable 

regulations or permit conditions, units may or may not be 

equipped with add-on control devices to control emissions. 

For example, most of the CISWI units that operate without 

heat recovery are not equipped with add-on controls. Those 

that are controlled use wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, 

electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or fabric filters, 

either alone or in combination. Some energy recovery units

that combust solid waste are not equipped with add-on 

controls, but most are controlled with one or more of the 

following: cyclones or multi-clones, fabric filters, ESPs, 

wet scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) or spray dryers. In addition to add-on 

controls, many CISWI units are controlled through the use 

of pollution prevention measures (i.e., waste segregation) 

and good combustion control practices. 

Waste segregation is the separation of certain 

components of the waste stream in order to reduce the 

amount of air pollution emissions associated with that 

waste when incinerated. The separated waste may include 
23

paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries or metals. 

Separation of wastes can reduce the amount of chlorine- and 

metal-containing wastes being incinerated, which results in 

lower emissions of HCl, dioxin, furans, Hg, Cd and Pb.

Good combustion control practices include proper 

design, construction, operation and maintenance practices 

to destroy or prevent the formation of air pollutants prior 

to their release to the atmosphere. Test data for other 

types of combustion units indicate that as secondary 

chamber residence time and temperature increase, emissions 

decrease. Proper mixing of flue gases in the combustion 

chamber also promotes complete combustion. Combustion 

control is most effective in reducing dioxin, furans, other 

organic pollutants, PM, NOx and CO emissions.

The 2000 CISWI standards and the proposed revised 

standards are designed to reduce air pollutants, including 

HCl, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, dioxin, furans (total, or 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent (TEQ)), 

NOX and SO2, emitted from new and existing CISWI units. 

Units in the incinerator subcategory as defined in this 

proposed rule are currently subject to the 2000 CISWI 

standards and are already required to be in compliance with 

the NSPS or EG. The 2000 CISWI NSPS apply to CISWI units

in the incinerator subcategory if construction of a unit 
24

began after November 30, 1999, or if modification of a unit 

began after June 1, 2001. The 2000 CISWI NSPS apply to 

units in the incinerator subcategory and became effective 

on June 1, 2001, and apply as of that date or at start-up 

of a CISWI incinerator unit, whichever is later. The 2000 

CISWI EG apply to CISWI units in the incinerator 

subcategory if construction of a unit began on or before 

November 30, 1999, and compliance was required at the 

latest by December 2005. This proposed rule would 

establish revised standards for units in the incinerator 

subcategory and establish standards for the other four 

subcategories of CISWI units, and the emission limitations 

in the proposed revised NSPS and EG would apply at all 

times.

C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and 

other combustion rules?

This proposed rule addresses the combustion of solid 

waste materials (as defined by the Administrator under the 

RCRA) in combustion units at commercial and industrial 

facilities. If an owner or operator of a CISWI unit ceases

combusting solid waste, the affected unit would no longer

be subject to this regulation under CAA Section 129. A 

rulemaking under CAA Section 112 is being proposed in a 

parallel action that is relevant to this action because it 
25

would apply to boilers and process heaters located at a 

major source that do not combust solid waste. EPA has also 

proposed, but not yet finalized, revised Section 112 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for cement kilns. See 74 FR 21136 (May 6, 2009)

(proposing revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL). 

Cement kilns burning solid waste would be subject to this 

proposed rule, not the applicable NESHAP.

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response

1. What is the history of the CISWI standards?

On December 1, 2000, EPA published a notice of final 

rulemaking establishing the NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 

FR 75338), hereinafter referred to as the 2000 CISWI rule. 

Thereafter, on August 17, 2001, EPA granted a request for 

reconsideration, pursuant to CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B) of 

the CAA, submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife 

Federation and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, 

related to the definition of “commercial and industrial 

solid waste incineration unit” and “commercial or 

industrial waste” in EPA’s CISWI rulemaking. In granting 

the petition for reconsideration, EPA agreed to undertake 

further notice and comment proceedings related to these 

definitions. In addition, on January 30, 2001, the Sierra 
26

Club filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging 

EPA’s final CISWI rule. On September 6, 2001, the Court 

entered an order granting EPA’s motion for a voluntary 

remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. EPA’s request 

for a voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule was taken to 

allow the EPA to address concerns related to EPA’s 

procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units in 

light of the Court’s decision in Cement Kiln Recycling 

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

Neither EPA’s granting of the petition for reconsideration, 

nor the Court’s order granting a voluntary remand, stayed, 

vacated or otherwise influenced the effectiveness of the 

2000 CISWI rule. Specifically, CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

provides that “reconsideration shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of the rule,” except that “[t]he 

effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such 

reconsideration * * * by the Administrator or the court for 

a period not to exceed three months.” Neither EPA nor the 

Court stayed the effectiveness of the final CISWI 

regulations in connection with the reconsideration 

petition. In addition, the District of Columbia Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion for a remand without vacatur; 
27

therefore, the Court’s remand order had no impact on the

implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule. 

On February 17, 2004, EPA published a proposed rule 

soliciting comments on the definitions of “solid waste,” 

“commercial and industrial waste,” and “commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration unit”. On September 

22, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register the final 

rule reflecting our decisions with respect to the CISWI 

Definitions Rule. The rule was challenged and, on June 8, 

2007, the Court vacated and remanded the CISWI Definitions 

Rule. In vacating the rule, the Court found that CAA 

Section 129 unambiguously includes among the incineration 

units subject to its standards any facility that combusts 

any solid waste material at all, subject to four statutory 

exceptions. While the Court vacated the CISWI Definitions 

Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remains in effect.

This action provides 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, this 

action addresses the five-year technology review that is 

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

2. What was EPA’s MACT floor methodology in the 2000 CISWI

rulemaking and how has the methodology been changed to 

respond to the voluntary remand?
28

In 2000, the methodology that EPA followed to 

establish the MACT floors included identification of a 

“MACT floor technology” and calculation of MACT floors 

using emission information from all units, not only the 

best performing units, that employed the MACT floor control 

technology. EPA recognized that this methodology was 

rejected by the Court in the Cement Kiln case, which was 

decided after EPA promulgated the 2000 CISWI standards. In 

light of the court decision, EPA requested a voluntary 

remand of the CISWI standards to re-evaluate those 

standards in light of the Cement Kiln decision in order to 

correct the methodology. See Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d 855 

(Finding that EPA is permitted to account for variability 

by setting floors at a level that reasonably estimates the 

performance of the best controlled similar unit (or units)

under the worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances, but 

not the worst foreseeable circumstances faced by any unit 

in the source category). 

Accordingly, this action does not use the MACT floor 

methodology from 2000. Instead, we used emissions test 

data to calculate the MACT floors.2 For existing units, we 

 

2 EPA did receive some additional emissions data earlier 

this year, but due to the court-ordered deadline, we did 

not have time to review and evaluate that data. We intend 

to review the data submitted earlier this year from a 
29

ranked individual CISWI units based on actual performance 

and established MACT floors based on the average of the 

best performing 12 percent of sources for each pollutant 

and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability. That is, the overall 3-run test 

average values for existing units for each pollutant were 

compiled and ranked to identify the best performing 12 

percent of sources for each pollutant within each

subcategory. Once identified, the individual test run data 

for these units were compiled and analyzed for variability. 

As discussed in more detail in Section IV.C of this 

preamble, for the variability analysis, we first conducted 

a statistical analyses to determine whether the data used 

for the MACT floor calculation had a normal or log-normal 

distribution followed by calculation of the average and the 

99th percent upper limit (UL).3 The UL represents a value 

that 99 percent of the data in the MACT floor data 

 

quality assurance and completeness perspective and 

incorporate that data into the final standards, as 

appropriate. To the extent EPA receives additional 

emissions data during the comment period, EPA will assess 

that data as it develops the final emission standards.

3 The procedure is the same as used for the 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule 

(74 FR 51367). While the HMIWI preamble referred to this 

measure as the upper confidence limit (UCL), it used the 

same equation. In this proposal, we refer to the measure 

as the UL, which is a more appropriate statistical 

terminology for this calculation.
30

population would fall below, and therefore accounts for 

variability between the individual test runs in the MACT 

floor data set. The UL is calculated by the following 

equation that is appropriate for small data sets: 

UL = x + t(0.99,n) *s

Where:

x = average of the data.

t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.

n = number of data points in the population.

s = standard deviation.

The summary statistics and analyses are presented in 

the docket and further described in Section IV.C of this 

preamble. The calculated UL values for existing sources

(which are based on emissions data from the best performing 

12 percent of sources and evaluate variability) were

selected as the proposed MACT floor emission limits for the 

nine regulated pollutants in each subcategory. This 

statistical approach is consistent with the methodology 

used in the October 6, 2009, Hospital/Medical/Infectious 

Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). EPA 

conducted this MACT floor analysis for each pollutant for 

each of the five CISWI subcategories we are establishing in 

this proposed rule: incinerators; energy recovery units; 

waste-burning kilns; burn-off ovens; and small, remote 
31

incinerators.

To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we used a 

UL calculation similar to that for existing sources, except 

the best performing unit’s data within a subcategory was 

used to calculate the MACT floor emission limit for each 

pollutant instead of the average of the best performing 12 

percent of units. In summary, the approach ranks 

individual CISWI units based on actual performance and 

establishes MACT floors based on the best performing source 

for each pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate 

accounting of emissions variability. In other words, the 

UL was determined for the data set of individual test runs

for the single best performing source for each regulated 

pollutant from each subcategory. 

EPA also solicits comment on whether EPA should use an 

alternate statistical interval, the 99 percent upper 

prediction limit (UPL) instead of the UL. In general, a 

prediction interval (e.g., a UPL) is useful in determining 

what future values are likely to be, based upon present or 

past background samples taken. The 99 percent UPL 

represents the value that one can expect the mean of future 

3-run performance tests from the best-performing 12 percent 

of sources to fall below with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample of observations 
32

from the same best performing sources. The 99 percent UPL 

value based on the test run data for those units in the 

best-performing 12 percent could be calculated using one of 

the following spreadsheet equations depending on the 

distribution of data:

Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 

12%) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, 

n-1 degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a onetailed upper prediction limit with a probability of 0.01, 

sample size of n and number of runs whose average will be 

reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.

Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log 

Values of Test Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values 

of Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 

degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]}, for a onetailed upper prediction limit with a probability of 0.01, 

sample size of n and number of runs whose average will be 

reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.

In addition to proposing standards for the nine

pollutants discussed above, we are also proposing opacity 

standards for new and existing sources in the five 

subcategories as discussed below.

Test method measurement imprecision can also be a 

component of data variability. At very low emissions 

levels as encountered in the data used to support this 

rule, the inherent imprecision in the pollutant measurement 

method has a large influence on the reliability of the data 

underlying the regulatory floor or beyond-the-floor 

emissions limit. Of particular concern are those data that 
33

are reported near or below a test method’s pollutant 

detection capability. In our guidance for reporting 

pollutant emissions used to support this rule, we specified 

the criteria for determining test-specific method detection 

levels. Those criteria insure that there is about a 1

percent probability of an error in deciding that the 

pollutant measured at the method detection level is 

present, when in fact, it was absent. Such a probability 

is also called a false positive or the alpha, Type I, 

error. Another view of this probability is that one is 99 

percent certain of the presence of the pollutant measured 

at the method detection level. Because of matrix effects, 

laboratory techniques, sample size and other factors, 

method detection levels normally vary from test to test. 

We requested sources to identify (i.e., flag) data which 

were measured below the method detection level and to 

report those values as equal to the test-specific method 

detection level.

Variability of data due to measurement imprecision is 

inherently and reasonably addressed in calculating the 

floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit when the database

represents multiple tests for which all of the data are 

measured significantly above the method detection level. 

That is less true when the database includes emissions
34

occurring below method detection capabilities and are 

reported as the method detection level values. The 

database is then truncated at the lower end of the 

measurement range (i.e., no values reported below the 

method detection level) and we believe that a floor or 

beyond-the-floor emissions limit based on a truncated 

database or otherwise including values at or near the 

method detection level may not adequately account for data 

measurement variability. We did not adjust the calculated 

floor for the data used for this proposal; although, we 

believe that accounting for measurement imprecision should 

be an important consideration in calculating the floor or 

beyond-the-floor emissions limit. We request comment on 

approaches suitable to account for measurement variability 

in establishing the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions 

limit when based on measurements at or near the method 

detection level.

As noted above, the confidence level that a value

measured at the detection level is greater than zero is 

about 99 percent. The expected measurement imprecision for 

an emissions value occurring at or near the method 

detection level is about 40 to 50 percent. Pollutant 

measurement imprecision decreases to a consistent relative 

10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level about three 
35

times the method detection level4. One approach that we 

believe could be applied to account for measurement 

variability would require defining a method detection level

that is representative of the data used in establishing the 

floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limits and also 

minimizes the influence of an outlier test-specific method 

detection level value. The first step in this approach 

would be to identify the highest test-specific method 

detection level reported in a data set that is also equal 

to or less than the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions 

limit calculated for the data set. This approach has the 

advantage of relying on the data collected to develop the 

floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit while to some 

degree minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an 

inordinately high method detection level (e.g., the sample 

volume was too small, the laboratory technique was 

insufficiently sensitive or the procedure for determining 

the detection level was other than that specified).

The second step would be to determine the value equal 

to three times the representative method detection level 

and compare it to the calculated floor or beyond-the-floor

 

4 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference 

Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision 

of Manual Stack Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, 

February 2001.
36

emissions limit. If three times the representative method 

detection level was less than the calculated floor or 

beyond-the-floor emissions limit, we would conclude that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed and we 

would not adjust the calculated floor or beyond-the-floor 

emissions limit. If, on the other hand, the value equal to 

three times the representative method detection level was

greater than the calculated floor or beyond-the-floor 

emissions limit, we would conclude that the calculated 

floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit does not account 

entirely for measurement variability. We then would use 

the value equal to three times the method detection level

in place of the calculated floor or beyond-the-floor 

emissions limit to ensure that the floor or beyond-thefloor emissions limit accounts for measurement variability. 

We request comment on this approach.

As stated above, EPA’s solid waste definition rule 

proposes to define which non-hazardous secondary materials 

that are used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units 

are solid wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA. In addition to 

the primary proposed approach set forth in the Solid Waste 

Definition rule, the rule solicits comments on an 

alternative approach for determining which secondary 

materials are solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA, when 
37

combusted. The MACT analysis discussed above considers 

only those commercial or industrial units that are CISWI 

units (i.e., that are units that combust “solid waste” as 

that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA). 

Based on the MACT analysis described above, we calculated 

emission standards under both the primary proposed approach 

and the alternative approach identified in the proposed 

Solid Waste Definition rule. The only two subcategories 

for which the number of units changed under the alternative 

approach set forth in the solid waste definition rule were 

the energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns 

subcategories. Because the number of units in these two 

subcategories is different under the alternative approach, 

the NSPS and EG did change. Based on the information 

available to EPA, the number of units in the other 

subcategories (i.e., incinerators, burn-off ovens and 

small, remote incinerators) remained the same under both 

the proposed and alternative approaches, and the NSPS and 

EG, therefore, did not change under the alternative 

approach. 

Table 1 of this preamble shows a comparison of the 

existing source MACT limits from the 2000 CISWI rule and 

those developed for the five subcategories in this action 

based on the proposed definition of solid waste. EPA did 
38

not establish subcategories in the 2000 CISWI rule and, for 

that reason, a direct comparison with the standards 

proposed today with the 2000 standards is only possible for 

the incinerators subcategory. As stated above, we are 

proposing to subcategorize CISWI units for reasons 

described in Section IV.B of this preamble. The five 

subcategories are:

• Incinerators, which are those units that are currently 

regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule, are units that are 

used to dispose of solid waste materials.

• Energy recovery units that combust solid waste

materials as a percentage of their fuel mixture. 

Energy recovery units include units that would be 

boilers or process heaters if they did not combust 

solid waste. 

• Waste-burning kilns means a kiln that is heated, in 

whole or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that 

term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA).

• Burn-off ovens that are used to clean residual solid 

waste materials off of various metal parts which are 

then reused.

• Small, remote incinerators that combust less than one

ton of waste per day and are farther than 50 miles 
39

driving distance to the closest municipal solid waste 

(MSW) landfill.

The proposed MACT floor emission limits for existing 

sources in each subcategory are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

Table 1. Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor 

Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor 

Limits (Based on the Primary Proposed Definition of Solid 

Waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule)

Proposed CISWI Subcategories

Pollutant 

(units)1

Incinerators 

(2000 

CISWI

limit) 

Incinerators 

Energy 

recovery 

units

Wasteburning 

kilns

Burnoff 

ovens

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

HCl (ppmv) 62 29 1.5 1.5 130 150

CO (ppmv) 157 2.2 150 710 80 78

Pb (mg/dscm) 0.04 0.0026 0.002 0.0027 0.041 1.4

Cd (mg/dscm) 0.004 0.0013 0.00041 0.0003 0.0045 0.26

Hg (mg/dscm) 0.47 0.0028 0.00096 0.024 0.014 0.0029

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

70 13 9.2 60 33 240

dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

(no 

limit) 

0.031 0.75 2.1 310 1600

dioxin, 

furans, TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

0.41 0.0025 0.059 0.17 25 130

NOX (ppmv) 388 34 130 1100 120 210

SO2 (ppmv) 20 2.5 4.1 410 11 44

Opacity (%) 10 1 1 4 2 13

1 All emission limits are measured at 7% oxygen.

ppmv = parts per million by volume

mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

After establishing the MACT floors for each 

subcategory and pollutant, EPA also assessed options more 
40

stringent than the MACT floors. For reasons described in 

the rationale section (IV) of the preamble, we are not 

proposing limits more stringent than the MACT floor. 

However, we are proposing to amend the requirements to 

qualify for reduced testing and, thereby, we are providing 

an incentive for owners or operators to optimize a unit’s 

carbon injection system and other operating parameters to 

further reduce both mercury and dioxin/furan emissions. 

As stated above, the approach for new sources was 

similar to that used with the existing sources, except the 

best performing unit’s data within a subcategory was used 

to calculate the MACT floor emission limit instead of the 

average of the best performing 12 percent of units. In 

summary, the approach ranks individual CISWI units based on 

actual performance and establishes MACT floors based on the 

best performing source for each pollutant and subcategory, 

with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability.

The new source MACT floor emission limits for each CISWI 

subcategory are shown in Table 2 of this preamble.

Table 2. Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 

2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits (Based 

on the Primary Definition of Solid Waste in the Solid Waste 

Definition Rule)

Proposed CISWI Subcategories

Pollutant 

(units)1

Incinerators 

(2000

limit) 

Incinerators 

Energy 

recovery 

units

Wasteburning 

kilns

Burnoff 

ovens

Small, 

remote 

incinerators
41

Proposed CISWI Subcategories

Pollutant 

(units)1

Incinerators 

(2000

limit) 

Incinerators 

Energy 

recovery 

units

Wasteburning 

kilns

Burnoff 

ovens

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

HCl (ppmv) 62 0.074 0.17 1.5 18 150

CO (ppmv) 157 1.4 3.0 36 74 4.0

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

0.04 0.0013 0.0012 0.00078 0.029 1.4

Cd 

(mg/dscm)

0.004 0.00066 0.00012 0.00030 0.0032 0.057

Hg 

(mg/dscm)

0.47 0.00013 0.00013 0.024 0.0033 0.0013

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

70 0.0077 4.4 1.8 28 240

dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

(no 

limit) 

0.0093 0.034 0.00035 0.011 1200

dioxin, 

furans, 

TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

0.41 0.00073 0.0027 0.00002

8

0.0008

6

94

NOX (ppmv) 388 19 75 140 16 210

SO2 (ppmv) 20 1.5 4.1 3.6 1.5 43

Opacity 

(%)

10 1 1 1 2 13

1 All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.

3. How is the solid waste definition addressed in this 

proposed rule?

EPA is proposing to define the non-hazardous secondary 

materials that are solid waste in a parallel notice under 

RCRA and the RCRA proposal also identifies an “alternative 

approach” for consideration and comment. The concurrently 

proposed RCRA solid waste definition is integral in 

defining the CISWI source category. As stated above, the 
42

emission limits presented in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

preamble are based on subcategories established considering 

sources that are CISWI units under the “proposed approach” 

for defining when non-hazardous secondary materials are

solid waste, as discussed in a parallel proposal under 

RCRA. As stated above, the “alternative approach” 

identified for consideration and comment in the RCRA notice 

would result in a different population of units being 

covered by the standards for two of the CISWI 

subcategories. We calculated MACT floors using emission 

rates for units that would be CISWI units under the 

“alternative approach” (i.e., for units in the energy 

recovery units and waste-burning kilns subcategories) and 

the MACT standard setting procedures previously described.

Table 3 of this preamble reflects the potential MACT 

floor limits for the subcategories (i.e., energy recovery 

unit and waste-burning kiln) that would be affected 

considering the “alternative approach” for defining solid 

waste. The MACT floor limits for the remaining three 

subcategories would not be impacted by the “alternative 

approach” and are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

preamble.

Table 3. Potential New and Existing MACT Floor Limits for 

the Energy Recovery Units and Waste-Burning Kiln 

Subcategories Using the “Alternative Approach” Under 
43

Consideration and Comment in the Concurrently Proposed RCRA

Rule

Proposed MACT floor for 

existing units

Proposed MACT floor for 

new units Pollutant 

(units)1 Energy 

recovery 

units

Wasteburning 

kilns

Energy 

recovery 

units

Waste-burning 

kilns

HCl (ppmv) 30 3.6 0.036 3.6

CO (ppmv) 290 760 3 36

Pb (mg/dscm) 0.15 0.0061 0.000023 0.00078

Cd (mg/dscm) 0.013 0.00070 0.0000011 0.00070

Hg (mg/dscm) 0.0085 0.03 0.00013 0.00081

PM, 

filterable 

(mg/dscm)

69 71 3.4 1.8

dioxin, 

furans, 

total 

(ng/dscm)

95 2.2 0.0017 0.00035

dioxin, 

furans, TEQ 

(ng/dscm)

7.5 0.18 0.00014 0.000028

NOX (ppmv) 440 1100 63 140

SO2 (ppmv) 1,500 410 0.040 3.6

Opacity (%) 1 4 1 1

1 All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.

B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review 

Response

Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a 

review of the standards at five-year intervals and, in 

accordance with CAA Sections 129 and 111, revise the 

standards. We do not interpret CAA Section 129(a)(5), 

together with CAA Section 111, as requiring EPA to 

recalculate MACT floors in connection with this periodic 
44

review. See, e.g., 71 FR 27324, 27327-28 (May 10, 2006) 

“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal 

Waste Combustors; Final Rule”; see also, NRDC and LEAN v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(upholding 

EPA’s interpretation that the periodic review requirement 

in CAA Section 112(d)(6) does not impose an obligation to 

recalculate MACT floors). 

Rather, in conducting such periodic reviews, EPA 

attempts to assess the performance of and variability 

associated with control measures affecting emissions 

performance at sources in the subject source category 

(including the installed emissions control equipment), 

along with recent developments in practices, processes and 

control technologies, and determines whether it is 

appropriate to revise the standards. This is the same 

general approach taken by EPA in periodically reviewing CAA 

Section 111 standards, as CAA Section 111 contains a 

similar review and revise provision. Specifically, CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA, except in specified 

circumstances, to review NSPS promulgated under CAA Section 

111 every eight years and to revise the standards if EPA 

determines that it is “appropriate” to do so, 42 U.S.C. 

7411(b)(1)(B). In light of the explicit reference in CAA 
45

Section 129(a)(5) to Section 111, which contains direct 

guidance on how to review and revise standards previously 

promulgated, EPA reasonably interprets CAA Section 

129(a)(5) to provide that EPA must similarly review and, if 

appropriate, revise CAA Section 129 standards.

Section 129 provides guidance on the criteria to be 

used in determining whether it is appropriate to revise a 

CAA Section 129 standard. Section 129(a)(3) states that 

standards under CAA Sections 111 and 129 “shall be based on 

methods and technologies for removal or destruction of 

pollutants before, during and after combustion.” It can be 

reasonably inferred from the reference to “technologies” 

that EPA is to consider advances in technology, both as to 

their effectiveness and their costs, as well as the 

availability of new technologies, in determining whether it

is “appropriate” to revise a CAA Section 129 standard. 

This inference is further supported by the fact that the 

standards under review are based, in part, on an assessment 

of the performance of control technologies currently being 

used by sources in a category or subcategory. 

This approach is also consistent with the approach 

used in establishing and updating NSPS under CAA Section 

111. Consistent with the definition of “standard of 

performance” in CAA Section 111(a)(1), standards of 
46

performance promulgated under CAA Section 111 are based on 

“the best system of emission reductions” which generally 

equates to some type of control technology. Where EPA 

determines that it is “appropriate” to revise CAA Section 

111 standards, CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) directs that this 

be done “following the procedure required by this 

subsection for promulgation of such standards.” In 

updating CAA Section 111 standards in accordance with CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B), EPA has consistently taken the 

approach of evaluating advances in existing control 

technologies, both as to performance and cost, as well as 

the availability of new technologies and then, on the basis 

of this evaluation, determined whether it is appropriate to 

revise the standard. See, for example, 71 FR 9866 (Feb.

27, 2006) (updating the boilers NSPS) and 71 FR 38482 (July 

6, 2006) (updating the stationary combustion turbines 

NSPS). In these reviews, EPA takes into account, among 

other things, the currently installed equipment and its 

performance and operational variability. As appropriate, 

we also consider new technologies and control measures that 

have been demonstrated to reliably control emissions from 

the source category.

The approach is similar to the one that Congress 

spelled out in CAA Section 112(d)(6), which is also 
47

entitled “Review and revision.” Section 112(d)(6) directs 

EPA to every eight years “review, and revise as necessary 

(taking into account developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies)” emission standards promulgated 

pursuant to CAA Section 112. There are a number of 

significant similarities between what is required under CAA 

Section 129, which addresses emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) and other pollutants from solid waste 

incineration units, and CAA Section 112, which addresses 

HAP emissions generally. For example, under both CAA 

Section 112(d)(3) and CAA Section 129(a)(2) initial 

standards applicable to existing sources “shall not be less 

stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by 

the best performing 12 percent of units in the category.” 

Also, as stated above, both sections require that standards 

be reviewed at specified intervals of time. Finally, both 

sections contain a provision addressing “residual risk” 

(CAA Sections 112(f) and 129(h)(3)). As a result, EPA 

believes that CAA Section 112(d)(6) is relevant in 

ascertaining Congress’ intent regarding how EPA is to 

proceed in implementing CAA Section 129(a)(5).

Like its counterpart CAA Section 112(d)(6), Section 

129(a)(5) does not state that EPA must conduct a MACT floor 

analysis every five years when reviewing standards 
48

promulgated under CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and 111. Had 

Congress intended EPA to conduct a new floor analysis every 

five years, it would have said so expressly by directly 

incorporating such requirements into CAA Section 129(a)(5), 

for example, by referring directly to CAA Section 

129(a)(2), rather than just to “this section” and CAA 

Section 111. It did not do so, however, and, in fact, CAA 

Section 129 encompasses more than just MACT standards under 

CAA Section 129(a)(2) – it also includes risk-based 

standards under CAA Section 129(h)(3), which are not 

determined by an additional MACT analysis. Reading CAA 

Section 129(a)(5) to require recalculation of the MACT 

floor would be both inconsistent with Congress’ express 

direction that EPA should revise CAA Section 129 standards 

in accordance with CAA Section 111, which plainly provides 

that such revision should occur only if we determine that 

it is “appropriate” to do so. It would also result in 

effectively reading the reference to CAA Section 111 out of 

the CAA, a circumstance that Congress could not have 

intended. Required recalculation of floors would 

completely eviscerate EPA’s ability to base revisions to 

CAA Section 129 standards on a determination that it is 

“appropriate” to revise such standards, as EPA’s only 

discretion would be in deciding whether to establish a 
49

standard that is more stringent than the recalculated 

floor. EPA believes that depriving the Agency of any 

meaningful discretion in this manner is at odds with what 

Congress intended.

Further, required recalculation of floors would have 

the inexorable effect of driving existing sources to the 

level of performance exhibited by new sources on a fiveyear cycle, a result that is unprecedented and that should 

not be presumed to have been intended by Congress in the 

absence of a clear statement to that effect. There is no 

such clear statement. It is reasonable to assume that if 

the floor must be recalculated on a five-year cycle, some, 

if not most or all, of the sources that form the basis for 

the floor calculation, will be sources that were previously 

subject to standards applicable to new sources. As a 

result, over time, existing sources which had not made any 

changes in their operations, would eventually be subject to 

essentially the same level of regulation as new sources. 

Such a result would be unprecedented, particularly in the 

context of a standard that is established under both CAA 

Sections 129 and 111. Under CAA Section 111, an existing 

source only becomes a new source and thus subject to a new 

source standard when it is either modified (CAA Section 

111(a)(2)) or reconstructed (40 CFR 60.15). Given this 
50

context, it is not reasonable to assume that Congress 

intended for existing sources subject to CAA Section 129 

standards to be treated as new sources over time where 

their circumstances have not changed.

We believe that a reasonable interpretation of CAA 

Section 129(a)(5) is that Congress preserved EPA’s 

discretion in reviewing CAA Section 129 standards to revise 

them when the EPA determines it is “appropriate” to do so 

and that the Court’s recent ruling regarding CAA Section 

112(d)(6) supports this view (see NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 

F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In that case, 

petitioners had “argued that EPA was obliged to completely 

recalculate the maximum achievable control technology – in 

other words, to start from scratch.” NRDC and LEAN, 529 

F.3d at 1084. The Court held: “We do not think the words 

‘review, and revise as necessary’ can be construed 

reasonably as imposing any such obligation.” The Court’s 

ruling in NRDC and LEAN is consistent with our 

interpretation of CAA Section 129(a)(5) as providing a 

broad range of discretion in terms of whether to revise 

MACT standards adopted under CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and 

111. 

C. EPA’s Approach in Conducting the Five-Year Review
51

This action responds to the vacatur and remand of the 

CISWI Definition Rule and the voluntary remand of the 2000 

CISWI NSPS and EG, and, in this response, EPA is proposing 

new standards based on a MACT methodology that is 

consistent with the CAA and District of Columbia Circuit 

Court precedent. The MACT levels proposed herein reflect 

floor levels determined by actual current emissions data 

from CISWI units, and, therefore, reflect the current 

performance of the best performing unit or units that will 

be subject to the CISWI standards. Consequently, we 

believe that our obligation to conduct a five-year review 

based on implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule will also be 

fulfilled upon finalization of the CISWI standards. Our 

conclusion is supported by the fact that the revised MACT 

standards included in this proposed remand response are 

based on the available performance data for the currently 

operating CISWI units, including those units that are 

subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and those units that will be 

subject to the CISWI standards for the first time based on 

the proposed Solid Waste Definition rule under RCRA. In 

establishing MACT floors based on currently available 

emissions information, we address the technology review’s 

goals of assessing the performance efficiency of the 

installed equipment and ensuring that the emission limits 
52

reflect the performance of the technologies required by the 

MACT standards. In addition, in establishing the proposed 

standards, we considered whether new technologies and 

processes and improvements in practices have been 

demonstrated at sources subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and 

at sources that will be subject to these proposed standards 

for the first time based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste. Accordingly, the remand response in this 

proposed action fulfills EPA’s obligations regarding the 

five-year review of the CISWI standards. 

D. Other Proposed Amendments

This proposed action makes additional changes to the 

2000 CISWI rule, including changes to the units excluded 

from regulation under the 2000 CISWI rule; the removal of 

the exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction; changes to the testing, monitoring and 

reporting requirements; and changes to the electronic data 

submittal requirements. A summary of these changes 

follows.

1. Definitions and Units Excluded from Regulation

We are revising the definition of CISWI unit to 

reflect the Court decision that all units burning solid 

waste as defined under RCRA are to be covered by regulation 

under CAA Section 129. We are also adding a definition of 
53

“solid waste incineration unit” and removing the definition 

of “commercial and industrial waste”. We also included for 

the first time definitions of the five subcategories of 

CISWI units that will be regulated under the proposed 

rules.

The 2000 CISWI rule excluded from regulation 

combustion units at commercial or industrial facilities 

that recovered energy for a useful purpose, and also 

excluded multiple other types of units that may combust 

solid waste including: pathological waste incinerators; 

agricultural waste incinerators; incinerators regulated by 

the CAA Section 129 municipal waste combustor (MWC) or 

HMIWI standards; incinerators with a capacity less than 35 

tons per day that combust more than 30 percent MSW; 

qualifying small power producers; qualifying cogeneration 

units; materials recovery units; air curtain incinerators 

combusting “clean wood” waste; cyclonic barrel burners; 

rack, part and drum reclamation units; cement kilns; sewage 

sludge incinerators (SSI); chemical recovery units; and 

laboratory analysis units. 

Qualifying small power producers, qualifying 

cogeneration units and metals recovery units are expressly 

exempt from coverage pursuant to CAA exclusions from the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” set forth in 
54

Section 129(g)(1). Units that are required to have a 

permit under section 3005 or the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

(i.e., hazardous waste combustion units) are also exempt 

from Section 129 rules per CAA Section 129(g)(1). Air 

curtain incinerators at commercial or industrial facilities 

combusting “clean wood” waste are also excluded from the 

definition of solid waste incineration unit set forth in 

CAA Section 129(g)(1), but that section provides that such 

units must comply with opacity limits. 

Solid waste incineration units that are included 

within the scope of other CAA Section 129 categories

include MWCs, pathological waste incinerators (EPA intends 

to regulate these units under other solid waste 

incineration (OSWI) standards), SSI (EPA currently intends 

to issue a regulation setting emission standards for these 

units by December 16, 2010), and HMIWI, and these solid 

waste incineration units will remain exempt from the CISWI 

standards. All other solid waste incineration units at 

commercial and industrial facilities would be subject to 

the proposed CISWI standards. Accordingly, the proposed 

revisions to the CISWI rules would remove the exemptions 

for: agricultural waste incinerators; cyclonic barrel 

burners; cement kilns; rack, part and drum reclamation 

units (i.e. burn-off ovens); chemical recovery units; and 
55

laboratory analysis units. As stated above, we are 

proposing to create subcategories for waste-burning kilns, 

energy recovery units and burn-off ovens and subject them 

to this proposed rule in light of the CISWI Definitions 

Rule vacatur. We note that other Section 129 standards may 

contain an exemption for cement kilns. Those exemptions do 

not excuse waste burning kilns from compliance with these 

proposed standards. As those other Section 129 rules are 

amended, we will clarify that cement kilns that meet the 

definition of waste-burning kiln and other CISWI units that 

may be expressly exempt from those standards are subject to 

CISWI standards if they combust solid waste. 

CISWI units burning agricultural materials that meet 

the definition of solid waste would be part of the 

appropriate standards under this proposed rule. If the 

unit recovers energy, it would be subject to the CISWI 

energy recovery unit subcategory, and our inventory 

includes one such unit. If the unit does not recover 

energy, it would be included in either the incinerators

subcategory or the small, remote incinerators subcategory. 

We are not aware of any circumstances in which wasteburning kilns or burn off ovens would combust agricultural 

materials. Cyclonic burn barrels, which may be used to 

combust agricultural materials, would be included in either 
56

the incinerators subcategory or the small remote 

incinerators subcategory. 

2. Performance Testing and Monitoring Amendments

The proposed amendments would require all CISWI units 

to demonstrate initial compliance with the revised emission 

limits. The proposed amendments would require, for 

existing CISWI units, annual inspections of scrubbers, 

fabric filters and other air pollution control devices that 

are used to meet the emission limits. In addition, a 

Method 22 of appendix A-7 visible emissions test of the ash 

handling operations is required to be conducted during the 

annual compliance test for all subcategories except wasteburning kilns, which do not have ash handling systems. 

Furthermore, for any existing CISWI unit that operates a 

fabric filter air pollution control device, we are 

proposing that a bag leak detection system be installed to 

monitor the device. The proposed amendments continue to 

require parametric monitoring of all other add-on air 

pollution control devices, such as wet scrubbers and 

activated carbon injection. CISWI units that install SNCR 

technology to reduce NOx emissions would be required to 

monitor the reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection rate 

and secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to the 

CISWI unit).
57

The proposed amendments would also require 

subcategory-specific monitoring requirements in addition to 

the aforementioned inspection, bag leak detection and 

parametric monitoring requirements applicable to all CISWI 

units. Existing incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, 

remote incinerators would have annual emissions testing for 

opacity, HCl and PM. Existing kilns would monitor Hg 

emissions using a Hg continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS) and would perform annual testing for CO,

NOx, SO2, PM, HCl and opacity. Existing energy recovery 

units would monitor CO using a CO CEMS. We seek comment on 

the extent to which existing units in subcategories other 

than energy recovery should be required to use CO CEMS. 

Annual performance testing for CO, NOx, SO2, PM, HCl, 

dioxins/furans and opacity is also required for these 

units. The proposed amendments provide reduced annual 

testing requirements for PM, HCl and opacity when testing 

results are shown to be well below the limits. If the 

energy recovery unit has a design capacity less than 250 

MMBtu/hr and is not equipped with a wet scrubber control 

device, then a continuous opacity monitor would be required 

or, as an alternative, a PM CEMS could be employed (see 

below). If the energy recovery unit has a design capacity 

greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, the proposed requirements would 
58

require monitoring of PM emissions using a PM CEMS. We 

seek comment on the extent to which subcategories other 

than energy recovery units should be required to use PM

CEMS.

For new CISWI units, the proposed amendments would 

require the same monitoring requirements proposed for 

existing units, but would also require CO CEMS for all 

subcategories.

For all subcategories of existing CISWI units, use of 

CO CEMS would be an approved alternative and specific 

language with requirements for CO CEMS is included in the 

proposed amendments. For new and existing CISWI units, use 

of PM, NOx, SO2, HCl, multi-metals and Hg CEMS and 

integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and dioxin monitoring 

(continuous sampling with periodic sample analysis) also 

would be approved alternatives and specific language for 

those alternatives is included in the proposed amendments. 

3. Electronic Data Submittal

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA Section 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emissions factor development and annual 

emissions rate determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, we have found it ineffective and time 
59

consuming not only for us but also for regulatory agencies 

and source owners and operators to locate, collect and

submit emissions test data because of varied locations for 

data storage and varied data storage methods. One 

improvement that has occurred in recent years is the 

availability of stack test reports in electronic format as 

a replacement for cumbersome paper copies. 

In this action, we are taking a step to improve data 

accessibility. Owners and operators of CISWI units will be 

required to submit to an EPA electronic database an 

electronic copy of reports of certain performance tests 

required under this rule. Data entry will be through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) that will be used by the 

staff as part of the emissions testing project. The ERT 

was developed with input from stack testing companies who 

generally collect and compile performance test data 

electronically and offices within state and local agencies 

which perform field test assessments. The ERT is currently 

available, and access to direct data submittal to EPA’s 

electronic emissions database (WebFIRE) will become 

available by December 31, 2011.

The requirement to submit source test data 

electronically to EPA will not require any additional 
60

performance testing and will apply to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by 

ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The website listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by ERT. In addition, 

when a facility submits performance test data to WebFIRE, 

there will be no additional requirements for emissions test 

data compilation. Moreover, we believe industry will 

benefit from development of improved emissions factors, 

fewer follow-up information requests and better regulation 

development as discussed below. The information to be 

reported is already required for the existing test methods 

and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test 

method. 

One major advantage of submitting source test data 

through the ERT is that it provides a standardized method 

to compile and store much of the documentation required to 

be reported by this rule while clearly stating what testing 

information we require. Another important benefit of 

submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is 

conducted is that it will substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in the future. 

Specifically, because EPA would already have data for this 
61

source category as a result of the electronic reporting 

provisions described here, there would likely be fewer or 

less substantial data collection requests (e.g., CAA 

Section 114 letters) in the future for this source 

category. This results in a reduced burden on both 

affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to 

respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of 

preparing and distributing data collection requests). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that 

their review may be more streamlined and accurate as the 

states will not have to re-enter the data to assess the 

calculations and verify the data entry. Finally, another 

benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE electronically 

is that these data will improve greatly the overall quality 

of the existing and new emissions factors by supplementing 

the pool of emissions test data upon which the emissions 

factor is based and by ensuring that data are more 

representative of current industry operational procedures. 

A common complaint we hear from industry and regulators is 

that emissions factors are outdated or not representative 

of a particular source category. Receiving and 

incorporating data for most performance tests will ensure 

that emissions factors, when updated, represent accurately 

the most current operational practices. In summary, 
62

receiving test data already collected for other purposes 

and using them in the emissions factors development program 

will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies and EPA 

time and money and work to improve the quality of emissions 

inventories and related regulatory decisions.

As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that 

will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a website 

accessible through EPA’s TTN. The WebFIRE website was 

constructed to store emissions test data for use in 

developing emissions factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for 

storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is not the 

only electronic interface that can be used to submit source 

test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes 

submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A 

description of the ERT can be found at 

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

4. Changes to Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

The 2000 CISWI standards did not apply during periods 

of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The proposed rule 

would revise the 2000 CISWI rule such that the standards 
63

would apply at all times, including during startup, 

shutdown or malfunction events. As further explained in 

Section IV.E.4 of this preamble, the revision is the result 

of a court decision that invalidated certain regulations 

related to startup, shutdown and malfunction in the General 

Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. The full rationale for these 

decisions is presented in Section IV.E.3 of this preamble. 

E. Proposed State Plan Implementation Schedule for 

Existing CISWI

Under the proposed amendments to the EG and consistent 

with CAA Section 129, revised state plans containing the 

revised existing source emission limits and other 

requirements in the proposed amendments would be due within 

one year after promulgation of the amendments. That is, 

states would have to submit revised plans to EPA one year 

after the date on which EPA promulgates revised standards.

The proposed amendments to the EG would then allow 

existing CISWI to demonstrate compliance with the amended 

standards as expeditiously as practicable after approval of 

a state plan, but no later than three years from the date 

of approval of a state plan or five years after 

promulgation of the revised standards, whichever is 

earlier. Consistent with CAA Section 129, EPA expects 

states to require compliance as expeditiously as 
64

practicable. However, because we believe that many CISWI 

units will find it necessary to retrofit existing emission 

control equipment and/or install additional emission 

control equipment in order to meet the proposed revised 

limits, EPA anticipates that states may choose to provide 

the three year compliance period allowed by CAA Section 

129(f)(2). 

In revising the standards in a state plan, a state

would have two options. First, it could include both the 

2000 CISWI standards and the new standards in its revised 

state plan, which would allow a phased approach in applying 

the new limits. That is, the state plan would make it 

clear that the standards in the 2000 CISWI rule remain in 

force for units in the incinerators subcategory and apply 

until the date the revised existing source standards are 

effective (as defined in the state plan).5 States whose 

existing CISWI units in the incinerators subcategory do not 

need to improve their performance to meet the revised 

standards may want to consider a second approach where the 

state would replace the 2000 CISWI rule standards with the 

standards in the final rule, follow the procedures in 40 

 

5 All sources currently subject to the 2000 CISWI EG or 

NSPS will become existing sources in the incinerators 

subcategory once the final revised CISWI standards are in 

place. See section III.F below. 
65

CFR part 60, subpart B, and submit a revised state plan to 

EPA for approval. If the revised state plan contains only 

the revised standards (i.e., the 2000 CISWI rule standards

are not retained), then the revised standards must become 

effective immediately for those units in the incinerators 

subcategory that are subject to the 2000 CISWI rule since 

the 2000 CISWI rule standards would be removed from the 

state plan.

EPA will revise the existing federal plan to 

incorporate any changes to existing source emission limits 

and other requirements that EPA ultimately promulgates. 

The federal plan applies to CISWI units in any state

without an approved state plan. The proposed amendments to 

the EG would allow existing CISWI units subject to the 

federal plan up to five years after promulgation of the 

revised standards to demonstrate compliance with the 

amended standards, as required by CAA Section 129(b)(3).

F. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 2000 

NSPS and EG

CISWI units in the incinerators subcategory would be 

treated differently under the amended standards, as 

proposed, than they were under the 2000 CISWI rule in terms 

of whether they are “existing” or “new” sources. 

Consistent with the CAA Section 129 definition of “new” 
66

sources, there would be new dates defining what units are 

“new” sources. Units in the incinerators subcategory that 

are currently subject to the NSPS would become “existing” 

sources under the proposed amended standards and would be 

required to meet the revised EG for the incinerators 

subcategory by the applicable compliance date for the 

revised guidelines. However, those units would continue to 

be NSPS units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule until they 

become “existing” sources under the amended standards. 

CISWI units in the five subcategories that commence 

construction after the date of this proposal, or for which 

a modification is commenced on or after the date six months 

after promulgation of the amended standards, would be “new” 

units subject to more stringent NSPS emission limits. 

Units for which construction or modification is commenced 

prior to those dates would be existing units subject to the 

proposed EG, except that units in the incinerators 

subcategory would remain subject to the 2000 CISWI rule 

until the compliance date of the proposed CISWI EG as 

discussed above. CISWI solid waste incineration units in 

the subcategories other than the incinerators subcategory 

will not in any case be subject to the standards in the 

2000 CISWI rule. 
67

Thus, under these proposed amendments, units in the 

incinerators subcategory that commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, and on or before [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or that are 

reconstructed or modified prior to the date six months 

after promulgation of any revised final standards, would be 

subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS until the applicable 

compliance date for the revised EG, at which time those 

units would become “existing” sources. Similarly, units in 

the incinerators subcategory subject to the EG under the 

2000 CISWI rule would need to meet the revised EG by the 

applicable compliance date for the revised guidelines. 

CISWI units that commence construction after [INSERT DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or that are 

reconstructed or modified six months or more after the date 

of promulgation of any revised standards would have to meet 

the revised NSPS emission limits being added to the subpart 

CCCC NSPS within six months after the promulgation date of 

the amendments or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. Rationale

A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand and 

the Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review 

Response
68

1. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand 

pursuant to CAA Section 129(a)(2)

The proposed revised standards represent EPA’s 

position concerning what is necessary to satisfy our 

initial duties under CAA Section 129(a)(2) to have set MACT 

limits for CISWI and we are establishing the MACT standards 

in response to the voluntary remand that EPA requested in 

2001 and the Court’s remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule. 

As explained further below, we are subcategorizing CISWI 

units for the first time in light of the new population of 

units subject to the rule. Specifically, we are proposing 

a total of five subcategories. Below, we propose MACT 

standards for each subcategory of new and existing CISWI 

units. 

See sections II.A. and III.B above for a detailed 

discussion of EPA’s authority to establish CAA Section 

129(a)(2) standards for CISWI units. 

2. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review 

Response

As stated above, EPA interprets CAA Section 129(a)(5) 

to provide EPA with broad discretion to revise MACT 

standards for incinerators. As we explained, we do not 

interpret CAA Section 129(a)(5), as requiring that EPA in 

each round of review, recalculate MACT floors, and we 
69

regard the Court’s recent ruling in NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 

in which the Court held that the similar review requirement 

in CAA Section 112(d)(6) does not require a MACT floor 

recalculation, as supporting our view. This action does 

not reflect an independent MACT floor reassessment 

performed under CAA Section 129(a)(5). However, since 

these proposed standards do reflect the emissions levels 

currently achieved in practice by the best performing CISWI 

units and we have no other information that would cause us 

to reach different conclusions were a CAA Section 129(a)(5) 

review to be conducted in isolation, we believe that this 

rulemaking responding to the Court’s remand will 

necessarily discharge our duty under CAA Section 129(a)(5) 

to review and revise the current standards.

In performing future five-year reviews of the CISWI 

standards, we do not intend to recalculate new MACT floors, 

but will instead propose to revise the emission limits 

consistent with our interpretation as presented above in 

section III.B. We believe this approach reflects the most 

reasonable interpretation of the review requirement of CAA 

Section 129(a)(5), and is consistent with how we have 

interpreted the similar review requirement of CAA Section 

112(d)(6), regarding MACT standards promulgated under CAA 

Section 112.
70

This action’s proposed remand response fulfills our 

obligations regarding the five-year review of the CISWI 

standards because the revised MACT floor determinations and 

emission limits associated with the remand response are 

based on performance data for currently operating CISWI

units and accounts for all non-technology factors that 

affect CISWI unit performance. The proposed remand 

response also addresses whether new technologies and 

processes and improvements in practices have been 

demonstrated at CISWI units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule. 

Furthermore, this action also proposes monitoring 

requirements for control devices that may be used to comply 

with the proposed standards by units in the subcategories 

that were not subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, but would be 

subject to these proposed standards. These controls 

include activated carbon injection, selective non-catalytic 

reduction and electrostatic precipitators. Our information 

indicates that these technologies are currently being used 

by some of the units that would be subject to this

proposal, or have been applied to units in similar source 

categories, such as municipal waste combustors. We also 

reviewed CEMS requirements being proposed in standards for 

the non-waste burning counterparts to the waste-burning

kiln and energy recovery unit subcategories, and believe 
71

that these can be applied to similar units that would be 

regulated under the proposed CISWI standards. 

B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories

As discussed earlier in section III.A.2. of this 

preamble, the population of existing units that would be 

subject to this proposed regulation has been expanded from 

the 2000 CISWI rule. The combustion survey Information 

Collection Request (ICR) responses show that our population

of 176 CISWI units now includes combustion units with 

various fundamental differences in relation to units that 

were regulated as CISWI in the 2000 CISWI rule. We are 

proposing to subcategorize CISWI units based on technical 

and other differences in the processes, such as combustor 

design, draft type and availability of utilities. These 

proposed subcategories for CISWI have been established 

based on fundamental differences in the types and sizes of 

units that will be subject to the standards. 

Incinerators: Incinerators, which are the units currently 

regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule, are used to dispose of 

solid waste materials, and emissions are a function of the 

types of materials burned. Incinerators are designed 

without integral heat recovery (but may include waste heat 

recovery). While there are different designs, they all 

serve the same purpose: reduction in the volume of solid 
72

waste materials. Incinerators can be operated on a batch 

or continuous basis. The same types of add-on controls, 

including fabric filters, wet scrubbers, SNCR and activated 

carbon injection, can be applied to most incinerators. 

Although the composition of the materials combusted is 

highly variable and is a key factor in the profile of 

emissions, we determined it was not appropriate to further 

subcategorize incinerators because the sources in this 

category are sufficiently similar such that the 

incinerators can achieve the same level of performance for 

the nine regulated pollutants. 

Energy-recovery units: Energy recovery units combust solid 

waste materials as a percentage of their fuel mixture and 

are designed to recover thermal energy in the form of steam 

or hot water. Energy recovery units include units that 

would be considered boilers and process heaters if they did 

not combust solid waste. Energy recovery units are 

generally larger than incinerators. They typically fire a 

mixture of solid waste and other fuels, whereas 

incinerators burn predominantly solid waste, although 

sometimes a small amount of supplemental fuel is fired in 

an incinerator to maintain combustion temperature. Energy 

recovery units are also different from incinerators in 

terms of how the fuel is fed into the combustion chamber, 
73

the combustion chamber design (which typically includes 

integral heat recovery) and other operational 

characteristics. These differences can result in emission 

profiles for energy recovery units that are different from 

incinerators but similar to boilers. Combustion of waste 

materials in these units impacts the emission profile to 

some degree, although emissions from these units often 

resemble emissions from boilers that combust traditional 

fuels. 

Waste-burning kilns: Waste-burning kilns are fundamentally 

different than any other unit being regulated under CISWI. 

Kilns of all types are physically larger than an 

incinerator with a comparable heat input. Kiln design and 

operation are also different. For example, the design is 

typically a rotating cylindrical kiln with a fuel burner on 

one end and raw materials being fed in the other (cold) 

end. Fuel (particularly solids such as tires) may also in 

some cases be fed at a mid-kiln point. Some kilns also 

have a large preheater tower with a precalciner that is an 

additional firing point for both fossil and waste fuels. 

The temperature profile of kilns is critical in order to 

produce a saleable product. Another key distinction is 

that for cement kilns, the source of most of the pollutants 

is typically the raw materials, not the fuels, and 
74

emissions from the raw materials and the solid wastes and 

fuels are comingled and emitted together. As a result,

waste-burning kilns have a very different emissions profile 

than other CISWI subcategories and that difference can 

influence the design of applicable controls. 

Burn-off ovens: These units typically are very small (<1 

MMBtu/hr), batch-operated, combustion units that are used 

to clean residual materials off of various metal parts, 

which are then reused. The amount of waste combusted in 

these units is generally small (pounds per year in some 

cases) and the configuration of the stacks that serve these 

units precludes the use of some EPA test methods for 

measuring emissions and could affect the ability to install 

certain control devices.

Small, remote, incinerators: These are batch-operated 

units that combust less than one ton of waste per day and 

are farther than 50 miles driving distance to the closest 

MSW landfill. To the extent that these are located in 

Alaska, a major difference in these types of units is the 

inability to operate a wet scrubber in the northern 

climates and the lack of availability of wastewater 

handling and treatment utilities. We believe this would 

impact their ability to meet emission limits for pollutants 

controlled by wet scrubbers. In addition, because of the 
75

remote location, these units do not have lower-cost 

alternative waste disposal options (i.e., landfills) nearby

and emissions associated with transporting the solid waste 

could be significant. 

C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission Limits

EPA must consider available emissions test data to

determine the MACT floor. We based the floor calculations 

on available emissions data.6 We did receive some 

additional data earlier this year, but as noted above, due 

to the court-ordered deadline, we did not have sufficient 

time to review and evaluate that data. We intend to review 

and evaluate the data submitted earlier this year and any 

data received during the comment period, and we intend to 

include those data in our final analysis, as appropriate.

For existing sources, we calculated the MACT floor for 

each subcategory of sources by ranking the emission test 

results from units within the subcategory from lowest 

emissions to highest emissions (for each pollutant) and

then taking the numerical average of the test results from 

the best performing (lowest emitting) 12 percent of 

sources. That is, the overall 3-run test average values 

for each existing unit for each pollutant were compiled and 

 

6 In calculating the floors for this proposed rule, we 

included units combusting manure.
76

ranked from lowest to highest to identify the best 

performing 12 percent of sources within the subcategory for 

each pollutant (i.e., on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis).7 

Because the number of units in different subcategories may 

be different, the number of units that represent the best 

performing 12 percent of different subcategories may be 

different. Also, mathematically, the number of units that 

represent the best performing 12 percent of the units in a 

subcategory will not always be an integer. To ensure that 

each MACT standard is based on at least 12 percent of the 

units in a subcategory, EPA has determined that it is 

appropriate to always round up to the nearest integer when 

12 percent of a given subcategory is not an integer. For 

example, if 12 percent of a subcategory is 4.1, the 

standards will be based on the best performing five units 

even though rounding conventions would normally lead to 

rounding down to four units. Another example from this 

proposal is in the incinerator subcategory, which includes

28 units. Twelve percent of 28 is 3.36 units and we 

established the standards based on the best performing four

units. 

 

7 The pollutant-by-pollutant approach is the same approach 

used for other CAA Section 129 standards and the rationale 

for this approach can be found in the preamble for the 

final HMIWI NSPS and EG (74 FR 51368, 51380 (October 6, 

2009)).
77

Once the best 12 percent of units are identified for 

each source category and pollutant, the individual test run 

data for these units were compiled and a statistical 

analysis was conducted to calculate the average and account 

for variability and, thereby, determine the MACT floor 

emission limit. The first step in the statistical analysis 

includes a determination of whether the data used for each 

MACT floor calculation were normally or log-normally 

distributed, followed by calculation of the average and 

99th percent upper limit (UL).8 If the data were normally 

distributed (e.g., similar to a typical bell curve), then 

the equation to calculate UL was applied to the data. If 

the data were not normally distributed (for example if the 

data were asymmetric or skewed to the right or left), then

the type of distribution (e.g., log-normal) was determined 

and a data transformation was performed to normalize the 

data prior to computing the UL. When the data distribution 

was found to be log-normal, the data were transformed by 

taking the natural log of the data prior to calculating the 

UL value. Two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, 

 

8 The procedure is the same as used for the HMIWI rule (74 

FR 51367, October 6, 2009). While the HMIWI preamble 

referred to this measure as the upper confidence limit 

(UCL), it used the same equation. In this proposal, we 

refer to the measure as the UL, which is a more appropriate 

statistical terminology for this calculation.
78

were examined to determine if the data were normally or 

log-normally distributed. Additional discussion of the 

distribution analysis and the data distributions used to 

develop each MACT floor limit are documented in the 

memorandum “MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial and 

Commercial Solid Waste Incinerators Source Category” in the 

docket.

The 99th percent UL represents a value that 99 percent 

of the data in the MACT floor data population would fall 

below, and therefore, accounts for the run-to-run and testto-test variability observed in the MACT floor data set. 

It was calculated by the following equation that is 

appropriate for small data sets: 

UL = x + t(0.99,n) *s

Where:

x = average of the data.

t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.

n = number of data points in the population.

s = standard deviation.

A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is 

presented in the memorandum “MACT Floor Analysis for the 

Industrial and Commercial Solid Waste Incinerators Source 

Category” in the docket. The calculated existing source UL 

values (which are based on the emissions data from the best 
79

performing 12 percent of sources and account for 

variability) were selected as the proposed MACT floor 

emission limits for the nine regulated pollutants in each 

subcategory. In establishing the limits, the UL values 

were rounded up to two significant figures. For example, a 

value of 1.42 would be rounded to 1.5 (as has been done for 

other CAA Section 129 rules) because a limit of 1.4 would 

be lower than the calculated MACT floor value. 

The UL computation assumes that the data available 

represents the entire population of data from the best 

performing CISWI units used to establish the proposed 

standards. This statistical approach and use of the UL is 

consistent with the methodology used in the October 6, 

2009, HMIWI rule (74 FR 51368). 

The summary results of the UL analysis and the MACT 

floor emission limits for existing units are presented in 

Tables 4 through 6 of this preamble for each subcategory. 

Table 4. Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units 

– PM, Hg, Cd and Pb.

Subcategory Parameter

PM

(mg/dscm)

Hg

(mg/dscm)

Cd

(mg/dscm)

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

Incinerators No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

28 28 28 28

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

4 4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

4.01 0.000359 0.000362 0.00125
80

Subcategory Parameter

PM

(mg/dscm)

Hg

(mg/dscm)

Cd

(mg/dscm)

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

12.76 0.00278 0.00124 0.00258

Proposed 

Limit =

13 0.0028 0.0013 0.0026

Energy 

recovery 

units 

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

40 40 40 40

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

5 5 5 5

Avg of top 

12%

4.249 0.000053 0.000157 0.000967

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

9.179 0.000960 0.000409 0.00197

Proposed 

Limit =

9.2 0.00096 0.00041 0.002

Wasteburning 

kilns

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

53 53 53 53

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

7 7 7 7

Avg of top 

12%

5.36 0.003649 0.000112 0.00105

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

59.97 0.0240 0.000293 0.00261

Proposed 

Limit =

60 0.024 0.0003 0.0027

Burn-off 

ovens

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

36 36 36 36

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

5 5 5 5

Avg of top 

12%

9.25 0.00267 0.00123 0.0125

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

32.14 0.0135 0.00448 0.0408
81

Subcategory Parameter

PM

(mg/dscm)

Hg

(mg/dscm)

Cd

(mg/dscm)

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

Proposed 

Limit =

33 0.014 0.0045 0.041

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

19 19 19 19

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

3 3 3 3

Avg of top 

12%

102.93 0.0017 0.0589 0.5627

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

238.85 0.00289 0.256 1.4012

Proposed 

Limit =

240 0.0029 0.26 1.4

Table 5. Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units –

HCl, NOx and SO2.

Subcategory Parameter

HCl

(ppmdv)

NOx

(ppmdv)

SO2

(ppmdv)

Incinerators No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

28 28 28

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

0.1812 14.7 0.73

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

28.05 33.09 2.48

Proposed 

Limit =

29 34 2.5

Energy 

recovery 

units 

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

40 40 40

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

5 5 5

Avg of top 0.2415 64.24 1.67
82

Subcategory Parameter

HCl

(ppmdv)

NOx

(ppmdv)

SO2

(ppmdv)

12%

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

1.42 124.55 4.01

Proposed 

Limit =

1.5 130 4.1

Wasteburning 

kilns

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

53 53 53

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

7 7 7

Avg of top 

12%

0.5503 525.24 34.05

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

1.435 1,080.3 409.67

Proposed 

Limit =

1.5 1,100 410

Burn-off 

ovens

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

36 36 36

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

5 5 5

Avg of top 

12%

27.10 51.63 0.88

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

124.8 110.23 10.48

Proposed 

Limit =

130 120 11

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

No. of 

sources in 

subcategor

y =

19 19 19

No. in 

MACT floor 

=

3 3 3

Avg of top

12%

66.5 91.83 12.18

99% UL of 143.7 207 43.35
83

Subcategory Parameter

HCl

(ppmdv)

NOx

(ppmdv)

SO2

(ppmdv)

top% (test 

runs) =

Proposed 

Limit =

150 210 44

Table 6. Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units 

– CO and Dioxin/Furans

Subcategory Parameter

CO

(ppmdv)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total mass 

basis)

(ng/dscm)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total TEQ 

basis)

(ng/dscm)a

Incinerators No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

28 28 28

No. in MACT 

floor =

4 4 4

Avg of top 

12%

0.860 0.0113 0.55877

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

2.17 0.0304 27.75

Proposed 

Limit =

2.2 0.031 0.0025

Energy 

recovery 

units 

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

40 40 40

No. in MACT 

floor =

5 5 5

Avg of top 

12%

39.096 0.09824 9.8831

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

146.8 0.748 7431.9

Proposed 

Limit =

150 0.75 0.059

Wasteburning 

kilns

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

53 53 53

No. in MACT 

floor =

7 7 7
84

Subcategory Parameter

CO

(ppmdv)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total mass 

basis)

(ng/dscm)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total TEQ 

basis)

(ng/dscm)a

Avg of top 

12%

147.33 0.02958 0.000935

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

701.18 2.03 7,959

Proposed 

Limit =

710 2.1 0.17

Burn-off 

ovens

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

36 36 36

No. in MACT 

floor =

5 5 5

Avg of top 

12%

28.58 0.0455 b

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

79.36 303.8 b

Proposed 

Limit =

80 310 25

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

No. of 

sources in 

subcategory 

=

19 19 19

No. in MACT 

floor =

3 3 3

Avg of top 

12%

17.42 473.4 b

99% UL of 

top% (test 

runs) =

77.48 1,502 b

Proposed 

Limit =

78 1,600 130

a – Dioxin/furan TEQ UL values often were greater than the 

total mass basis UL values, which would result in a TEQ 

limit greater than the total mass basis. Therefore, paired 

total mass basis/TEQ data were analyzed and found that TEQ 

is 0.078 times the amount of the total mass basis. The 

dioxin/furan TEQ limits were therefore calculated based on 

0.078 times the total mass basis limit.

b – Dioxin/furan TEQ data were not reported for this 

subcategory.
85

Using the UL approach described above for the 

dioxins/furans TEQ data sometimes resulted in an UL that 

was greater than that calculated for the associated total 

mass basis dioxins/furans for the subcategory, due to 

comparatively large standard deviations of the TEQ data 

versus those of the total mass basis data set. 

Dioxins/furans TEQ values should correlate to the total 

mass basis value at a ratio of less than 1 (a 1-to-1 ratio 

is the theoretical maximum and would indicate that all the 

dioxins/furans emitted would consist of the 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) congener). We reviewed 

available data to see what the ratio was for test reports 

where the total mass and TEQ data were simultaneously 

reported. Because it is impossible for the same 

concentration data to be higher on a TEQ basis than a total 

mass basis, TEQ to total mass basis ratios greater than 1 

were omitted. Ratios greater than 0.5 were also screened 

out of the paired data because EPA is unaware of any 

combustion units ever having a TEQ to total mass basis

ratio as high as 0.5. After screening the paired data, the 

resulting ratios were on average 0.078 times that of the 

total mass basis. Therefore, to be consistent in 

establishing the dioxins/furans TEQ limits and to prevent 
86

any instances where the TEQ limit exceeds the associated 

total mass basis limit, we selected MACT floor limits based 

on the total mass basis limit multiplied by 0.078. EPA 

requests comment on this approach for establishing the 

dioxins/furans TEQ basis limits.

New source MACT floors are based on the best 

performing single source for each regulated pollutant, with 

an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. In 

other words, the best performing unit was identified by 

ranking the units from lowest to highest for each 

subcategory and pollutant and selecting the unit with the 

lowest 3-run test average emission test data for each 

pollutant. The UL was determined for the individual 3-run 

test run data set for the best performing source for each 

regulated pollutant. Tables 7 through 9 of this preamble 

present the analysis summaries and the new source MACT 

floor limits.

Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Results for Particulate 

Matter and Metals for New Sources.

Subcategory Parameter

PM

(mg/dscm)

Hg

(mg/dscm)

Cd

(mg/dscm)

Pb 

(mg/dscm)

Incinerators Avg of top 

performer

0.0056 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

0.00766 0.000123 0.000654 0.00126

Proposed 

limit =

0.0077 0.00013 0.00066 0.0013

Energy 

recovery 

units 

Avg of top 

performer

3.270 0.000032 0.000085 0.000454
87

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

4.37 0.00013 0.000115 0.001189

Proposed 

limit =

4.4 0.00013 0.00012 0.0012

Wasteburning 

kilns

Avg of top 

performer 

0.9287 0.00101 0.000038 0.000386

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

1.80 a a 0.00077

Proposed 

limit =

1.8 0.024 0.0003 0.00078

Burn-off 

ovens

Avg of top 

performer 

6.676 0.0007 0.0008 0.0050

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

27.48 0.00329 0.00316 0.02859

Proposed 

limit =

28 0.0033 0.0032 0.029

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

Avg of top 

performer 

83.53 0.001 0.011 0.448

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

268.9 0.00126 0.0564 1.3877

Proposed 

limit =

240(b) 0.0013 0.057 1.4(b)

a – Only one run data point, therefore UL cannot be 

calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.

b – The NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit 

was selected as the NSPS limit.

Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units –

HCl, NOx, SO2.

Subcategory Parameter

HCl

(ppmdv)

NOx

(ppmdv)

SO2

(ppmdv)

Incinerators Avg of top 

performer

0.0413 9.033 0.223

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

0.0732 18.99 1.47

Proposed 

limit =

0.074 19 1.5

Energy 

recovery 

units

Avg of top 

performer

0.06813 52.57 1.049

99% UL of 0.169 74.52 4.44
88

Subcategory Parameter

HCl

(ppmdv)

NOx

(ppmdv)

SO2

(ppmdv)

top (test 

runs) =

Proposed 

limit =

0.17 75 4.1(a)

Wasteburning 

kilns

Avg of top 

performer 

0.13 108.3 1.43

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

b 134.65 3.58

Proposed 

limit =

1.5 140 3.6

Burn-off 

ovens

Avg of top 

performer 

7.106 13.16 0.000

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

17.56 15.43 0

Proposed 

limit =

18 16 1.5(c)

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

Avg of top 

performer 

45.437 73.66 4.793

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

244.01 367.23 42.49

Proposed 

limit =

150(a) 210(a) 43

a – The NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit 

was selected as the NSPS limit.

b – Only one run data point, therefore UL cannot be 

calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.

c – Zero value calculated for the subcategory, which will 

not allow for data variability. The lowest unit with nonzero data was used to calculate this limit.

Table 9. Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units – CO 

and Dioxins/Furans.

Subcategory Parameter

CO

(ppmdv)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total mass 

basis)

(ng/dscm)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total TEQ 

basis)

(ng/dscm)a

Incinerators Avg of top 

performer

0.600 0.0023 0.0102

99% UL of 1.39 0.00927 0.035
89

Subcategory Parameter

CO

(ppmdv)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total mass 

basis)

(ng/dscm)

Dioxin/Furan 

(Total TEQ 

basis)

(ng/dscm)a

top (test 

runs) =

Proposed 

limit =

1.4 0.0093 0.00073

Energy 

recovery 

units

Avg of top 

performer

0.650 0.0161 0.0005

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

2.95 0.0334 0.00181

Proposed 

limit =

3.0 0.034 0.0027

Wasteburning 

kilns

Avg of top 

performer 

16.22 0.00011 0.000000

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

35.23 0.000348 0.000000

Proposed 

limit =

36 0.00035 0.000028

Burn-off 

ovens

Avg of top 

performer 

17.51 0.0013 b

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

73.87 0.0101 b

Proposed 

limit =

74 0.011 0.00086

Small, 

remote 

incinerators

Avg of top 

performer 

0.447 366.3 b

99% UL of 

top (test 

runs) =

3.96 1,103.3 b

Proposed 

limit =

4.0 1,200 94

a – Dioxin/furan TEQ UL values often were greater than the 

total mass basis UL values, which would result in a TEQ 

limit greater than the total mass basis. Therefore, paired 

total mass basis/TEQ data were analyzed and found that TEQ 

is 0.078 times the amount of the total mass basis. The 

dioxin/furan TEQ limits were therefore calculated based on 

0.078 times the total mass basis limit.
90

b – Dioxin/furan TEQ data were not reported for this 

subcategory.

 As noted in the tables above, there were some 

instances where there were fewer test runs available for 

the best performing unit so that the UL could not be 

calculated. There were also some cases where the 

calculated UL produced a result that was greater than the 

existing MACT floor limit for that pollutant in that 

subcategory. Since the limit for new sources cannot be 

less stringent than that of existing sources, EPA selected 

the existing source MACT floor limit as the new source MACT 

floor limit in these instances. There was also one case 

where the best-performing source in the burn-off oven 

subcategory reported zero for each test run for SO2. This 

yields a calculated UL of zero (since the mean and standard 

deviation are zero), which does not give any allowance for 

variability. To address this, EPA used test data for the 

next best-performing source (i.e., the lowest emitting 

source with non-zero test data). EPA solicits comment on 

this approach for setting this limit.

EPA also solicits comment on whether the EPA should 

use an alternate one-sided statistical interval, the 99 

percent UPL instead of the UL. In general, a prediction 

interval (e.g., a UPL) is useful in determining what future 
91

values are likely to be, based upon present or past 

background samples taken. The 99 percent UPL represents 

the value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run 

performance tests from the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources to fall below with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample of observations 

from the same best performing sources. The 99 percent UPL 

value based on the test run data for those units in the 

best-performing 12 percent can be calculated using one of 

the following spreadsheet equations depending on the 

distribution of the data:

Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 

12%) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, 

n-1 degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a onetailed upper prediction limit with a probability of 0.01, 

sample size of n, and number of test runs whose average 

will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.

Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log 

Values of Test Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values 

of Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 

degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]}, for a onetailed upper prediction limit with a probability of 0.01, 

sample size of n, and number of test runs whose average 

will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.

In addition to the nine regulated pollutants, EPA is 

also proposing opacity standards for new and existing 

CISWI. We considered how to appropriately account for 

variability, given the differences in opacity testing 

versus testing for the nine regulated pollutants. Because 
92

opacity can be affected by the amount, type and particle 

characteristics of PM in the gas stream, as well as process 

operation, we believe that opacity is an appropriate 

surrogate for PM emissions. Therefore, using a ratio of PM 

to opacity would be an appropriate method for determining 

the opacity that would be associated with a given PM 

concentration. Using the data available for CISWI units, 

we identified the best-performing unit with respect to PM 

for which we have opacity data, and that unit has a ratio 

of opacity to PM of 0.053. This ratio was then multiplied 

by each of the MACT floor PM limits, which were determined 

accounting for variability, for each subcategory to 

establish an opacity limit. We are requesting comment on 

whether this is a reasonable approach to establishing 

opacity limits while accounting for data variability, and 

request any additional opacity information that we may 

utilize to establish an opacity limit. We are also 

requesting comment on the appropriateness of setting 

opacity limits for this source category. 

As explained above, concurrent with this proposal, EPA 

is also proposing to define the term “solid waste” for nonhazardous secondary materials. That proposal describes two 

alternative definitions of solid waste, and EPA has in this 

proposed rule for CISWI units calculated MACT standards 
93

based on each solid waste definition. EPA is proposing 

MACT emissions standards based on the primary proposed 

definition of solid waste. In addition, EPA has determined 

the MACT emissions standards that would apply if the 

alternative proposed definition of solid waste was 

finalized, and we are taking comment on those standards. 

For purposes of the MACT standards based on the 

primary proposed definition of solid waste, we have 

considered certain secondary materials (including pulp and 

paper sludge, wood residuals, and some tire-derived fuel) 

not to be solid waste, based on available information. 

Therefore, units combusting those materials have not been 

included in the proposed CISWI MACT calculations (i.e., the 

calculations based on the primary proposed definition of 

solid waste). EPA solicits comment on that conclusion for 

these and other secondary materials, and will take into 

account any relevant information that may warrant revising 

the proposed CISWI MACT floors. Comments relating to the 

proposed definition of solid waste should be submitted to 

the EPA docket for that rulemaking, because EPA will not be 

addressing any such comments in the final CISWI rule.

D. Rationale for Beyond-the-floor Alternatives

As discussed above, EPA may adopt emissions 

limitations and requirements that are more stringent than 
94

the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-the-floor). Unlike the MACT 

floor methodology, EPA must consider costs, non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts and energy requirement

when considering beyond-the-floor alternatives. 

In developing this proposal, EPA considered for 

existing units the proposed CISWI NSPS emission limits as a 

basis for the beyond-the-floor analysis for each 

subcategory. The CISWI NSPS limits are the MACT limits 

applicable to new CISWI units that are established through 

analysis of the best performing single source for each 

regulated pollutant (see earlier discussion in Section IV.C 

above). There are separate NSPS limits for each of the 

five CISWI subcategories: incinerators; energy recovery 

units; waste-burning kilns; burn-off ovens; and small, 

remote incinerators. We request public comments on all 

aspects of the beyond-the-floor analysis, including whether 

there are combinations of control approaches that would 

cost-effectively reduce emissions of the Section 129(a)(4) 

pollutants. We specifically request that the commenter 

provide cost, technical and other relevant information in 

support of any beyond-the-floor alternatives. EPA will 

evaluate the comments and any other additional information 

and may adopt beyond-the-floor options for the final rule

if any that are identified are determined to be reasonable.
95

The beyond-the-floor analysis for each subcategory is 

based on an evaluation of the types of control approaches 

that would be necessary to achieve the NSPS level of 

control for the same subcategory. Specifically, for 

purposes of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we evaluated the 

different combinations of available emission control 

techniques, including additional add-on controls, that 

existing units would have to employ were we to require 

additional emissions reductions beyond the floor levels set 

forth above. We are unaware of any control approaches 

other than those discussed below that would result in 

emissions reductions from CISWI units. 

As part of our impacts analysis (discussed in section 

V. below), we evaluated whether existing facilities would 

choose to cease burning solid waste in incineration units 

after promulgation of the final CISWI standards. We have 

determined that most facilities with units in the 

incinerators, small remote incinerators or burn-off ovens 

subcategories will choose to cease operations once the 

proposed MACT floor limits are promulgated and that all 

units in these three subcategories will cease combusting 

waste if beyond-the-floor levels are adopted. We 

considered this fact in evaluating the beyond-the-floor 

options for these three subcategories and specifically in 
96

our consideration of the costs associated with the beyondthe-floor options, which we found unreasonable. 

We analyzed the beyond-the-floor options on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis for each subcategory. We 

discuss below the possible beyond-the-floor controls and 

why we rejected them. 

• For PM, Cd and Pb, units would add a fabric filter if 

there were none already, or improve the fabric filter 

if the unit is already equipped with one but could not 

meet the beyond-the-floor limit. Units could also be 

required to add an additional PM control device if 

existing fabric filters could not be modified to 

comply with the beyond-the-floor limit. 

• For HCl and SO2, units would add a packed-bed wet 

scrubber if there were none already, or if a wet 

scrubber already existed on the unit, upgrade to a 

larger pump to increase the liquid to gas ratio. If 

the unit was equipped with lime injection or a spray 

dryer, the beyond-the-floor technology was to add more 

lime for SO2 control. If more control was needed for 

SO2, but not HCl, and the unit has a wet scrubber 

already, they would add caustic to the scrubber 

liquor. Units could also be required to add an 
97

additional SO2 control device if the existing scrubber 

could not be modified to comply with the beyond-thefloor limit. The floor limits established above for 

waste-burning kilns are already at the quantification 

limits of the test method and we are not aware of 

alternative methods to quantify additional reductions 

in HCl emissions. In addition, we are not aware of 

any control technologies available that would reduce 

HCl emission from existing waste-burning kilns to 

levels below the floor levels. Therefore, we could 

not evaluate a beyond-the-floor option for HCl 

emissions from waste-burning kilns.

• For Hg and CDD/CDF, activated carbon would be added 

and the carbon addition rate would be adjusted to meet 

the amount of reduction necessary to meet the proposed 

limit. 

• For NOx, no beyond-the-floor options are demonstrated 

to be achievable, as discussed below. 

• For CO, the beyond-the-floor option consists of 

afterburner retrofits, tune-ups, advanced combustion 

controls or catalytic oxidation for each subcategory 

except for waste-burning kilns and energy recovery 

units. No beyond-the-floor options are available for 

these two subcategories, as discussed below. 
98

CO. For CO, we evaluated afterburner retrofits, tuneups, advanced combustion controls or an oxidation catalyst

for incinerators, small remote incinerators and burn-off 

ovens as being potential beyond-the-floor control 

technologies that could be applied to these units. 

Afterburner retrofits are applicable to units that have a 

secondary combustion chamber or an afterburner chamber 

installed on the device. Waste-burning kilns and energy 

recovery units are not designed with secondary chambers or 

afterburners, so this particular control cannot be applied 

to these two subcategories. 

For waste burning kilns, a significant amount of CO 

emissions can result from the presence of organic compounds 

in the raw materials and not only from incomplete 

combustion, so good combustion controls and practices are 

not as effective. Oxidation catalysts have not been 

applied to waste-burning kilns and may not be as effective 

on waste-burning kilns as they are on other sources due to 

plugging problems. The only effective beyond-the-floor 

control we could identify for waste-burning kilns would be 

a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). In the analysis for 

the proposed Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA notes that the 

additional costs and energy requirements associated with an 

RTO are significant, with an additional annualized cost of 
99

$3.8 million per year (see 74 FR 21153). Under the most 

cost effective scenario (existing unit emitting at 710 ppmv 

and a 98 percent CO reduction) the cost per ton of 

additional CO removal would be approximately $1,500. 

However, at the CO levels for most facilities, the cost per 

ton could be much higher. In addition, RTO have 

significant additional energy requirements, and themselves 

create secondary emissions of CO, NOx, SO2 and PM due to 

their electrical demands (see 74 FR 21153). Given the cost 

and adverse environmental and energy impacts, we determined 

that RTO was not a reasonable beyond-the-floor alternative 

to control CO emissions from waste-burning kilns.

For energy recovery units, we analyzed a beyond-thefloor CO limit of 3 ppm. In comparison, the proposed MACT 

floor emission limit is 150 ppm. Therefore, the beyondthe-floor CO emission limit is approximately 98 percent 

less than the MACT floor emission limit. We are unaware of 

any technology that is able to continuously meet a 3 ppm CO 

limit for all existing energy recovery units. Variances in 

fuel composition and condition will have an effect on CO

emissions in addition to the controls in place, so this 

limit may be achievable for the best source based on their 

particular unit design and fuel inputs, but not 

demonstrated to be achievable for any other existing units
100

without unreasonable costs associated with modification of 

the units. As a comparison, the proposed boiler NESHAP 

limit varies by combustor design, but for biomass boilers, 

which burn fuels and have combustor designs that are

similar in characteristics to some CISWI energy recovery 

units, the limits are in the order of 200 to 700 ppm. 

Given the lack of available controls that are demonstrated 

to achieve the beyond-the-floor emission limits at existing 

units and the costs associated with making the necessary 

modifications at existing units, we are not proposing 

beyond-the-floor limits for CO for energy recovery units

NOx. For NOx, we evaluated SNCR as the likely control 

technology that sources would apply to achieve the beyondthe-floor limits. The control option would be to add SNCR 

if there were none installed to meet the MACT floor, or to 

increase the reagent injection rate if the unit was already 

equipped with SNCR technology. We also considered whether 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) could be utilized by 

sources to achieve the beyond-the-floor limits. SNCR is a 

proven technology for waste-combustion units, with typical 

effectiveness of 30 to 50 percent. These reductions are 

within the reach of the levels estimated to meet the MACT 

floor emission limits. However, to achieve lower 

reductions (i.e., greater than 50 percent) than the beyond-
101

the-floor limits would require, SNCR may need to be applied 

in conjunction with combustion controls (Air Pollution 

Control Technology Fact Sheet, SNCR, EPA-452/F-03-031). 

Feasibility of these combustion controls, such as low NOx

burners or combustion chamber modifications, are unitspecific and are likely not applicable to all existing 

units; therefore, compliance with the beyond-the-floor 

would likely require significant modification at 

considerable cost for some existing units. In contrast, 

new sources can be designed so that the combustion chamber 

and air flow characteristics reduce NOx formation, which, 

in combination with SNCR controls, would be able to meet 

the new source NOx limits. SCR is typically utilized in 

combustion units such as industrial boilers and process 

heaters, gas turbines and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet, SCR, 

EPA-452/F-03-032). We are not aware of any successful 

applications of SCR technology to waste-combustion units, 

however. This may be due to difficulties operating SCRs in 

operations where there is significant PM or sulfur loading 

in the gas stream. These two gas stream constituents can 

reduce catalyst activity, and lower the resulting 

effectiveness of the SCR, through catalyst poisoning and 

blinding/plugging of active sites by ammonia sulfur salts 
102

(formed from sulfur in the flue gas with the ammonia 

reagent) and PM (Air Pollution Control Technology Fact 

Sheet, SCR, EPA-452/F-03-032). Therefore, we determined 

that available controls were not demonstrated adequately 

for existing CISWI units in any of the five subcategories 

to meet the beyond-the-floor NOx emission limits.

HCl and SO2. We expect that waste-burning kilns would 

install scrubbers to meet the proposed MACT floor emission 

limits for HCl, and the proposed EG and NSPS limits for HCl 

are the same. As discussed above, the HCl floor level for 

waste-burning kilns is near the quantification limits of 

the available test methods, and we are not aware of 

alternative methods to quantify beyond-the-floor 

reductions. 

The scrubbers needed to meet the CISWI MACT floor 

limits for HCl would also meet the CISWI MACT floor levels

for SO2. However, we are not certain that it is feasible 

for existing waste-burning kilns to utilize additional 

caustic in their scrubbers, or in their existing flue gas 

desulfurization devices, to be able to consistently meet 

the 3.6 ppm beyond-the-floor emission limit for SO2. There 

are limits to the amounts of additional caustic or lime 

that are technically feasible and the SO2 content of the 
103

flue gas will vary depending on the fuel and the sulfur 

content of process raw materials that are charged to the 

waste-burning kiln. The only option for achieving 

additional SO2 control is to add an additional SO2

scrubbing device in series with the scrubber required to 

comply with the MACT floor limit. While we did not 

quantify the costs, we concluded, based on our review of 

the cost information, that this level of control would pose 

unreasonable costs that would result in units ceasing to 

combust wastes in kilns. Therefore, we determined that 

additional controls were not demonstrated to continuously 

meet the beyond-the-floor SO2 emission limits at existing 

waste-burning kilns. We examined beyond-the-floor options 

for the other subcategories as discussed below.

PM. In our analysis, we estimate that waste-burning

kilns would install fabric filter controls or improve 

existing fabric filters to meet the proposed CISWI MACT 

floor limits for PM and metals. To meet the metals floor 

limits, highly efficient fabric filters, and possibly 

membrane bags, would be needed. These controls are the 

best technology available to control PM, and we have not 

identified any additional controls that are available that 

would enable existing waste-burning kilns to continuously 

meet the beyond-the-floor PM emission limit equivalent to 
104

the proposed CISWI NSPS limit (which is considerably lower 

than the CISWI floor). We analyzed beyond-the-floor 

controls for the other four subcategories as discussed 

below.

As with waste-burning kilns, we estimate that existing

units in the energy recovery units subcategory would 

install fabric filter controls or improve existing fabric 

filters to meet the proposed CISWI MACT floor limits for PM 

and metals. As with waste-burning kilns, the fabric 

filters would need to be highly efficient to meet the 

metals floor limits, and likely would need to be membrane 

bags. As stated above, membrane fabric filters are the 

best technology available to control PM and metals. As 

such, the fabric filters that we believe will be necessary 

to control the metals will likely achieve a level of 

performance that is better than the MACT floor limit for 

PM, resulting in additional PM reductions beyond the

existing source floor level of control. For this reason, 

we believe that the PM emissions reductions associated with 

going beyond-the-floor to the new source floor limits is

less than the 200 tons per year estimated based on an 

evaluation of the difference in PM emissions under the 

proposed existing source floor and the proposed new source 

floor. Furthermore, to achieve PM and metals emissions
105

reductions greater than those achieved using the fabric 

filters that will be required to meet the MACT floor 

emission limits, existing sources would likely need to 

install an additional particulate control device, such as a 

cartridge filtration system, which would require additional 

capital and operating expense, as well as require 

additional energy to power the fans for adequate draft. 

While we did not quantify the costs, we concluded, based on 

our review of the cost information, that this level of 

control would pose unreasonable costs.

We analyzed beyond-the-floor controls for the other 

three subcategories as discussed below. 

Emissions Reduction Analysis Results. We analyzed the 

emissions reductions that would be achieved if the beyondthe-floor levels were adopted as MACT for those pollutants 

and subcategories for which additional control techniques 

were identified that could achieve beyond-the-floor 

emission limits. We estimate that the beyond-the-floor 

levels for existing CISWI units would achieve additional 

emission reductions (relative to the MACT floor) of 326

tons per year (0.01 tons Cd, 3.5 CO, 113 HCl, 0.07 Pb, 0.03 

Hg, -0.1 NOx, 208 PM, 1.6 SO2 and 0.0001 dioxins/furans). 

Analysis Results for Incinerator, Small Remote 

Incinerator and Burn-off Ovens Subcategories. 
106

As was done in the cost analysis for the MACT floor 

emission limits, we also considered whether units would 

cease to combust waste and choose an alternative waste 

disposal method rather than add controls to comply with the 

beyond-the-floor limits. Based on the high costs of 

controls relative to the costs of alternative waste 

disposal methods, we concluded that all units within the 

incinerators, burn-off ovens and small remote incinerators 

subcategories would shut down rather than comply with the 

beyond-the-floor limits. Facilities with incinerator units 

and small remote incinerator units would use alternative 

landfill disposal and facilities with burn-off ovens would 

use abrasive blasting. In comparison, for the MACT floor 

impacts analysis, we determined there were 17 total units 

within these three subcategories that would remain open and 

comply with the MACT floor emission limits. The emission 

reductions above account for the secondary impacts of 

landfill gas flare emissions that would result from the 

incremental waste that is diverted to landfills from 

existing CISWI units. Once these secondary impacts of the 

landfill gas flaring are accounted for, the emissions 

reduction is approximately zero for the incinerator, small 

remote incinerator and burn-off oven subcategories, mainly 

due to the increase in emissions from flaring the landfill 
107

gases generated by the additional diverted waste, compared 

to the modest additional stack emissions reductions from 

shutting these units down.

The cost of the additional emissions reductions 

associated with going from the MACT floor to the beyondthe-floor level vary by pollutant and subcategory. For the 

incinerator, small remote incinerator and burn-off oven 

subcategories, the incremental annualized costs of control 

or alternative waste disposal is approximately $690,000. 

As mentioned above, because of the increase in landfill 

gases, this additional cost would result in no additional 

emissions reductions for these source categories. The 

beyond-the-floor limits for these source categories would

be achieved at considerable cost, would result in closure 

of additional units that would not close under the floor 

alternative, and would result in no additional emissions 

reduction; therefore, we have determined it is not 

reasonable to go beyond-the-floor for these source 

categories.

Analysis Results for Energy Recovery Units and Wasteburning Kilns. For the energy recovery units and wasteburning kilns, we analyzed the additional emissions 

reductions and additional control and monitoring costs of 

going beyond-the-floor by pollutant groups according to the 
108

controls described above. Table 10 of this preamble lists 

the incremental costs and pollutant emissions reductions 

relative to the MACT floor level of control.

Table 10. Incremental Costs and Emission Reductions 

Expected for Existing Units to Comply with Beyond-the-Floor 

Emission Limits (Relative to the MACT Floor).

Pollutants Subcategory Additional 

Annual 

Costs 

($/yr)

Additional 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(ton/year)

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

(additional 

costs/additional 

emissions 

reductions, 

$/ton) 

PM, Cd, Pb Energy 

recovery 

unit

2,082,013 202 10,307

Energy 

recovery 

unit

Hg, 18,562,287 0.03 618,742,900

CDD/CDF

Wasteburning 

kiln

126,944,291 0.00002 >1 Billion

HCl, SO2 Energy 

recovery 

unit

15,985,182 77 207,599

As discussed earlier, we believe that the additional 

emissions reduction for PM, Cd, and Pb are likely to be 

much lower than this analysis suggests, because sources 

will require some of the best PM control devices to meet 

the MACT floor level of control for metals, and will likely 

exceed the level of performance for PM needed to meet the 

MACT floor emission limit. Therefore, we have concluded 

that the incremental costs of additional control above the 
109

MACT floor emission limits are not reasonable relative to 

the level of emission reduction achieved. 

New Units. No beyond-the-floor option was analyzed 

for new units because we are not aware of any technologies 

or methods to achieve emission limits more stringent than 

the MACT floor limits for new units. As an example, we 

have discussed potential problems associated with 

additional SNCR reagent earlier in this section of the 

preamble. Incremental additions of activated carbon have 

not been proven to achieve further reductions above the 

projected flue gas concentration estimated to achieve the 

limits for new sources. Furthermore, we already estimate 

no new CISWI sources will be constructed due to the costs 

associated with the MACT floor limits in the proposed NSPS. 

For this reason, we do not think it is reasonable to 

further add to the costs associated with the proposed NSPS. 

In light of the technical feasibility, costs, energy 

and non-air quality health and environmental impacts 

discussed above, we have determined it is not reasonable to 

establish beyond-the-floor limits for existing and new 

CISWI units. 

We also calculated potential beyond-the-floor 

emissions reductions for the “alternative approach” 

identified for consideration and comment in a parallel 
110

proposal under RCRA, which could potentially result in an 

additional 13,014 tons per year of projected emissions 

reductions (0.9 Cd, 3.5 CO, 7 HCl, 16.4 Pb, 1.3 Hg, -0.1

NOx, 12,984 PM, 1.6 SO2 and 0.001 dioxins/furans). These 

are the reductions that would be achieved if we adopted the 

NSPS limits for the alternative approach as the beyond the 

floor limit for existing sources. We considered the same 

technical considerations and used the same emissions 

reductions and cost calculation methodologies described 

above for the proposed approach, which result in very

similar cost effectiveness values as presented in Table 10

of this preamble. However, we note that several of the 

MACT floor limits for energy recovery units and wasteburning kilns under the alternative approach are not as 

stringent as those for the proposed approach, and the 

additional emission reductions that can be achieved by 

going beyond the floor for the alternative approach are 

much greater than the emission reductions available by 

going beyond the floor under the primary approach. 

Therefore, in the case of the alternative approach, there 

may be intermediate levels of control that would be 

reasonable. Additional information on floor and beyondthe-floor costs is discussed in “Compliance Cost Analyses 

for Existing CISWI Units” found in the CISWI docket. 
111

E. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments 

In addition to the proposed emission limits, the 

following amendments are being proposed in this action.

1. Definitions and Removal of Exemptions

We are revising the definition of CISWI unit to 

reflect the Court decision that all units burning solid 

waste as defined by the Administrator under RCRA are to be 

covered by regulation under CAA Section 129. We are also 

adding a definition of “solid waste incineration unit” and 

we are removing the definition of “commercial and 

industrial waste.” We are also proposing definitions of 

the five subcategories of CISWI units that will be 

regulated under the proposed rules.

In the 2000 CISWI rule, there were 15 types of units 

that were exempted from regulation under CISWI. We are 

proposing to remove some of the exemptions contained in the 

2000 CISWI rule and we are maintaining the statutory 

exemptions and the exemptions for units included in the 

scope of other CAA Section 129 standards as discussed 

below. We believe that the proposed rule is drafted in 

such a way to avoid the situation where a unit subject to 

standards under another Section 129(a)(1) standard, would 

also be subject to this rule. We request comment on the 
112

proposed exemptions that address units included in the 

scope of other CAA Section 129 standards. 

To address the vacatur of the CISWI Definitions rule, 

EPA is proposing to regulate any combustion unit burning 

any solid waste, as that term is defined by the 

Administrator under RCRA, at a commercial or industrial 

facility. The 2000 CISWI rule specifically exempted six

types of units that may be CISWI units under this proposed 

rule: agricultural waste incineration units; cyclonic 

barrel burners; burn-off ovens; cement kilns; chemical 

recovery units; and laboratory analysis units. These six

types of units would be regulated under the revised 

proposed CISWI standards if they burn solid waste at a 

commercial or industrial facility. 

The exemptions that would be retained in the proposed 

rule are either statutory exemptions provided under CAA 

Section 129, or are for waste combustion units regulated 

under other Section 129 NSPS or EG. In particular, CAA 

Section 129(g)(1) specifically exempts:

“...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 and 

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 
113

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 he 

production of electric energy and steam or forms of useful 

energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling purposes...”

Therefore, the proposed CISWI rule retains exemptions for 

materials recovery facilities, qualifying small power 

production facilities, qualifying cogeneration facilities 

and hazardous waste combustors required to have a permit 

under Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

EPA is also proposing to exempt from CISWI the waste 

combustion units that are currently included in the scope 

of another effective NSPS or EG or that EPA currently 

intends to regulate in an NSPS or EG. Those waste 

combustion units are: MWC units; medical waste incineration 

units; sewage treatment plants; sewage sludge incineration 

units; and OSWI units, which include pathological waste 

incineration units and institutional incinerators. There 

are existing standards for MWC units, medical waste 

combustion units and sewage treatment plants, but no 

standards are currently in place for pathological waste 

incineration units or SSI units. Regulations are currently 

being developed for SSI under proposed NSPS and EG of part 

60. EPA also currently intends to regulate pathological 
114

waste incineration units in the revised “Other Solid Waste 

Incineration (OSWI)” standards under development. EPA’s 

intent in the CISWI rule is to exclude units that are 

properly regulated as OSWI units. However, additional 

solid waste incineration units may exist that are OSWI 

units, which EPA has not identified in this proposed rule. 

EPA solicits comment on the scope of the proposed 

exemptions for units subject to CAA Section 129 standards. 

We are also proposing the removal of the 2000 CISWI 

rule exemption for units burning greater than 30 percent 

MSW and with the capacity to burn less than 35 tons per day 

of MSW or refuse derived fuel. We are proposing to remove 

this exemption to ensure that any CISWI unit combusting any 

solid waste is subject to these standards. Therefore, 

commercial and industrial units that were previously exempt 

pursuant to this provision would be required to meet the 

emission limits and operating requirements of the proposed 

rule. 

The 2000 CISWI rule also defined CISWI units such that 

industrial and commercial waste combustion units recovering 

energy (e.g. units that would be boilers and process 

heaters if they did not combust solid waste) were not 

subject to regulation as CISWI units. This definition is 

not consistent with the statute and, as discussed above, 
115

the definitions are being revised to address the CISWI 

Definitions Rule vacatur so that any unit at a commercial 

or industrial facility combusting any solid waste, as 

defined by the Administrator under RCRA, will be subject to 

the CISWI NSPS or EG. Therefore, the proposed definitions

would no longer make a distinction between those units that 

recover energy and those units that do not recover energy. 

As discussed earlier, those energy recovery units that burn 

solid waste but were previously subject to the boilers rule 

are now CISWI units and are addressed under the energy 

recovery units subcategory.

Cement kilns and rack, part and drum reclamation units 

(i.e. burn-off ovens) were exempt from the 2000 CISWI 

standards and, as stated above, we are proposing to create 

subcategories for those units and subject them to this 

proposed rule in light of the CISWI Definitions Rule 

vacatur. We note that other Section 129 standards may 

contain an exemption for cement kilns. Those exemptions do 

not excuse waste burning kilns as defined in this proposed 

rule from compliance with the proposed CISWI standards. As 

those other Section 129 rules are amended, we will clarify 

that cement kilns that meet the proposed definition of 

waste-burning kiln are exempt from those standards because 

they are subject to the CISWI standards. 
116

For one type of unit that is exempt by statute from 

the definition of solid waste incineration unit, air 

curtain incinerators combusting “clean wood”, we are 

requesting comment on the requirement for those units to 

obtain title V permits. 

In addition, we are considering amending the exemption 

provisions at 40 CFR 60.2020 and 60.2555 to remove all 

references to units that are statutorily exempt from the 

definition of solid waste incineration unit. If we took 

such action, we would develop a new section to retain the 

notification requirements contained in those sections and 

applicable to such statutorily exempt units. We request 

comment on this proposed approach.

2. Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements

We are proposing some adjustments to the performance 

testing and monitoring requirements that were promulgated 

in 2000. For existing CISWI units, we are proposing 

retaining the current performance testing and monitoring 

requirements of the rule and adding the following 

requirements:

• Annual inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters and 

other air pollution control devices that may be used 

to meet the emission limits.
117

• Annual visual emissions test of ash handling 

procedures (for all subcategories except waste-burning

kilns).

• Control device parameter monitoring for activated 

carbon injection, electrostatic precipitators and SNCR 

controls.

• For energy recovery units: CO CEMS monitoring, 

continuous opacity monitoring (COMS) for units that 

are not equipped with wet scrubbers and PM CEMS for 

units greater than 250 MMBtu/hr capacity.

• For waste-burning kilns, Hg CEMS monitoring.

• Monitoring of bypass stack use if installed at an 

affected unit.

These proposed requirements were selected to provide 

additional assurance that sources continue to operate at 

the levels established during their initial performance 

test. For the waste-burning kiln and energy recovery unit 

subcategories, the proposed CEMS requirements are 

consistent with the CAA Section 112(d) standards proposed 

for their non-waste burning counterparts, but adjusted to 

reflect the pollutants subject to CAA Section 129 

regulations. For example, the proposed Portland Cement 

NESHAP (74 FR 21136) requires monitoring of Hg with a Hg 

CEMS. Likewise, the energy recovery unit monitoring 
118

requirements are similar to the Boiler NESHAP being 

proposed concurrently with the CISWI proposal. In doing 

so, we are not only reflecting the improvements in 

monitoring technology and practices for these subcategories 

made since 2000, but are also providing consistency in 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, where appropriate. 

Likewise, the visual emissions test of ash handling 

procedures and annual control device inspections have been 

adopted for HMIWI, another CAA Section 129 source category. 

HMIWI standards (74 FR 51367) contain these requirements to 

ensure that the ash, which may contain metals, is not 

emitted to the atmosphere through fugitive emissions and 

that control devices are maintained properly. The large 

and small MWC standards also have similar fugitive ash 

monitoring requirements. We propose to require the 

fugitive ash monitoring provisions that are contained in 

the HMIWI and MWC rules. 

The proposed amendments would allow sources to use the 

results of emissions tests conducted within the previous 

two years to demonstrate initial compliance with the 

revised emission limits as long as the sources certify that 

the previous test results are representative of current 

operations. Such tests must have been conducted using the 

test methods specified in the CISWI rules and must be the 
119

most recent tests performed on the unit. Those sources,

whose previous emissions tests do not demonstrate 

compliance with one or more of the revised emission limits,

would be required to conduct another emissions test for 

those pollutants. This allowance to use previous tests 

would minimize the burden to affected sources, especially 

since most sources performed recent emissions tests in 

support of the development of the CISWI standards (i.e., 

the CISWI Phase 2 ICR) and sources subject to the 2000 

CISWI EG already test for HCl, PM and opacity on an annual 

basis. We seek comment on the appropriateness of the use 

of previously conducted performance tests.

The proposed amendments also would allow for reduced 

testing of PM, HCl, and opacity as were allowed in the rule 

promulgated in 2000, but we are proposing amending these 

reduced testing allowances to provide a compliance margin 

of 75 percent of the standard to be able to qualify for 

testing for these pollutants once every three years. The 

reduced testing allowance and compliance margin provides 

flexibility and incentive to sources that operate well 

within the emissions standard, and to provide more timely 

follow-through, on assuring that sources that are 

marginally in compliance, will remain in compliance. 
120

Additional requirements also are proposed for new 

CISWI. For new sources, we are proposing retaining the 

current requirements and adding the requirements for 

existing units as listed above, plus requiring CO CEMS for 

all subcategories of CISWI. These CEMS would be relatively 

simple to install for a new CISWI unit, and would help 

ensure that the sources are operated well using good 

combustion practices. Low CO levels are an indicator of 

complete combustion and that the unit is being operated in 

a manner that minimizes not only CO emissions, but also 

emissions of other pollutants.

We also are clarifying that the rule allows for the 

following optional CEMS use: CO CEMS, NOx CEMS, and SO2

CEMS for existing sources; and NOx CEMS, SO2 CEMS, PM CEMS, 

HCl CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, integrated sorbent 

trap Hg monitoring and integrated sorbent trap dioxin 

monitoring for existing and new sources. Some of the 

subcategories may have CO CEMS, NOx CEMS, or SO2 CEMS 

already to meet other regulatory or permit requirements and 

we propose to would allow them to continue to use these 

monitors to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

CISWI standards. The optional use of HCl CEMS, multimetals CEMS, integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and 

integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring will be available 
121

on the date a final performance specification for these 

monitoring systems is published in the Federal Register or 

the date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan. 

The proposed monitoring provisions are discussed in more 

detail below.

Monitoring Provisions for SNCR. The proposed amendments 

would require monitoring of secondary chamber temperature 

(if applicable to the CISWI unit, since certain 

subcategories may not have a secondary chamber or 

afterburner) and reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection 

rate for CISWI that install SNCR as a method of reducing 

NOx emissions. These are easily measured parameters that 

will ensure the SNCR continues to be well operated and able 

to achieve the desired emissions reductions.

Monitoring Provisions for Activated Carbon Injection (Hg 

sorbent injection). The proposed amendments would require 

monitoring of activated carbon sorbent injection rate to 

ensure that the minimum sorbent injection rate measured 

during the compliance test is continually maintained. 

Monitoring Provisions for ESP. The proposed amendments 

would require monitoring of the voltage and amperage of the 

collection plates to ensure that the ESP operating 

parameters measured during the compliance test are 

maintained on a continuous basis. 
122

CO CEMS. The proposed amendments would require the use of 

CO CEMS for new sources and allow the use of CO CEMS on 

existing sources, except energy recovery units, where a CO 

CEMS is also required for existing sources. Owners and 

operators who use CO CEMS would be able to discontinue 

their annual CO compliance test. The continuous monitoring 

of CO emissions is an effective way of ensuring that the 

combustion unit is operating properly. The proposed 

amendments incorporate the use of performance specification 

(PS)-4B (Specifications and Test Procedures for Carbon 

Monoxide and Oxygen Continuous Monitoring Systems in 

Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60.

The proposed CO emission limits are based on data from 

infrequent (normally annual) stack tests and compliance 

would be demonstrated by stack tests. The change to use of 

CO CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the same 

emission limits must be carefully considered in relation to 

an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. In 

past EPA rulemakings for incineration units, EPA has 

selected averaging times between four hours and 24 hours 

based on statistical analysis of long-term CEMS data for a 

particular subcategory. Because sufficient CO CEMS data 

are unavailable for CISWI to perform such an analysis and 

determine an emission level that would correspond to a 
123

shorter averaging period, EPA concluded that the use of a 

24-hour block average was appropriate to address potential 

changes in CO emissions. The 24-hour block average would 

be calculated following procedures in EPA Method 19 of 

appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. Facilities electing to use 

CO CEMS as an optional method would be required to notify 

EPA one month before starting use of CO CEMS and one month 

before stopping use of the CO CEMS. In addition, EPA 

specifically requests comment on whether continuous 

monitoring of CO emissions should be required for all 

existing CISWI.

PM CEMS. The proposed amendments would allow the use of PM 

CEMS as an alternative testing and monitoring method 

(except for energy recovery units with a heat input 

capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr which are required to 

use them). Owners or operators who are required to use, or 

choose to rely on, PM CEMS would be able to discontinue 

their annual PM compliance test. In addition, because 

units that demonstrate compliance with the PM emission 

limits with a PM CEMS would also be meeting the opacity 

standard, compliance demonstration with PM CEMS would be 

considered a substitute for opacity testing or opacity 

monitoring. Owners and operators who use PM CEMS also 

would be able to discontinue their monitoring of minimum 
124

wet scrubber pressure drop, horsepower or amperage. These 

parameter monitoring requirements were designed to ensure 

the scrubber continues to operate in a manner that reduces 

PM emissions and would not be necessary if PM is directly 

measured on a continuous basis. The proposed amendments 

incorporate the use of PS-11 (Specifications and Test 

Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 

40 CFR part 60 for PM CEMS and PS-11 QA Procedure 2 to 

ensure that PM CEMS are installed and operated properly and 

produce good quality monitoring data.

The proposed PM emission limits are based on data from 

infrequent (normally annual) stack tests and compliance 

would generally be demonstrated by stack tests. The use of 

PM CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the same 

emission limits must be carefully considered in relation to 

an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. 

Because PM CEMS data are unavailable for CISWI, EPA 

concluded that the use of a 24-hour block average was 

appropriate to address potential changes in PM emissions 

that cannot be accounted for with short term stack test 

data. The 24-hour block average would be calculated 

following procedures in EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 

CFR part 60. An owner or operator of a CISWI unit who 
125

wishes to use PM CEMS would be required to notify EPA one

month before starting use of PM CEMS and one month before 

stopping use of the PM CEMS.

Opacity Monitors (COMS). EPA is proposing that energy 

recovery units that do not rely on a wet scrubber to 

control emissions continuously monitor opacity. EPA’s 

understanding is that moist gas streams affect the accuracy 

of COMS systems; therefore these systems would not be 

applicable to units using wet scrubbers. If the energy 

recovery unit is required to monitor PM with a PM CEMS, or 

an owner or operator wishes to use PM CEMS, then they would 

not be required to also operate a COMS. Other source 

categories with COMS requirements require one hour block 

averages, which is what we are proposing for CISWI units. 

The proposed amendments incorporate the use of performance 

specification 1 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for COMS.

While the proposed amendments require PM CEMS for very 

large energy recovery units (those over 250 MMBtu/hr), EPA 

is also requesting comment on the utility and practicality 

of requiring PM CEMS on energy recovery units of 100 

MMBTU/hour design capacity or greater, as well as on wasteburning kilns and large incinerators. EPA specifically 

solicits comment on appropriate size thresholds for 

requiring PM CEMS on incinerators.
126

Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems. EPA also is proposing 

the optional use of NOx CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS, multimetals CEMS, Hg CEMS, integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring 

and integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring as 

alternatives to the existing monitoring methods for 

demonstrating compliance with the NOx, SO2, HCl, metals 

(Pb, Cd and Hg) and dioxin/furans emissions limits. 

Because CEMS data for CISWI are unavailable for all 

subcategories for NOx, SO2, HCl and metals, EPA concluded 

that the use of a 24-hour block average was appropriate to 

address potential changes in emissions of NOx, SO2, HCl and 

metals that cannot be accounted for with short term stack 

test data. EPA has concluded that the use of 24-hour block 

averages would be appropriate to address emissions 

variability and EPA has included the use of 24-hour block 

averages in the proposed rule. The 24-hour block averages 

would be calculated following procedures in EPA Method 19 

of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The proposed amendments 

incorporate the use of performance specification 2 of 

appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for NOx CEMS. Although final 

performance specifications are not yet available for HCl 

CEMS and multi-metals CEMS, EPA is considering development 

of performance specifications. The proposed rule specifies 
127

that these options will be available to a facility on the 

date a final performance specification is published in the 

Federal Register.

The use of HCl CEMS would allow the discontinuation of 

HCl sorbent flow rate monitoring, scrubber liquor pH 

monitoring and the annual testing requirements for HCl. 

EPA has proposed PS-13 (Specifications and Test Procedures 

for Hydrochloric Acid Continuous Monitoring Systems in 

Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 and 

expects that performance specification can serve as the 

basis for a performance specification for HCl CEMS use at 

CISWI. The procedures used in proposed PS-13 for the 

initial accuracy determination use the relative accuracy 

test, a comparison against a reference method. EPA is 

taking comment on an alternate initial accuracy 

determination procedure, similar to the one in section 11 

of PS-15 (performance specification for Extractive FTIR 

Continuous Emissions Monitor Systems in Stationary Sources) 

of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 using the dynamic or 

analyte spiking procedure.

EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can be used in many 

applications, including CISWI. EPA has monitored side-byside evaluations of multi-metals CEMS with EPA Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 at industrial waste 
128

incinerators and found good correlation. EPA also approved 

the use of multi-metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring 

method at hazardous waste combustors. EPA believes it is 

possible to adapt proposed PS-10 (Specifications and Test 

Procedures for Multi-metals Continuous Monitoring Systems 

in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 or 

other EPA performance specifications to allow the use of 

multi-metals CEMS at CISWI. We request comment on the 

appropriateness of using multi-metals CEMS instead of 

initial performance tests coupled with PM CEMS and other 

surrogates. The procedures used in proposed PS-10 for the 

initial accuracy determination use the relative accuracy 

test, a comparison against a reference method. EPA is 

taking comment on an alternate initial accuracy 

determination procedure, similar to the one in section 11 

of PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.

The proposed requirements for using Hg CEMS

(performance specification 12A – Specifications and Test 

Procedures for Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous 

Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) or 

integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring system (performance 

specification 12B – Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems from Stationary Sources Using a Sorbent Trap 
129

Monitoring System or appendix K of Part 75) for wasteburning kilns, and the options of using Hg CEMS or an 

integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring system for other 

CISWI, would take effect on the date of approval of a sitespecific monitoring plan. An owner or operator of a CISWI 

unit who wishes to use Hg CEMS would be required to notify 

EPA one month before starting use of Hg CEMS and one month 

before stopping use of the Hg CEMS. The use of multimetals CEMS or Hg CEMS would allow the discontinuation of 

wet scrubber outlet flue gas temperature monitoring. 

Mercury sorbent flow rate monitoring could not be 

eliminated in favor of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg CEMS 

because it also is an indicator of dioxin, furans control. 

The integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg would 

entail use of a continuous automated sampling system with 

analysis of the samples at set intervals using any suitable 

determinative technique that can meet appropriate criteria. 

The option to use a continuous automated sampling system 

would take effect on the date of approval of a sitespecific monitoring plan. As with Hg and multi-metal CEMS, 

Hg sorbent flow rate monitoring could not be eliminated in 

favor of integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg because 

it also is an indicator of dioxin, furans control. 

Additionally, there is no annual Hg test that could be 
130

eliminated, because the proposed rule does not require such 

a test.

The integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin would 

entail use of a continuous automated sampling system and 

analysis of the sample according to EPA Reference Method 23 

of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. The option to use a 

continuous automated sampling system would take effect on 

the date a final performance specification is published in 

the Federal Register or the date of approval of a sitespecific monitoring plan. Integrated sorbent trap 

monitoring of dioxin would allow the discontinuation of 

fabric filter inlet temperature monitoring. Dioxin/furan 

sorbent flow rate monitoring could not be eliminated in 

favor of integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin 

because it also is an indicator of Hg control. 

Additionally, there is no annual dioxin/furans test that 

could be eliminated, because the proposed rule does not 

require such a test. 

If integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin as 

well as multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, or integrated sorbent 

trap Hg monitoring are used, Hg sorbent flow rate 

monitoring and dioxin/furans sorbent flow rate monitoring 

(in both cases activated carbon is the sorbent) could be 

eliminated. These parameter monitoring requirements were 
131

designed to ensure that controls continue to be operated in 

a manner to reduce dioxin/furans, metals and mercury

emissions, and corresponding monitoring is not needed if 

all of these pollutants are directly measured on an ongoing 

basis. EPA requests comment on other parameter monitoring 

requirements that could be eliminated upon use of any or 

all of the optional CEMS discussed above. Table 11 of this 

preamble presents a summary of the CISWI operating 

parameters, the pollutants influenced by each parameter and 

alternative monitoring options for each parameter.

Table 11. Summary of CISWI Operating Parameters, 

Pollutants Influenced by Each Parameter and Alternative 

Monitoring Options for Each Parameter 

Operating 

Parameter/Monitoring 

Requirement (Control 

Device type)

Pollutants 

Influenced by 

Operating 

Parameter

Alternative 

Monitoring Options

Maximum charge 

(feed) rate

All None

Minimum dioxin, 

furans sorbent flow 

rate (Activated 

carbon injection)

dioxin, furans

Minimum Hg sorbent 

flow rate (Activated 

carbon injection)

Hg

Integrated sorbent 

trap dioxin 

monitoring system 

(ISTDMS) and 

multi-metals CEMS, 

Hg CEMS or 

integrated sorbent 

trap mercury 

monitoring system 

(ISTMMS)

Minimum HCl sorbent 

flow rate (Dry 

scrubbers, spray 

dryers or duct 

sorbent injection)

HCl HCl CEMS

Minimum scrubber 

pressure 

drop/horsepower 

PM, Cd, Pb, Hg PM CEMS
132

amperage (Wet 

scrubber)

Minimum scrubber 

liquor flow rate 

(Wet scrubber)

HCl, PM, Cd, Pb, 

Hg, dioxin, furans

HCl CEMS, PM CEMS, 

multi-metals CEMS, 

ISTDMS and ISTMMS

Minimum scrubber 

liquor pH (Wet 

scrubber)

HCl HCl CEMS

Voltage and amperage 

of collection plates 

(ESP)

PM, Cd, Pb, Hg PM CEMS

Reagent flow rate 

and secondary 

chamber temperature 

(SNCR)

NOx NOx CEMS

Air pollution 

control device 

inspections

All None

Time of visible 

emissions from ash 

handling

PM None

Table 12 of this preamble presents a summary of the 

CISWI test methods and approved alternative compliance 

methods.

Table 12. Summary of CISWI Test Methods and Approved 

Alternative Methods

Pollutant/ 

Parameter

Test 

Method(s)1

Approved 

Alternative 

Method(s)

Comments

PM Method 5, 

Method 29

PM CEMS PM CEMS are 

optional for all 

sources in lieu 

of annual PM test 

(required for 

energy recovery 

units with design 

capacity greater 

than 250 

MMBtu/hr)

CO Method 10 CO CEMS CO CEMS are 

optional for 

existing sources 
133

in lieu of annual 

CO test; CO CEMS 

are required for 

new sources

HCl Method 26 or 

Method 26A

HCl CEMS HCl CEMS are 

optional for all 

sources in lieu 

of annual HCl 

test

Cd Method 29 Multi-metals 

CEMS

Pb Method 29 Multi-metals 

CEMS

Hg Method 30B, 

Method 29

Multi-metals 

CEMS, Hg 

CEMS (PS12A), or 

integrated 

sorbent trap 

mercury

monitoring 

system (PS12 B or 

appendix K 

of Part 75)

dioxin, 

furans

Method 23 integrated 

sorbent trap 

dioxin 

monitoring 

system

Opacity Method 22 Bag leak 

detection 

system or PM 

CEMS

Bag leak 

detection systems 

are required for 

units equipped 

with fabric 

filters

Flue and 

exhaust 

gas 

analysis

Method 3, 

3A, or 3B 

ASME PTC 

19.10-1981 

Part 10

Opacity 

from ash 

handling

Method 22 None

1 EPA Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60
134

This proposal contains minimum data availability 

requirements for CEMS; generally, valid emissions data are 

required 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 operating and combusting solid waste (as that 

term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA). We seek 

comment on whether or not the rule should require valid 

emissions data from CEMS for all times that an affected 

facility is operated and on approaches to provide that 

data, e.g., redundant CEMS, prescribed missing data 

procedures, owner- or operator-developed missing data 

procedures, or parametric monitoring.

3. Have the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions 

changed?

This action also revises the provisions of the 2000

CISWI rule as it applies to periods of startup, shutdown

and malfunction. This proposed revision affects all CISWI

units, including units that were regulated by the 2000 

CISWI rule and those units that are subject to this 

proposed rule. The revision of these provisions is a 

result of a Court decision that invalidated certain 

regulations related to startup, shutdown and malfunction in 

the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 
135

F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). While the Court’s ruling did 

not specifically address the legality of source categoryspecific SSM provisions adopted in the 2000 CISWI rule, the 

decision calls into question the legality of those 

provisions. As such, EPA is proposing to remove the 

exemption for SSM periods contained in the 2000 CISWI rule

and the proposed emission standards summarized in this 

preamble would apply at all times. 

We are not proposing a separate emission standard for 

the source categories at issue here that applies during 

periods of startup and shutdown. We determined that CISWI 

units will be able to meet the emission limits during 

periods of startup because most units use natural gas or 

clean distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once 

the unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions 

from burning natural gas or distillate fuel oil would 

generally be significantly lower than from burning solid 

wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also 

generally significantly lower than emissions during normal 

operations because the materials in the incinerator will be 

almost fully combusted before shutdown occurs. 

Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors for 

CISWI units ranked individual CISWI units based on actual 

performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with an 
136

appropriate accounting of emissions variability. Because 

we accounted for emissions variability and established 

appropriate averaging times to determine compliance with 

the standards, we believe we have adequately addressed any 

minor variability that may potentially occur during startup 

or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are 

all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined 

as a “sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * .” (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined 

that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct 

operating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at 

such times do not need to be factored into development of 

CAA Section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply 

at all times. It is reasonable to interpret Section 129 as 

not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA Section 

129 uses the concept of “best performing” sources in 

defining MACT, the level of stringency that major source 

standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best 

performing” to a source that is malfunctioning presents 
137

difficulties. The goal of best performing sources is to 

operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their 

units. Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting 

CAA Section 129 standards for CISWI units. As noted above, 

by definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected 

events and it would be difficult to set a standard that 

takes into account the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all sources. Finally, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

For a source that fails to comply with the applicable 

CAA Section 129 standards as a result of a malfunction 

event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based 

on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the 

source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as 

root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's 

failure to comply with the CAA Section 129 standard was, in 

fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and 

was not instead “caused in part by poor maintenance or 
138

careless operation.” (40 CFR 60.2 (definition of 

malfunction)).

4. Delegation of authority to implement and enforce these 

provisions

We are proposing clarifications to the authorities 

that can be delegated or transferred to state, local and

tribal air pollution control agencies in this rulemaking. 

In the past, there has been some confusion about what 

authorities can be delegated and exercised by state, local

and tribal air pollution control agencies and which 

authorities must be retained by EPA. In some cases, state, 

local and tribal air pollution control agencies were making 

decisions, such as allowing waivers of some provisions of 

this subpart that cannot be delegated to those agencies. 

There is a list of authorities that must be retained by EPA 

in 40 CFR 60.2530. To this list, we propose to add the 

approval of alternative opacity emission limits referenced 

in 60.2105 which, in turn refer to general provisions in 

60.11(e) and the approval of performance test and data 

reduction waivers under 40 CFR 60.8(b). These authorities 

may affect the stringency of the emissions standards or 

limitations which can only be amended by federal 

rulemaking, thus they cannot be transferred to state, local 

or tribal air pollution control agencies. We are also 
139

adding 40 CFR 60.2542 to make the provisions regarding the 

implementation and enforcement authorities in both subparts 

CCCC and DDDD consistent. We are seeking comment on 

whether these or other authorities should be retained by 

EPA or delegated to state, local or tribal air pollution 

control agencies.

5. State Plans

We are proposing regulatory language to clarify how 

states and eligible tribes can fulfill their obligation 

under CAA Section 129(b)(2) in lieu of submitting a state 

plan for review and approval. We are adding 40 CFR 60.2541 

that will clarify how states and eligible tribes can

fulfill the obligation under Section 129(b)(2) by

submitting an acceptable, as specified in 40 CFR 60.2541, 

written request for delegation of the federal plan. 

Proposed 40 CFR 60.2541 lists specific requirements, such 

as a demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to implement and enforce the federal plan that 

must be met in order to receive delegation of the federal

plan. We are seeking comment on this provision.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Action

A. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emissions reductions

from existing sources that may be realized through 
140

implementation of the proposed emission limits. However, 

we realize that some CISWI owners and operators are likely 

to determine that alternatives to waste incineration are

viable, such as sending the waste to a landfill or MWC, if 

available. In fact, sources operating incinerators, burnoff ovens and small, remote incinerators, where energy 

recovery is not a goal, may find it most cost-effective to 

discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether. Therefore, 

we have estimated emissions reductions attributable to

existing sources complying with the proposed limits, as 

well as those reductions that would occur if the facilities 

with incinerators, burn-off ovens 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 energy recovery units 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. 
141

Lastly, these units would have to compare the control 

requirements needed to meet the CISWI emission limits with 

those needed if they stop burning solid waste and are then 

subject to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned before, we have 

attempted to align the monitoring requirements for similar 

non-waste burning sources as closely as possible in an 

effort to make them consistent and to help sources make the 

cross-walk between waste and non-waste regulatory 

requirements as simple as possible.

The emissions reductions that would be achieved under 

this proposed rule using the concurrently proposed 

definition of solid waste under RCRA are presented in Table 

13 of this preamble.

Table 13. Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and 

Alternative Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the 

“Primary Approach” Emission Limits Concurrently Proposed 

Under RCRA

Pollutant

Reductions 

achieved through 

meeting MACT 

(ton/yr)

Reductions achieved 

assuming incinerators, 

small, remote 

incinerators and burnoff ovens use 

alternative disposal 

(ton/yr)a

HCl 525 558

CO 23,610 23,570

Pb 5.9 6.0

Cd 5.4 5.4

Hg 0.13 0.14

PM (filterable) 1,720 1,760

dioxin, furans 0.0002 0.00025

NOX 1,260 1,450

SO2 2,640 2,660
142

Total 29,770 30,000

aThe estimated emission reduction does not account for any 

secondary impacts associated with alternate disposal of 

diverted energy recovery unit fuel.

As discussed earlier in this preamble, there is an 

“alternative approach” identified for consideration and 

comment in a concurrent notice under RCRA. The potential 

emissions reductions based on this “alternative approach” 

are presented in Table 14 of this preamble.

Table 14. Potential Emissions Reductions for MACT 

Compliance and Alternative Disposal Options for Existing 

CISWI Using Potential Emission Limits Based on the 

“Alternative Approach” Identified for Consideration and 

Comment in a Concurrent Notice Under RCRA

Pollutant

Reductions 

achieved 

through meeting 

MACT (ton/yr)

Reductions achieved 

assuming incinerators, 

small, remote 

incinerators and burnoff ovens use 

alternative disposal 

(ton/yr)a

HCl 395 429

CO 128,120 128,070

Pb 3.4 3.4

Cd 4.2 4.3

Hg 1.2 1.2

PM (filterable) 19,280 19,320

dioxin, furans 0.00003 0.00009

NOX 341 522

SO2 184 205

Total 148,330 148,560

a The estimated emission reduction does not account for 

any secondary impacts associated with alternate disposal of 

diverted energy recovery unit fuel. 

Based on the results of our analysis for existing 

units and our experiences with other CAA Section 129 

regulations, we do not anticipate that any new CISWI units 
143

will be constructed. As discussed earlier, many existing 

CISWI owners and operators may find that alternate disposal 

options are preferable to compliance with the proposed 

standards. Our experience with regulations for municipal 

waste combustors, HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI has shown that 

negative growth in the source category historically occurs 

upon implementation of CAA Section 129 standards. Since 

CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and have been in 

effect for existing sources since 2005, many existing units 

have closed. At promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated 122 

units in the CISWI population. In comparison, the 

incinerator subcategory in this proposal, which would 

contain any such units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, has 

28 units. EPA is not aware of any construction of new 

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

that are currently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. The 

revised CISWI rule is more stringent, so we expect this 

trend to continue. We would also expect the same to be 

true for the subcategories of units that would be newly 

affected by the proposed revised CISWI rules. Industrial

or commercial operations considering waste disposal options 

for their facilities will likely choose not to construct 

new CISWI units and to use alternative waste disposal 

methods or alternative fuels that will not subject them to 
144

the CISWI rule. For example, tire-derived fuel from which 

the metal has been removed is not considered solid waste 

under the proposed definition of solid waste. 

Consequently, new cement kiln owners will assess their 

regulatory requirements under CISWI for burning whole tires 

or tire-derived fuel that does not have metals removed 

against the costs associated with removing the metal and 

complying with the applicable NESHAP instead of the CISWI 

rule. Our research suggests that metal removal is 

routinely practiced and would most likely be a viable 

option for new kiln owners so that they would not be 

subject to the CISWI regulations. Likewise, new sources 

could engineer their process to minimize waste generation 

in the first place, or to separate wastes so that the 

materials sent to a combustion unit would not meet the 

definition of solid waste to begin with. For waste that is 

generated, cost analyses have found that alternative waste 

disposal is generally available and less expensive. 

However, we request comment on whether new sources will 

likely be constructed. In case a facility deems waste 

combustion a suitable option and constructs a new CISWI 

unit, we have developed model CISWI unit emissions 

reduction estimates for each subcategory using the existing 

unit baseline and the new source emission limits. Table 15 
145

of this preamble presents the model plant emissions 

reductions that would be expected for new sources. 

Table 15. Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis

Emission reduction for CISWI Subcategory Model 

Units (ton/yr unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant

Incinerato

r

Burn

-off 

oven

Small, 

remote 

incinerato

r

Energy 

recover

y unit

Wasteburnin

g kiln

HCl 0.9 0.1 0.0 13.3 0.1

CO 1.0 0.5 0.3 597 1,844

Pb 0.04 0.0 0.0002 0.1 0.02

Cd 0.009 0.0 0.001 0.005 0.1

Hg 0.003 0.0 0.000002 0.002 0.0

PM 

(filterable

)

3.4 0.1 0.0 46.3 0.0

Dioxin/fura

n (total 

mass)1

0.0 0.0 0.003 0.01 0.001

NOx 9.6 0.8 0.0 133.9 1,242

SO2 6.8 0.1 0.0 60.2 115

Total 21.8 1.67 0.3 851 3,202

1 Dioxin/furan estimates are given in lb/yr.

B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, 

which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 68 million gallons per year of additional 

wastewater would be generated 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 
146

particulate collected that will require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be utilized 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 

1,760 tons/yr from PM capture and 10,860 tons/yr from 

activated carbon injection.

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, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators 

would determine that alternative disposal is a better 

choice than compliance with the proposed standards. If 

this were the case for all of the units in these 

subcategories, we estimate that approximately 214,000 tons 

per year of waste would be diverted to a landfill. 

As mentioned above, we do not anticipate any new CISWI 

units to be constructed. Therefore, there would be no 

water or solid waste impacts associated with controls for 

new units.
147

C. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the 

proposed 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. By our 

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 271,455 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 energy recovery units and wasteburning 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 energy recovery units 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. Since we do not anticipate any new CISWI units to 

be constructed, there would be no energy impacts associated 

with control of new units.
148

D. What are the secondary air impacts?

For CISWI units adding controls to meet the proposed 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts, comprising emissions from electric generating 

units needed to provide the electricity to power the 

emission control devices.

As discussed earlier, we believe it likely that the 

incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote 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 214,000 tons per year of waste 

going to landfills. By using EPA’s Landfill Gas Estimation 

Model, we estimate that, over the 20-year expected life of 

a CISWI unit, the resulting methane generated by a landfill 

receiving the waste would be about 187,000 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: 38 tons of PM; 16 tons of HCl; 32 tons of SO2; 

1,724 tons of CO; 90 tons of NOx; and about 3 lbs of Hg. 

Here again, since we do not anticipate any new CISWI 

units, we do not expect any secondary air impacts 

associated with control of new units.
149

E. What are the cost and economic impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing 

units to add the necessary controls and monitoring 

equipment, and to implement the inspections, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements to comply with the 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, burn-off ovens and small, remote 

incinerators. 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 $574 million with an 

associated total annual cost of $216 million.

Under the proposed rule, EPA’s economic model suggests 

the average national market-level variables (prices, 

production-levels, consumption, international trade) will 

not change significantly (e.g., are less than 0.01

percent).

EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on 

small entities by comparing compliance costs to 

sales/revenues (e.g., sales and revenue tests). EPA’s 

analysis found the tests were below 1 percent for small 

entities included in the screening analysis.
150

We do not anticipate any new CISWI units to be 

constructed. Therefore, we do not anticipate any costs 

associated with control of new units.

F. What are the benefits?

We estimated the monetized benefits of this proposed 

regulatory action to be $240 million to $580 million 

(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) in the implementation year 

(2015). The monetized benefits of the proposed regulatory 

action at a 7 percent discount rate are $210 million to 

$520 million (2008$). Using alternate relationships 

between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, 

higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most 

of the expert-based estimates fall between these two 

estimates.9 A summary of the monetized benefits estimates 

at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 16 

of this preamble. 

Table 16. Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for 

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

Estimated 

Emissions 

Reductions

(tons per year)

Total 

Monetized 

Benefits

(3% Discount 

Rate)

Total 

Monetized 

Benefits

(7% Discount 

Rate)

 

9 Roman et al, 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate 

Matter in the U.S.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268 –

2274.
151

PM2.5 660 tons $150 to $370 $140 to $330

PM2.5 

Precursors

SO2 2,659 tons $78 to $190 $71 to $170

NOx 1,447 tons $7.0 to $17 $6.4 to $16

Total $240 to $580 $210 to $520

1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), 

and are rounded to two significant figures. 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. The monetized benefits from 

reducing 24,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 560 tons of 

hydrochloric acid, 5.4 tons of cadmium, 6.0 tons of lead, 

280 pounds of mercury, and 230 grams of total 

dioxins/furans, each year are not included in these 

estimates. In addition, the monetized benefits from 

reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment are 

not included. 

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 utilized the general approach and 

methodology established in Fann et al. (2009)10. 

 

10 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The 

influence of location, source, and emission type in 

estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of 

air pollution.” Air Qual Atmos Health (2009) 2:169–176.
152

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 emissions reductions to 

create the benefit-per-ton estimates. 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, SOX has a 

lower benefit-per-ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it 

does not form as much PM2.5, thus the exposure would be 

lower and the monetized health benefits would be lower. 

For context, it is important to note that the 

magnitude of the PM benefits is largely driven by the 

concentration response function for premature mortality. 

Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of 

assumptions, including estimates based both on empirical 

(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from 

scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the 

relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and premature 

 
153

mortality. For this proposed rule, we cite two key 

empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society 

cohort study11 and the extended Six Cities cohort study12. 

In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this proposed 

rule, which is available in the docket, we also include 

benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other 

assumptions.

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. However, the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis13 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 

 

11 Pope et al, 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary 

Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 

287:1132-1141

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

Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory 

and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final 

Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office 

of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html
154

impairment. The benefits from reducing carbon monoxide and 

HAP have not been monetized in this analysis, including 

reducing 29,000 tons of CO, 590 tons of hydrochloric acid, 

5.4 tons of Cd, 6.0 tons of lead and 280 pounds of Hg 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 

effects associated with these air pollutants in the RIA for 

this proposed rule, which is available in the docket.

The costs of this proposed rulemaking are estimated to 

be $216 million (2008$) in the implementation year and the 

monetized benefits are $240 million to $580 million (2008$, 

3 percent discount rate) for that same year. The benefits 

at a 7 percent discount rate are $210 million to 

$520 billion (2008$). Thus, net benefits of this 

rulemaking are estimated at $19 million to $360 million 

(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and $-2.4 million to 

$310 million (2008$, 7 percent discount rate). A summary 

of the monetized benefits, social costs and net benefits at 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7& is in Table 17 of this 

preamble. 
155

Table 17. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, 

and Net Benefits for the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015 

(millions of 2008$)1

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Proposed Option

Total Monetized 

Benefits2 $240 to $580 $210 to $520

Total Social Costs3 $220 $220

Net Benefits $19 to $360 $-2.4 to $310

Non-monetized 

Benefits

24,000 tons of carbon monoxide

560 tons of HCl

5.4 tons of cadmium

6.0 tons of lead

280 pounds of mercury 

230 grams of total dioxins/furans 

Health effects from NO2 and SO2

exposure

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment 

Proposed Option with Alternate Solid Waste Definition

Total Monetized 

Benefits2 $2,700 to $6,700 $2,500 to $6,000

Total Social Costs3 $480 $480

Net Benefits $2,300 to $6,200 $2,000 to $5,600

Non-monetized 

Benefits

130,000 tons of carbon monoxide

430 tons of HCl

4.3 tons of cadmium

3.4 tons of lead

1.2 tons of mercury

85 grams of total dioxins/furans 

Health effects from NO2 and SO2

exposure

Ecosystem effects 

Visibility impairment

1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), 

and are rounded to two significant figures. 

2 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through 

reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

such as NOx and SO2. It is important to note that the 
156

monetized benefits include many but not all health effects 

associated with PM2.5 exposure. 

3 The methodology used to estimate social costs for one 

year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results 

in the same social costs for both discount rates. 

For more information on the benefits analysis, please 

refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in 

the docket.

VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 

112(c)(6) of the CAA 

Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 

categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to 

assure that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent

of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are 

subject to standards under CAA Section 112(d)(2) or 

112(d)(4). EPA has identified CISWI as a source category 

that emits five of the seven CAA Section 112(c)(6) 

pollutants: polycyclic organic matter (POM), dioxins, 

furans, Hg and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (The POM 

emitted by CISWI is composed of seven polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (7-PAH), 16 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (16-PAH) 

and extractable organic matter (EOM)). In the Federal 

Register notice Source Category Listing for Section 

112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6)

Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA 

identified source categories “subject to regulation” for 
157

purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6) with respect to the CAA 

Section 112(c)(6) pollutants that CISWI emit. CISWI are 

solid waste incineration units currently regulated under 

CAA Section 129 and this proposal would subject additional 

sources to regulation under CAA Section 129. For purposes 

of CAA Section 112(c)(6), EPA has determined that standards 

promulgated under CAA Section 129 are substantively 

equivalent to those promulgated under CAA Section 112(d). 

(See Id. at 17845; see also 62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997)). As 

discussed in more detail below, the CAA Section 129 

standards effectively control emissions of the five

identified CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, 

since CAA Section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from regulating 

these substantial sources of the five identified CAA 

Section 112(c)(6) pollutants under CAA Section 112(d), EPA 

cannot further regulate these emissions under that CAA 

Section. As a result, EPA considers emissions of these 

five pollutants from CISWI “subject to standards” for 

purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6).

As required by the statute, the CAA Section 129 CISWI 

standards include numeric emission limitations for the nine

pollutants specified in CAA Section 129(a)(4). The 

combination of waste segregation, good combustion practices 

and add-on air pollution control equipment (sorbent 
158

injection, fabric filters, wet scrubbers, or combinations 

thereof) effectively reduces emissions of the pollutants 

for which emission limits are required under CAA Section 

129: Hg, dioxins, furans, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2, HCl, CO and 

NOx. Thus, the standards specifically require reduction in 

emissions of three of the CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants: 

dioxins, furans and Hg. As explained below, the air 

pollution controls necessary to comply with the 

requirements of the CISWI standards also effectively reduce 

emissions of the following CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants 

that are emitted from CISWI: POM and PCBs. Although the 

CAA Section 129 CISWI standards do not have separate, 

specific emissions standards for POM and PCBs, emissions of 

these two CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively 

controlled by the same control measures used to comply with 

the numerical emissions limits for the pollutants 

enumerated in CAA Section 129(a)(4). Specifically, as byproducts of combustion, the formation of POM and PCBs is 

effectively reduced by the combustion and post-combustion 

practices required to comply with the CAA Section 129 

standards. Any POM and PCBs that do form during combustion 

are further controlled by the various post-combustion CISWI 

controls. The add-on PM control systems (either fabric 

filter or wet scrubber) and activated carbon injection 
159

further reduce emissions of these organic pollutants and 

also reduce Hg emissions, as is evidenced by performance 

data for MWCs and another similar source category, HMIWI. 

Specifically, the post-MACT compliance tests at currently 

operating HMIWI that were also operational at the time of 

promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI MACT standards show that, 

for those units, the regulations reduced Hg emissions by 

about 60 percent and reduced dioxin and furans emissions by 

about 80 percent from pre-MACT levels. Moreover, similar

controls have been demonstrated to effectively reduce 

emissions of POM and PCBs from MWCs. It is, therefore, 

reasonable to conclude that POM and PCB emissions would be 

substantially controlled at all CISWI units meeting the 

proposed emission limits. Thus, while the proposed rule 

does not identify specific numerical limits for POM and 

PCB, emissions of those pollutants are, for the reasons 

noted above, nonetheless “subject to regulation” for 

purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 

1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” 

because it will have an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 
160

action to the OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for this action. For 

information regarding the costs and benefits of this rule, 

please refer to Table 17 of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR 

documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number

2384.01 for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60 and 2385.01 for 

subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60.

The requirements in this proposed action result in 

industry recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with 

review of the amendments for all CISWI, and inspections of 

scrubbers, fabric filters and other air pollution control 

devices that may be used to meet the emission limits for 

all CISWI. Ongoing parametric monitoring requirements for 

ESPs, SNCR, activated carbon injection are also required of 

all CISWI units. Stack testing and development of new 

parameter limits would be necessary for CISWI that need to 

make performance improvements in order to meet the proposed 

emission limits and for CISWI that, prior to this proposed 

action, have not been required to demonstrate compliance 
161

with certain pollutants. Visual emissions tests would be 

required for all subcategories except waste-burning kilns 

on an annual basis. Energy recovery units would be 

required to continuously monitor opacity, and units larger 

than 250 MMBtu/hr would be required to monitor PM emissions 

using a PM CEMS. Waste-burning kilns would be required to 

continuously monitor Hg emissions using a Hg CEMS. Any new 

CISWI would also be required to continuously monitor CO 

emissions. The annual average burden associated with 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the EG over 

the first three years following promulgation of this 

proposed action is estimated to be 12,591 hours at a total 

annual labor cost of $498,230. The total annualized 

capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs associated with the EG monitoring requirements, EPA 

Method 22 of appendix A-7 testing, initial stack testing, 

storage of data and reports and photocopying and postage 

over the three-year period of the ICR are estimated at 

$25,509,408 and $8,503,136 per year, respectively. (The 

annual inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor costs.) The annual 

average burden associated with the NSPS over the first 

three years following promulgation of this proposed action 

is estimated to be 0 hours at a total annual labor cost of 
162

$0, since we anticipate no new CISWI units to be 

constructed. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 

40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the EPA’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

established a public docket for this action, which includes 

these ICR documents, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0119. Submit any comments related to the ICR documents for 

this proposed action to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this action for where to submit 

comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to 

make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 

after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 

if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will 
163

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally 

requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures 

Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that 

the proposed action will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small government 

organizations and small government jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) 

A small business as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field.

After considering the economic impacts of this

proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action 
164

will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. The small entities 

directly regulated by this proposed rule are facilities 

engaged in industrial or commercial operations, such as 

paper and paperboard manufacturing and utility providers. 

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

below 1 percent. The median ratios are less than 0.1

percent. Only one entity has a sales test that exceeds 3

percent and that unit provides wood-residue, natural gasfired cogeneration (NAICS 221). 

Although this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. 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. We invite comments on all aspects of the 

proposal and its impacts on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects 

of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal 

governments and the private sector. This rule contains a 
165

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. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared under Section 202 of the UMRA 

a written statement which is summarized below. 

1. Statutory Authority

 As discussed previously in this preamble, the 

statutory authority for the proposed rule is Section 129 of 

the CAA. CAA Section 129 CISWI standards include numeric 

emissions limitations for the nine pollutants specified in 

CAA Section 129(a)(4). Section 129(a)(2) of the CAA 

directs EPA to develop standards based on MACT, which 

require existing and new major sources to control emissions 

of the nine pollutants. 

 In compliance with Section 205(a), we identified and 

considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives.

The regulatory alternative upon which the rule is based is 

the least costly, most cost-effective alternative to 

achieve the statutory requirements of CAA Section 129.

2. Social Costs and Benefits 

 The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the 

EPA’s assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the 

“Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing 
166

Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units” in the docket. Based on estimated 

compliance costs on all sources associated with the 

proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and 

production in the affected industries, the estimated social 

costs of the proposed rule are $216 million (2008 dollars). 

In the year of full implementation (2015), EPA estimates 

the monetized PM2.5 benefits of the proposed NSPS and EG

are $240 million to $580 million and $210 million to $520 

million, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates 

respectively. All estimates are in 2008$. Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and premature mortality 

supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates 

are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall 

between these estimates. The benefits from reducing other 

air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, 

including reducing 24,000 tons of CO, 560 tons of HCl, 6 

tons of Pb, 5.4 tons of Cd, 280 pounds of Hg, and 230 grams 

of total dioxins and furans each year. In addition, 

ecosystem benefits and visibility benefits have not been 

monetized in this analysis

Exposure to CO can affect the cardiovascular system 

and the central nervous system. Emissions of NOx can 

transform into PM, which can result in fatalities and many 
167

respiratory problems (such as asthma or bronchitis); and 

NOx can also transform into ozone causing several 

respiratory problems to affected populations.

The net benefits for the NSPS and Emission Guidelines 

are $19 million to $360 million and $-2.4 million to $310 

million, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates 

respectively. All estimates are in 2008$.

3. Future and Disproportionate Costs

The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate 

estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs 

imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary 

effects. Our estimates of the future compliance costs of 

the proposed rule are discussed previously in this

preamble. We do not believe that there will be any 

disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed rule on 

any particular areas of the country, state or local 

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

particular industry segments.

4. Effects on the National Economy

 The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the 

proposed rule on the national economy. To the extent 

feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, 

economic growth, full employment, creation of productive 

jobs and international competitiveness of the U.S. goods 
168

and services if we determine that accurate estimates are 

reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and 

material. The nationwide economic impact of the proposed 

rule is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units” in the docket. 

This analysis provides estimates of the effect of the 

proposed rule on most of the categories mentioned above. 

The results of the economic impact analysis were summarized 

previously in this preamble. 

5. Consultation with Government Officials

The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of EPA’s 

prior consultation with affected state, local and tribal 

officials, summarize the officials’ comments or concerns 

and summarize our response to those comments or concerns. 

We have determined that the proposed rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999), 

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

“meaningful and timely input by state and local officials 
169

in the development of regulatory policies that have 

federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism 

implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.” 

This proposed rule 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 action will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on state or local governments and will not 

preempt state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from state and local 

officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments
170

This action does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 

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

or owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

However, EPA specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal officials and will 

conduct outreach to tribal environmental professionals in 

the proposal period via the National Tribal Air Association 

and other mechanisms.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under Section 5-501 of the Order has the potential 

to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as 

defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
171

adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in this 

proposed action would cause most CISWI in the energy 

recovery unit and waste-burning kiln subcategories to 

modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g., 

increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install 

and operate new control devices, resulting in approximately 

271,455 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity 

being used. EPA estimates that many owners of CISWI units 

in the incinerator, burn-off oven and small, remote 

incinerator subcategories may stop operating CISWI units 

and use alternative waste disposal methods, thereby not 

requiring additional energy input for operation of control 

devices.

Given the negligible change in energy consumption 

resulting from this proposed action, EPA does not expect 

any significant price increase for any energy type. The 

cost of energy distribution should not be affected by this 

proposed action at all since the action 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 
172

effects associated with this proposed action, they would be 

minimal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (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. NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 

decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

EPA conducted searches for the Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration units through Enhanced NSSN 

Database managed by the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and 

accessed and searched their databases.

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 

decided to use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,” for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen 
173

or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These parts 

of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA 

Methods 3B, 6, 7 and 7C. This standard is available from 

the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 3 Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.

Another VCS, ASTM D6735-01, “Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral 

Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,” is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 26A. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, “Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in 

Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources

(Ontario Hydro Method)” is an acceptable alternative to EPA 

Method 29.

During the search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to EPA’s reference 

method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it 

as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards 

were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires significant method 

validation data which meets the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA 
174

reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations 

of impracticality when additional information is available 

for particular VCS.

The search identified 23 other VCS that were 

potentially applicable to this rule in lieu of EPA 

reference methods. After reviewing the available 

standards, EPA determined that 21 candidate VCS (ASTM 

D3154-00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO10396:1993 

(2007), ISO12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 

(2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), 

ANSI/ASME PTC-38-1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), 

ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 (2003), 

ISO11564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-M1983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-

M1978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 1911-

1,2,3 (1998), EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-M1987) 

identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their 

surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would 

not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, 

validation data and other important technical and policy 

considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance 
175

specifications, or procedures in the final rule and any 

amendments.

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be used in this 

regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice (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, 

low-income, and tribal populations in the United States.

This proposed action establishes national emission 

standards for new and existing CISWI. The EPA estimates 

that there are approximately 176 such units, including 

incinerators, burn-off ovens, cement kilns and energy 

recovery units, covered by this rule. The proposed rule 
176

will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from 

this source. This includes emissions of cadmium (Cd),

hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), and

chlorinated dioxin/furans. Adverse health effects from 

these pollutants include cancer, irritation of the lungs,

skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous 

system, and damage to the kidneys), and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide and NO2 are 

precursors for the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing 

these emissions will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and 

associated health effects, such as adult premature 

mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, and other 

respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. (Please refer to 

the RIA contained in the docket for this rulemaking.) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA has undertaken 

to determine the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources. This analysis used 

“proximity-to-a-source” to identify the populations 

considered to be living near affected sources, such that 

they have notable exposures to current emissions from these 
177

sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the distributions 

of different socio-demographic groups in the locations of 

the expected emission reductions from this rule. The 

review identified those census blocks within a circular 

distance of three miles of affected sources and determined 

the demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g. race, 

income, education, etc) of these census blocks. The radius 

of three miles (or approximately five kilometers) has been 

used in other demographic analyses focused on areas around 

potential sources.14,15,16,17 In addition, air modeling 

experience has shown that beyond three miles, the influence 

of an individual source of emissions can generally be 

considered to be small, both in absolute terms and relative 

to the influence of other sources (assuming there are other 

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

demographic analysis has shown that these areas tend to 

 

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

Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities.

Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995.

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

Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 

2006;43(2): 383–399.

16 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to 

Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and 

Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis”. Social Science 

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

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

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

Christ. March, 2007. 
178

have lower proportions of Whites and American Indians, 

higher proportions of African-Americans, Hispanics and 

“Other and Multi-racial” populations, and higher 

proportions of families with incomes below the poverty 

level.18 

Based on the fact that the rule does not allow 

emission increases, the EPA has determined that the 

proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, 

low-income, or tribal populations. However, to the extent 

that any minority, low income, or tribal subpopulation is 

disproportionately impacted by the current emissions as a 

result of the proximity of their homes to these sources, 

that subpopulation also stands to see increased 

environmental and health benefit from the emissions 

reductions called for by this rule.

EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote 

meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communication

 

18 The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 

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

copy of which is available in the docket.
179

and outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities 

have access to this proposed rule, are aware of its 

content, and have an opportunity to comment during the 

comment period. During the comment period, EPA will

publicize the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, tribal 

newsletters, EJ listservs, and the internet, including the 

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation’s (OPEI) 

Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will 

also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is 

this important for my community) for EJ community groups 

and conduct conference calls with interested communities. 

In addition, state and federal permitting requirements will 

provide state and local governments and members of affected 

communities the opportunity to provide comments on the 

permit conditions associated with permitting the sources

affected by this rulemaking.
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

Page 180 of 337

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

_______________________

Dated: 

______________________

Lisa Jackson,

Administrator.
181

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. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as follows:

Subpart CCCC- Standards of Performance for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

3. Section 60.2005 is amended by revising the first 

sentence to read as follows:

§60.2005 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. * 

* *

4. Section 60.2015 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 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.
182

(1) A commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration unit that commenced construction after [INSERT 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) A commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration unit that commenced reconstruction or 

modification after [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE].

5. Section 60.2020 is amended by:

a. Revising the introductory text.

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).

c. Revising paragraph (c).

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

(l).

e. Revising paragraphs (g), (m) and (n).

f. Removing paragraphs (o).

§60.2020 What combustion units are exempt from this 

subpart?

This subpart exempts the types of units described in 

paragraphs (a), (c) through (i) and (m) of this section, 

but some units are required to provide notifications. Air 

curtain incinerators are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in §§60.2242, 

60.2250, and 60.2260. 

* * * * *
183

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration 

units that are regulated under subpart Ea of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors); 

subpart Eb of this part (Standards of Performance for Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this part 

(Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large 

Municipal Combustors); AAAA of this part (Standards of 

Performance for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or 

subpart BBBB of this part (Emission Guidelines for Small 

Municipal Waste Combustion Units). * * *

* * * * *

(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which 

you are required to get a permit under section 3005 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act.

* * * * *

(j) [Reserved]

(k) [Reserved]

(l) [Reserved]

(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units 

regulated under subpart O of this part (Standards of 

Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants).

(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration 

units combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing 
184

the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible 

matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit designs may 

include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.

6. Section 60.2025 is removed.

§60.2025 [Removed]

7. Section 60.2030 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5).

c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9).

§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 (9) of 

this section.

* * * * *

(5) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(8) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits 

in §60.2105 under §60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8).

(9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.2125(j).

8. Section 60.2045 is amended to read as follows:
185

(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 [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or that commenced 

reconstruction or modification after [THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].

(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.

9. Section 60.2070 is amended by revising paragraph 

(c)(1)(vii) to read as follows:

§60.2070 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions.

* * * * *
186

10. Section 60.2085 is amended by revising paragraph (d)

to read as follows:

§60.2085 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

* * * * *

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction.

* * * * *

11. Section 60.2105 is amended by removing the 

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

§60.2105 What emission limitations must I meet and by 

when?

(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each 

unit, including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 1 

of this subpart or tables 5 through 9 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 that commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999 but no later than [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or that commenced 

reconstruction or modification on or after June 1, 2001 but 

no later than [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE] must meet the more stringent emission limit for 
187

the respective pollutant in table 1 of this subpart or 

table 6 of subpart DDDD. 

(c) Units that do not use wet scrubbers must maintain 

opacity to less than or equal to the percent opacity (1-

hour block average) specified in table 1 of this subpart or 

tables 5 through 9 of this subpart, as applicable.

12. Section 60.2110 is amended by adding paragraphs (d),

(e) and (f) to read as follows:

§60.2110 What operating limits must I meet and by when?

* * * * *

(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

voltage and amperage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates during the particulate matter performance 

test. Calculate the average value of these parameters for 

each test run. The minimum test run averages establish 

your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage operating 

limits for the electrostatic precipitator.

(e) If you use activated carbon injection to comply 

with the emission limitations, you must measure the mercury 

sorbent flow rate during the mercury performance test. The 

minimum mercury sorbent flow rate test run averages 

establish your site-specific minimum mercury sorbent flow 

rate. 
188

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must establish 

the maximum charge rate, the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) and the 

minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating 

parameters during the initial nitrogen oxides performance 

test to determine compliance with the emissions limits.

13. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2115 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, activated 

carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission 

limitations?

(a) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, or an electrostatic precipitator or 

limit emissions in some other manner 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 5 items listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of 

this section.
189

(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) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet 

scrubber, you must install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system according to the 

procedures in §60.2145 by the compliance date specified in 

§60.2105.

§60.2120 [Removed]
190

14. Section 60.2120 is removed.

15. Section 60.2125 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 

and adding paragraphs (h) through (n) 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 9 of this subpart.

* * * * *

(h) Method 22 of 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 9 of 

this subpart.

(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1),(i)(2), 

(i)(3), and (i)(4) of this section, within 60 days after 

achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected 

facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days 

after initial startup of such facility, or at such other 

times specified by this part, and at such other times as 

may be required by the Administrator under Section 114 of 

the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of such facility 

must conduct performance test(s) and furnish the 
191

Administrator a written report of the results of such 

performance test(s).

(1) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or 

has occurred for which the affected owner or operator 

intends to assert a claim of force majeure, the owner or 

operator must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon 

as practicable following the date the owner or operator 

first knew, or through due diligence should have known that 

the event may cause or caused a delay in testing beyond the 

regulatory deadline, but the notification must occur before 

the performance test deadline unless the initial force 

majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the 

notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as 

soon as practicable.

(2) The owner or operator must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of the force majeure 

event and a rationale for attributing the delay in testing 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which the owner or operator 

proposes to conduct the performance test. The performance 

test must be conducted as soon as practicable after the 

force majeure occurs.
192

(3) The decision as to whether or not to grant an 

extension to the performance test deadline is solely within 

the discretion of the Administrator. The Administrator 

will notify the owner or operator in writing of approval or 

disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable.

(4) Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator under 

paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, the owner 

or operator of the affected facility remains strictly 

subject to the requirements of this part.

(j) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following.

(1) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a reference method with minor changes in methodology.

(2) Approves the use of an equivalent method.

(3) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance.

(4) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because the owner or operator of a source has demonstrated 
193

by other means to the Administrator’s satisfaction that the 

affected facility is in compliance with the standard.

(5) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act.

(k) Performance tests must be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator shall specify to the plant 

operator based on representative performance of the 

affected facility. The owner or operator must make 

available to the Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of the performance 

tests.

(l) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior 

notice of any performance test, except as specified under 

other subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity 

to have an observer present. If after 30 days notice for 

an initially scheduled performance test, there is a delay 

(due to operational problems, etc.) in conducting the 

scheduled performance test, the owner or operator of an 

affected facility must notify the Administrator (or 

delegated state or local agency) as soon as possible of any 
194

delay in the original test date, either by providing at 

least 7 days prior notice of the rescheduled date of the 

performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with 

the Administrator (or delegated state or local agency) by 

mutual agreement.

(m) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing 

facilities as follows:

(1) Sampling ports adequate for test methods 

applicable to such facility. This includes the following. 

(i) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures.

(2) Safe sampling platform(s).

(3) Safe access to sampling platform(s).

(4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(n) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 
195

applicable standard. For the purpose of determining 

compliance with an applicable standard, the arithmetic 

means of results of the three runs apply. In the event 

that a sample is accidentally lost or conditions occur in 

which one of the three runs must be discontinued because of 

forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the 

sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other 

circumstances, beyond the owner or operator’s control, 

compliance may, upon the Administrator’s approval, be 

determined using the arithmetic mean of the results of the 

two other runs.

16. 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 9 of this subpart.

17. Section 60.2135 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and establish the operating limits?

You must conduct an initial performance test, as 

required under §60.2105 and §60.2125 to determine 

compliance with the emission limitations in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart and to 

establish operating limits using the procedures in §60.2110 
196

or §60.2115. The initial performance test must be 

conducted using the test methods listed in table 1 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart and the 

procedures in §60.2125. The use of the bypass stack during 

a performance test shall invalidate the performance test.

18. 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.

19. Section 60.2145 is amended by revising paragraph (a)

and (b) and adding paragraphs (d) through (t) to read as 

follows:

§60.2145 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the emission limitations and the operating limits?
197

(a) You must conduct an annual performance test for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and

opacity for each CISWI unit as required under §60.2125 to 

determine compliance with the emission limitations. The 

annual performance test must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 

through 9 of this subpart and the procedures in §60.2125.

(b) You must continuously monitor the operating 

parameters specified in §60.2110 or established under 

§60.2115. Operation above the established maximum or below 

the established minimum operating limits constitutes a 

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

compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system 

alarms) unless a different averaging period is established 

under §60.2115. Operating limits are confirmed or 

reestablished during performance tests.

* * * * *

(d) For energy recovery units, incinerators, burn-off 

ovens and small remote units, you must perform annual 

visual emissions test for ash handling.

(e) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for opacity (except where 

particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring system 
198

are used for compliance) and the pollutants (except for 

carbon monoxide) listed in table 1 of this subpart or 

tables 5 through 9 of this subpart. 

(f) For energy recovery units, demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit using a 

carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system 

according to the following requirements: 

(1) Determine continuous compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emissions limit using a 24-hour block average, 

calculated as specified in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference 

Method 19 of appendix A–7 of this part.

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of 

performance specification 4B of appendix B of this part and 

quality assurance procedure one of appendix F of this part.

(g) For energy recovery units with design capacities 

greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit 

using a particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring 

system according to the procedures in §60.2165(n). 

(h) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, fugitive ash and opacity (as mentioned in section 

60.2145(a)), nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide as listed 
199

in table 7 of this subpart. You must determine compliance 

with the mercury emissions limit using a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring system according to the following 

requirements:

(1) Operate a continuous emission monitor in 

accordance with performance specification 12A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B or a sorbent trap based integrated 

monitor in accordance with performance specification 12B of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix B or appendix K of 40 CFR part 75. 

The duration of the performance test must be a calendar 

month. For each calendar month in which the waste-burning

kiln operates, hourly mercury concentration data and stack 

gas volumetric flow rate data must be obtained. 

(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring system must install, operate, 

calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously 

measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to the requirements of performance 

specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality 

assurance procedure 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, upon 

promulgation.

(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln 

must demonstrate initial compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emissions monitoring system while the raw mill 
200

of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating 

conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw 

mill is not operating.

(i) If you use an air pollution control device to 

meet the emission limitations in this subpart, you 

mustconduct 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 (j) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under 

§60.13(i).

(j) For each continuous monitoring system required in 

this section, you must develop and submit to the EPA 

Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring plan

according to the requirements of this paragraph (j) that 

addresses paragraphs (j)(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.
201

(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device).

(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems.

(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and 

acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).

(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d).

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13.

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

in accordance with the general requirements of 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system in accordance with your sitespecific monitoring plan.
202

(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan.

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

use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (j) and (k)(1) through (4) of 

this section.

(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of 2 percent of the flow rate.

(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.

(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semiannually.

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

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (j) and (l)(1) through (6) of 

this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration and internal and external corrosion.
203

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum 

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration 

quarterly and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor 

exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor.

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

use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (j) and (m)(1) through (3) of 

this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two 

points every 8 hours of process operation.

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

use of equipment to monitor voltage and secondary current 

(or total power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use voltage and secondary current monitoring 
204

equipment to measure voltage and secondary current to the 

electrostatic precipitator.

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

use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g. , 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement 

device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (j) 

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

(1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate.

(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer's procedures and specifications.

(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and 

specifications.

(p) 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 (p)(1) through (8) of this section.

(1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.

(2) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent 
205

with the manufacturer's written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997.

(3) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less.

(4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor.

(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where 

it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.

(7) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell.

(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors.
206

(q) For facilities using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emission limit may be demonstrated by using the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in §60.2165 to measure 

sulfur dioxide and calculating a 24-hour daily geometric 

average emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 

19, sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable. The sulfur 

dioxide continuous emission monitoring system must be 

operated according to performance specification 2 in 

appendix B of this part and must follow the procedures and 

methods specified in this paragraph (q). For sources that 

have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million 

dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet 

sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems 

should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of 

the reference method test data in terms of the units of the 

emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume 

absolute value of the mean difference between the reference 

method and the continuous emission monitoring systems, 

whichever is greater.

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, 
207

sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and 

(q)(1)(ii) of this section.

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, 

or 6C, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 Flue

and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and 

Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17], must be 

used.

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–

19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,

Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17] as applicable, must be used.

(2) The span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system at the inlet to the sulfur dioxide 

control device must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated 

hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit

subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur 

dioxide control device must be 50 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the 

unit subject to this rule.
208

(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.

(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and/or zero and 

span adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using 

other monitoring systems as approved by EPA or EPA 

Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid 

emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per 

day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 

percent of the hours per calendar year that the affected 

facility is operated and combusting solid waste (as that 

term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D 

of RCRA).

(r) For facilities using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the nitrogen oxides emission limit, compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limit may be demonstrated by using 

the continuous emission monitoring system specified in 

§60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a 24-

hour daily arithmetic average emission concentration using 

EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1. The nitrogen oxides 

continuous emission monitoring system must be operated
209

according to performance specification 2 in appendix B of 

this part and must follow the procedures and methods 

specified in paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(5) of this 

section.

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, 

nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) and 

(r)(1)(ii) of this section.

(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 

7C, 7D, or 7E must be used.

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–

19.10–1981 —Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,

Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17] as applicable, must be used.

(2) The span value of the continuous emission 

monitoring system must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential nitrogen oxide emissions of 

unit.
210

(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.

(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions 

monitoring system data are not obtained because of 

continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks and zero and span adjustments, emissions 

data must be obtained using other monitoring systems as 

approved by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as 

necessary, valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent 

of the hours per day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar 

quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year the 

unit is operated and combusting solid waste.

(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may 

request that compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission 

limit be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during performance 

compliance tests.
211

(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 3, 3A, or 3B, 

or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 —Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 

(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.

(s) 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 24-hour block average, calculated 

following the procedures in EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 

of this part.

(2) Operate all continuous emissions monitoring 

systems in accordance with the applicable procedures under 

appendices B and F of this part.
212

(t) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an 

emissions standards deviation for particulate matter, HCl, 

Pb, Cd and Hg. 

20. Section 60.2150 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2150 By what date must I conduct the annual 

performance test?

You must conduct annual performance tests within 12 

months following the initial performance test. Conduct 

subsequent annual performance tests within 12 months 

following the previous one.

21. 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.

22. Section 60.2155 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2155 May I conduct performance testing less often?

(a) You can test less often for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, provided:

(1) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive

years.

(2) The test data results for particulate matter, 
213

hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity is less than 75 

percent of the emissions or opacity limit. 

(3) There are no changes in the operation of the 

affected source or air pollution control equipment that 

could affect emissions. In this case, you do not have to 

conduct a performance test for that pollutant for the next 

2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the 

third year and no more than 36 months following the 

previous performance test.

(b) If your CISWI unit continues to emit less than 75 

percent of the emission limitation for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, and there are 

no changes in the operation of the affected facility or air 

pollution control equipment that could increase emissions, 

you may choose to conduct performance tests for these 

pollutants every third year, but each test must be within 

36 months of the previous performance test.

(c) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 

percent or greater of the emission or opacity limitation 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or 

opacity, you must conduct annual performance tests for that 

pollutant until all performance tests over a 3-year period 

are within 75 percent of the applicable emission 

limitation.
214

* * * * *

23. Section 60.2165 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 

and adding paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as follows:

§60.2165 What monitoring equipment must I install and what 

parameters must I monitor?

* * * * *

(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, 
215

ensure that the affected facility does not operate above 

the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or

the minimum reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour rolling 

averages (calculated each hour as the average of the 

previous 3 operating hours) at all times. Operating 

parameter limits do not apply during performance tests.

(2) Operation of the affected facility above the 

maximum charge rate, below the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum reagent flow rate 

simultaneously constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit.

(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limits of this subpart, you must 

monitor the voltage and amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-hour 

block averages at or above the operating limits established 

during the mercury or particulate matter performance test.

(g) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

hydrogen chloride emissions limit, 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 
216

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 of 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 of 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).
217

(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 appropriate 

performance 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 

Reference Method 29 of appendix A-8 of this part, ASTM 

D6784-02 (2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental,

Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method), 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 
218

nitrogen oxides annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring 

nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the 

quality assurance procedure one of appendix F of this part 

and the procedures under §60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system.

(2) Following the date that the initial performance 

test for nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2125, compliance with the emission 

limit for nitrogen oxides required under §60.52b(d) must be 

determined based on the 24-hour daily arithmetic average of 

the hourly emission concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million 

by volume (dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour 

daily arithmetic average concentrations. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data 

points required under §60.13(e)(2).
219

(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

sulfur dioxide emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling system for the 

sulfur dioxide annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring sulfur 

dioxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record 

the output of the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the 

quality assurance requirements of procedure one of appendix

F of this part and procedures under §60.13 must be followed 

for installation, evaluation and operation of the 

continuous emission monitoring system.

(2) Following the date that the initial performance 

test for sulfur dioxide is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2125, compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit may be determined based on the 24-

hour daily geometric average of the hourly arithmetic 

average emission concentrations using continuous emission 

monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be expressed in parts per million corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 

24-hour daily geometric average emission concentrations and 
220

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 that do not use a wet 

scrubber, you must install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this section 

by the compliance date specified in §60.2105. Energy 

recovery units that use a particulate matter continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate initial and 

continuing compliance according to the procedures in 

§60.2165(n) are not required to install a continuous 

opacity monitoring system and must perform the annual 

performance tests for opacity consistent with §60.2145(e).

(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-
221

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, an owner or operator must

install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous 

emission monitoring system for monitoring particulate 

matter emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record 

the output of the system. The owner or operator of an 

affected facility who continuously monitors particulate 

matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing 

using EPA Method 5 must install, calibrate, maintain and

operate a continuous emission monitoring system and must 

comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) 

through (n)(14) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month before starting 

use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping 

use of the system.
222

(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. 

(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(r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv).

(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must conduct an initial performance test for particulate 

matter emissions as required under §60.2125. Compliance 

with the particulate matter emission limit must be 
223

determined by using the continuous emission monitoring 

system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to 

measure particulate matter and calculating a 24-hour block 

arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA 

Reference Method 19, section 4.1. 

(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limit must be determined based on the 24-hour daily (block) 

average of the hourly arithmetic average emission 

concentrations using continuous emission monitoring system 

outlet data.

(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system 

hourly averages must be obtained as specified in 

§60.2170(e). 

(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under 

paragraph (n)(7) of this section must be expressed in 

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter corrected to 7 

percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) (dry basis) and must be 

used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average 

emission concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages 

must be calculated using the data points required under 

§60.13(e)(2).

(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system 

data must be used in calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum continuous emission 
224

monitoring system data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of 

this section are not met.

(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must 

be operated according to performance specification 11 in 

appendix B of this part. 

(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part, 

particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must 

be collected concurrently (or within a 30-to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

following test methods.

(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 

must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as applicable must be used. 

(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 2 in appendix F of this part. 

(14) When particulate matter emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and zero and span 

adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using other 

monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA 
225

Reference Method 19 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) For energy recovery units, operate the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system in 

accordance with the requirements of performance 

specification 4B of appendix B of this part and quality 

assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part.

(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.

24. Section 60.2170 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I 

must obtain?

(a) You must conduct all monitoring at all times the 

CISWI unit is operating.

(b) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods in assessing compliance with the operating limits.

(c) For continuous emission monitoring systems for 

measuring sulfur dioxide emissions, valid continuous 
226

monitoring system hourly averages must be obtained as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section 

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 combusting waste. All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data must be used in calculating average 

emission concentrations and percent reductions even if the 

minimum continuous emission monitoring system data 

requirements of this paragraph (c) are not met.

(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to 

calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.

(2) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour arithmetic average 

must be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis 

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system data.

(d) For continuous emission monitoring systems for 

measuring nitrogen oxides emissions, valid continuous 

emission monitoring system hourly averages must be obtained 

as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this 

section 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 combusting waste. All valid continuous 
227

emission monitoring system data must be used in calculating 

average emission concentrations and percent reductions even 

if the minimum continuous emission monitoring system data 

requirements of this paragraph (d) are not met.

(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to 

calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.

(2) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour arithmetic average 

must be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis 

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system data.

(e) For continuous emission monitoring systems for 

measuring particulate matter emissions, valid continuous 

monitoring system hourly averages must be obtained as 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) 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 source is combusting waste. 

All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must 

be used in calculating average emission concentrations and 

percent reductions even if the minimum continuous emission 

monitoring system data requirements of this paragraph (e) 

are not met.

(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to 

calculate each one-hour arithmetic average.
228

(2) Each particulate matter one-hour arithmetic 

average must be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly 

basis using the one-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system 

data.

25. 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 (u).

§60.2175 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) as 

specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (u) of

this section for a period of at least 5 years:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating 

limits for controls other than wet scrubbers under 

§60.2110(d) through (f) or §60.2115, you must maintain data 

collected for all operating parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits.

* * * * *

(c) [Reserved]

(d) [Reserved]
229

(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 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.

(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.
230

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon 

monoxide emissions.

(5) All one-hour average concentrations of 

particulate matter emissions.

(6) All one-hour average concentrations of mercury 

emissions.

(7) All one-hour average concentrations of hydrogen 

chloride emissions.

(q) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times and durations. 

(r) If you choose to stack test less frequently than 

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

keep annual records that document that your emissions in 

the previous stack test(s) were less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit and document that there was no 

change in source operations including fuel composition and 

operation of air pollution control equipment that would 

cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase 

within the past year.

(s) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the 

air pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(t) Records of all required maintenance performed on 

the air pollution control and monitoring equipment.
231

(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.

26. Section 60.2210 is amended by revising paragraph (e) 

and adding paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as follows:

§60.2210 What information must I include in my annual 

report?

* * * * *

(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or 

operating limit that applies to you has been reported, a 

statement that there was no deviation from the emission 

limitations or operating limits during the reporting 

period.

* * * * *

(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 
232

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction.

(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating 

limitation that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are 

not using a CMS to comply with the emission or operating 

limitations in this subpart, the annual report must contain 

the following information.

(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at 

which the deviation occurred during the reporting period.

(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of 

deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.

(m) If there were periods during which the continuous 

monitoring system, including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was out of control as specified in 

paragraph (o) of this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for each deviation from 

an emission or operating limitation occurring for a CISWI 

unit for which you are using a continuous monitoring system 

to comply with the emission and operating limitations in 

this subpart.

(1) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped.
233

(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.
234

(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the CISWI unit.

(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.

(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit.

(12) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period.

(n) If there were periods during which the continuous 

monitoring system, including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was not out of control as specified in 

paragraph (o) of this section, a statement that there were 

not periods during which the continuous monitoring system 

was out of control during the reporting period. 

(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if any of the following occur. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard.
235

(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.

27. Section 60.2220 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 

and removing paragraphs (e) and (f).

§60.2220 What must I include in the deviation report?

* * * * *

(c) Durations and causes of the following:

(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or 

operating limits and your corrective actions.

(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.

* * * * *

28. Section 60.2235 is amended to read as follows:.

§60.2235 In what form can I submit my reports?

(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates.

(b) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance evaluation conducted to
236

demonstrate compliance with this subpart, the owner or 

operator of the affected facility must submit the test data 

to EPA by entering the data electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database through EPA’s Central Data Exchange. The 

owner or operator of an affected source shall enter the 

test data into EPA’s database using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool or other compatible electronic spreadsheet. 

Only performance evaluation data collected using methods 

compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 

submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database.

* * * * *

29. 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 

affected by this subpart must operate pursuant to a permit 

issued under Section 129(e) and title V of the Clean Air 

Act.

* * * * *

30. Section 60.2250 is amended by redesignating paragraph 

(a) to be an introductory paragraph, paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) to paragraphs (a) and (b) and removing paragraph 

(b).
237

§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 onehour blocks consisting of 10 six 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.

* * * * *

31. 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?

* * * * *
238

(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.

* * * * *

32. Section 60.2265 is amended by:

a. Adding definitions for “Burn-off oven”, “Bypass 

stack”, “Kiln”, “Energy recovery unit”, “Incinerator”, 

“Minimum voltage or amperage”, “Opacity”, “Raw mill”, 

“Small remote incinerator”, “Solid waste incineration unit” 

and “Waste-burning kiln”, in alphabetical order.

b. Revising the definition for “Commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit.”

c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for 

“Deviation.”

d. Removing the definition for “Agricultural waste”, 

“Commercial or industrial waste”, “Malfunction” and “Solid 

waste”.

§60.2265 What definitions must I know?

* * * * *

Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part 

reclamation unit, or drum reclamation unit. 
239

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment.

* * * * *

Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration 

(CISWI) unit means any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that combusts any solid

waste pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA. 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. 

* * * * *
240

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 pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) for energy 

recovery. Energy recovery units include units that would 

be considered boilers and process heaters if they did not 

combust solid waste. 

* * * * *

Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of 

combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the 

Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing 
241

combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single 

chamber, two-chamber and cyclonic burn barrels. 

* * * * *

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 and lime kilns, that produce quicklime by 

calcination of limestone.

* * * * * 

Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the 

lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator measured from the pressure drop 

and liquid flow rate monitors during the most recent 

particulate matter or mercury performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission 

limits.

* * * * *

Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the 

transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in 

the background.

* * * * *
242

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 pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) and has the 

capacity to combust 1 ton per day or less solid waste and 

is more than 50 miles driving distance to the nearest 

municipal solid waste landfill.

Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct 

operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid 

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 
243

secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary 

purpose of recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power 

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

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying 

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

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn 

homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used 

oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the 

production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying 

cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste for 

the production of electric energy and steam or forms of 

useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain 

incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood 

wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air 

curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be 

established by the Administrator by rule.

* * * * *

Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in 

whole or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that term 

is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of 

RCRA).

* * * * *
244

33. The title for table 1 to 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 [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or for Which 

Modification or Reconstruction Is Commenced on or After 

June 1, 2001 but no later than [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].

* * * * *

34. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is amended by revising the 

entry for “Annual Report” and “Emission limitation or 

operating limit deviation report.”

Table 4 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirementsa

Report Due date Contents Reference

* * * * * * *

Annual 

report

No later than 12 

months following the 

submission of the 

initial test report. 

Subsequent reports 

are to be submitted 

no more than 12 

months following the 

previous report

• Name and address

• Statement and 

signature by 

responsible official

• Date of report

• Values for the 

operating limits

• Highest recorded 3-

hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour 

average, as 

applicable, for each 

operating parameter 

recorded for the 

calendar year being 

reported

• If a performance 

test was conducted 

during the reporting 

period, the results 

of the test

• If a performance 

test was not 

§§60.2205 

and 

60.2210
245

Report Due date Contents Reference

conducted during the 

reporting period, a 

statement that the 

requirements of 

§60.2155(a) or (b) 

were met

• Documentation of 

periods when all 

qualified CISWI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for more 

than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks

* * * * *

Emission 

limitation 

or operating 

limit 

deviation 

report

By August 1 of that 

year for data 

collected during the 

first half of the 

calendar year. By 

February 1 of the 

following year for 

data collected 

during the second 

half of the calendar 

year

• Dates and times of 

deviation

• Averaged and 

recorded data for 

those dates

• Duration and causes 

of each deviation and 

the corrective 

actions taken

• Copy of operating 

limit monitoring data 

and any test reports

• Dates, times and

causes for monitor 

downtime incidents

§60.2215 

and 

60.2220

* * * * *

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced 

sections of the rule for the complete requirements.

34. 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 [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Or That 

Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.00066 3-run average Performance test 
246

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Carbon monoxide 1.4 parts per 

million dry 

volume

24 hour block 

average

Carbon monoxide 

Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 4A of

this part, using a RA 

of 0.5 ppm instead of 

5 ppm as specified in 

13.2. For the 

cylinder gas audit, 

+/- 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is 

greater.)

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

0.0093

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.00073

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

0.074 parts 

per million 

dry volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.0013

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Mercury 0.00013 3-run average Performance test 
247

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

(collect 

enough volume 

to meet a 

detection 

limit data 

quality 

objective of 

0.03 ug/dscm)

(Method 30B of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Opacity 1% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

19 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part). Use a span 

gas with a 

concentration of 100 

ppm or less.

Particulate 

matter

(filterable)

0.0077

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 5 or 29 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Sulfur dioxide 1.5 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part. Use a maximum 

allowable drift of 

0.2 ppm and a span 

gas with a 

concentration of 5 

ppm or less. 

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).
248

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured 

at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

36. 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 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Or 

That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [THE 

DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.00012

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Carbon monoxide 3 parts per 

million dry 

volume

24 hour block 

average

Carbon monoxide 

Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 4A of 

this part, using a RA 

of 0.5 ppm instead of 

5 ppm as specified in 

13.2. For the 

cylinder gas audit, 

+/- 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is 

greater.)

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

0.034

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.0027

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

0.17 parts 

per million 

3-run average 

(collect a 

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 
249

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

dry volume minimum volume

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.0012

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Mercury 0.00013

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect 

enough volume 

to meet a 

detection 

limit data 

quality 

objective of 

0.03 ug/dscm)

Performance test 

(Method 30B of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Opacity 1% 6-minute 

averages;

1-hour block 

average for 

units that 

operate dry 

control 

systems

Continuous opacity 

monitoring 

(performance 

specification 1 of 

appendix B of this 

part), unless 

equipped with a wet 

scrubber.

Oxides of 

nitrogen

75 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part).

Particulate 

matter

(filterable)

4.4

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 5 or 29 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of this 

part) if the unit has 

a design capacity 

less than or equal to 

250 MMBtu/hr; or PM 

CEMS (performance 

specification 11 of 

appendix B of this 

part) if the unit has 

a design capacity 
250

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr.

Sulfur dioxide 4.1 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this

part. Use a span gas 

with a concentration 

of 20 ppm or less.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured 

at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

37. 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 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Or 

That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [THE 

DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.00030

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Carbon monoxide 36 parts per 

million dry 

volume

24 hour block 

average

Carbon monoxide 

Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 4A of 

this part, using a RA 

of 1 ppm instead of 5 
251

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

ppm as specified in 

13.2. For the 

cylinder gas audit, 

+/- 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is greater.)

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

0.00035

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.000028

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

1.5 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.00078

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Mercury 0.024

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

24 hour block 

average

Mercury CEMS 

(performance 

specification 12A of 

appendix B of this 

part or mercury 

sorbent trap method 

specified in appendix

K of part 75)

Opacity 1% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity 

Performance test 

(Method 9 of appendix 

A-4 of this part).
252

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

values

Oxides of 

nitrogen

140 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Particulate 

matter

(filterable)

1.8

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a

minimum 

volume of 4 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 5 or 29 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Sulfur dioxide 3.6 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part. Use a span gas 

with a concentration 

of 20 ppm or less.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

38. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60—Emission Limitations for 

Burn-off Ovens That Commenced Construction After [INSERT 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Or That 

Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.0032

milligrams 

3-run average 

(collect a 

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 
253

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

appendix A-8 of this 

part). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Carbon monoxide 74 parts per 

million dry 

volume

24 hour block 

average

Carbon monoxide 

Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 4A of 

this part, using a RA 

of 2 ppm instead of 5

ppm as specified in 

13.2. For the 

cylinder gas audit, 

+/- 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is 

greater.)

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

0.011

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.00086

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 4 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

17.6 parts 

per million 

dry volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.029

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part). Use ICPMS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Mercury 0.0033

milligrams 

3-run average 

(collect 

Performance test 

(Method 30B of 
254

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

enough volume 

to meet a 

detection 

limit data 

quality 

objective of 

0.3 ug/dscm)

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Opacity 2% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

16 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part). Use a span gas 

with a concentration 

of 100 ppm or less.

Particulate 

matter

(filterable)

28 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 of 

appendix A-3 and 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Sulfur dioxide 1.5 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part. Use a maximum 

allowable drift of 

0.2 ppm and a span 

gas with 

concentration of 5 

ppm or less. 

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

aAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured 

at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
255

39. Table 9 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:

Table 9 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60—Emission Limitations for 

Small, Remote Incinerators That Commenced Construction 

After [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] Or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification 

After [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.057

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Carbon monoxide 4.0 parts per 

million dry 

volume

24 hour block 

average

Carbon monoxide 

Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System 

(performance 

specification 4A of 

this part, using a RA 

of 0.5 ppm instead of 

5 ppm as specified in 

13.2. For the 

cylinder gas audit, 

+/- 15% or 0.5 ppm, 

whichever is greater.)

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

1200

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

94 nanograms 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

150 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).
256

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

cubic meter)

Lead 1.4

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Mercury 0.0013

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). 

Opacity 13% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity 

values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

210 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Particulate 

matter

(filterable)

240

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 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Sulfur dioxide 43 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part. Use a span gas 

with a concentration 

of 200 ppm or less.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).
257

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

period 

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

Subpart DDDD-Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

40. 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 10 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.

41. Section 60.2505 is amended to read as follows.

§60.2505 Am I affected by this subpart?

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality 

program in a state or United States protectorate with one 

or more existing CISWI units that meets the criteria in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, you must submit 

a state plan to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
258

that implements the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart.

(b) You must submit a state plan to EPA by 

December 3, 2001 for incinerators 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 [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for incinerators that 

commenced construction after November 30, 1999 but no later 

than [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] or commenced modification or reconstruction after 

June 1, 2001 but no later than [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(d) You must submit a state plan to EPA that meets 

the requirements of this subpart and contains the emission 

limits in tables 7 through 10 of this subpart by [THE DATE 

1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register] for CISWI units other than incinerators that 

commenced construction on or before [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE Federal Register].
259

41. Section 60.2525 is amended by redesignating the 

introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) 

to read as follows:

(a) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or 

a negative declaration letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA 

will develop a federal plan according to §60.27 to 

implement the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI units not covered 

by an approved state plan must comply with the federal

plan. The federal plan is an interim action and will be 

automatically withdrawn when your state plan is approved.

(b) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or 

a negative declaration letter) to EPA that meets the 

requirements of this subpart and contains the emission 

limits in tables 6 through 10 of this subpart for CISWI 

units that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, 

but on or before by [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE Federal Register] by [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register], 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 
260

will be automatically withdrawn when your state plan is 

approved.

43. Section 60.2535 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.

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

c. Adding paragraph (b).

§60.2535 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan?

(a) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory 

that commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999, 

your state plan must include compliance schedules that 

require CISWI units to achieve final compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable after approval of the state

plan but not later than the earlier of the two dates 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.

* * * * *

(b) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory 

that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but on 

or before [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], and for CISWI units in the energy recovery 

units, waste-burning kilns, burn-off ovens, and small 

remote incinerators subcategories that commenced 

construction before [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], your state plan must include compliance 
261

schedules that require CISWI units to achieve final 

compliance as expeditiously as practicable after approval 

of the state plan but not later than the earlier of the two 

dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 

section.

(1) [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) 3 years after the effective date of state plan 

approval.

* * * * *

44. Section 60.2540 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 

to read as follows:

§60.2540 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B?

* * * * *

(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

must be as protective as the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. State plans must require all CISWI units 

to comply by the dates specified in §60.2535. This applies 

instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f).

* * * * *
262

45. 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 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 that sets forth 

the terms, conditions and effective date of the delegation 
263

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. 

46. 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.

47. Section 60.2545 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to 

read as follows:

§60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect CISWI unit 

owners and operators in my state?
264

* * * * *

(c) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 

subpart by [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE Federal Register] for CISWI units that 

commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but on or 

before [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

Federal Register], the EPA will implement and enforce a 

federal plan, as provided in §60.2525, to ensure that each 

unit within your state that commenced construction after 

November 30, 1999, but on or before by [THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 

reaches compliance with all the provisions of this subpart 

by [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

48. Section §60.2555 is amended by:

a. Revising the introductory text.

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).

c. Revising paragraphs (c) and (g).

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

(l).

e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n).

f. Removing paragraph (o).
265

§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) and (m) of this section, 

but some units are required to provide notifications. Air 

curtain incinerators are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in §§60.2805, 

60.2860, and 60.2870.

* * * * *

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration 

units that are regulated under subpart Ea of this part 

(Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors); 

subpart Eb of this part (Standards of Performance for Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this part 

(Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large 

Municipal Combustors); AAAA of this part (Standards of 

Performance for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or 

subpart BBBB of this part (Emission Guidelines for Small 

Municipal Waste Combustion Units).

* * * * *

(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for 

which you are required to get a permit under section 3005 

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
266

* * * * *

(j) [Reserved]

(k) [Reserved]

(l) [Reserved]

(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units 

regulated under subpart O of this part (Standards of 

Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants).

(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration 

units combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing 

the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible 

matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit designs may 

include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.

49. Section 60.2558 is removed.

§60.2558 [Removed]

50. 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 malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions.

* * * * *
267

51. Section 60.2650 is amended by revising paragraph (d)

to read as follows:

§60.2650 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

* * * * *

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction.

* * * * *

52. 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 

unit, including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 2 

of this subpart or tables 6 through 10 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 (1-

hour block average) specified in table 2 of this subpart or 

tables 6 through 10 of this subpart, as applicable.

53. Section 60.2675 is amended by adding paragraphs (d),

(e) and (f) to read as follows:
268

§60.2675 What operating limits must I meet and by when?

* * * * *

(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must measure the 

voltage and amperage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates during the particulate matter performance 

test. Calculate the average value of these parameters for 

each test run. The minimum test run averages establish 

your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage operating 

limits for the electrostatic precipitator.

(e) If you use activated carbon injection to comply 

with the emission limitations, you must measure the mercury 

sorbent flow rate during the mercury performance test. The 

minimum mercury sorbent flow rate test run averages 

establish your site-specific minimum mercury sorbent flow 

rate. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must establish 

the maximum charge rate, the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) and the 

minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating 

parameters during the initial nitrogen oxides performance 

test to determine compliance with the emissions limits.

54. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows:
269

§60.2680 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, activated 

carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission 

limitations?

(a) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective 

noncatalytic reduction, or an electrostatic precipitator or 

limit emissions in some other manner to comply with the 

emission limitations under §60.2670, you must petition the 

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 (a)(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.
270

(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) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet 

scrubber, you must install, operate, certify and maintain a 

continuous opacity monitoring system according to the 

procedures in §60.2710 by the compliance date specified in 

§60.2670.

§60.2685 [Removed]

55. Section 60.2685 is removed.

56. Section 60.2690 is amended by revising paragraph (c)

and adding paragraphs (h) through (n) to read as follows:

§60.2690 How do I conduct the initial and annual 

performance test?

* * * * *
271

(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

minimum run duration specified in tables 2 and 6 through 10 

of this subpart.

* * * * *

(h) Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part must be 

used to determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission 

limit in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 10 of 

this subpart.

(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1),(i)(2), 

(i)(3), and (i)(4) of this section, within 60 days after 

achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected 

facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days 

after initial startup of such facility, or at such other 

times specified by this part, and at such other times as 

may be required by the Administrator under Section 114 of 

the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of such facility 

must conduct performance test(s) and furnish the 

Administrator a written report of the results of such 

performance test(s).

(1) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or 

has occurred for which the affected owner or operator 

intends to assert a claim of force majeure, the owner or 

operator must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon 

as practicable following the date the owner or operator 
272

first knew, or through due diligence should have known that 

the event may cause or caused a delay in testing beyond the 

regulatory deadline, but the notification must occur before 

the performance test deadline unless the initial force 

majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the 

notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as 

soon as practicable.

(2) The owner or operator must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of the force majeure 

event and a rationale for attributing the delay in testing 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which the owner or operator 

proposes to conduct the performance test. The performance 

test must be conducted as soon as practicable after the 

force majeure occurs.

(3) The decision as to whether or not to grant an 

extension to the performance test deadline is solely within 

the discretion of the Administrator. The Administrator 

will notify the owner or operator in writing of approval or 

disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable.

(4) Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator under 
273

paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, the owner 

or operator of the affected facility remains strictly 

subject to the requirements of this part.

(j) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following.

(1) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a reference method with minor changes in methodology.

(2) Approves the use of an equivalent method.

(3) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance.

(4) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because the owner or operator of a source has demonstrated 

by other means to the Administrator’s satisfaction that the 

affected facility is in compliance with the standard.

(5) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act.

(k) Performance tests must be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator shall specify to the plant 
274

operator based on representative performance of the 

affected facility. The owner or operator must make 

available to the Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of the performance 

tests.

(l) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior 

notice of any performance test, except as specified under 

other subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity 

to have an observer present. If after 30 days notice for 

an initially scheduled performance test, there is a delay 

(due to operational problems, etc.) in conducting the 

scheduled performance test, the owner or operator of an 

affected facility must notify the Administrator (or 

delegated state or local agency) as soon as possible of any 

delay in the original test date, either by providing at 

least 7 days prior notice of the rescheduled date of the 

performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with 

the Administrator (or delegated state or local agency) by 

mutual agreement.

(m) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing 

facilities as follows:
275

(1) Sampling ports adequate for test methods 

applicable to such facility. This includes the following. 

(i) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures.

(2) Safe sampling platform(s).

(3) Safe access to sampling platform(s).

(4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(n) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. For the purpose of determining 

compliance with an applicable standard, the arithmetic 

means of results of the three runs apply. In the event 

that a sample is accidentally lost or conditions occur in 

which one of the three runs must be discontinued because of 

forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the 

sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other 

circumstances, beyond the owner or operator’s control, 
276

compliance may, upon the Administrator’s approval, be 

determined using the arithmetic mean of the results of the 

two other runs.

57. 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 10 of this subpart.

58. 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?

(a) You must conduct an initial performance test, as 

required under §60.2690 and §60.2670, to determine 

compliance with the emission limitations in table 2 of this 

subpart and tables 6 through 10 of this subpart and to 

establish operating limits using the procedures in §60.2675 

or §60.2680. The initial performance test must be 

conducted using the test methods listed in table 2 of this 

subpart and tables 6 through 10 of this subpart and the 

procedures in §60.2690. The use of the bypass stack during 

a performance test shall invalidate the performance test.

(b) You may use the results from a performance test 

conducted within the two previous years that demonstrated 
277

compliance with the emission limits in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart. However, 

you must continue to meet the operating limits established 

during the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limits in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart. The test 

must use the test methods in table 2 of this subpart or 

tables 5 through 9 of this subpart.

59. 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.
278

60. Section 60.2710 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 

and (b) and adding paragraphs (d) through (t) to read as 

follows:

§60.2710 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the amended emission limitations and the operating limits?

(a) You must conduct an annual performance test for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and

opacity for each CISWI unit as required under §60.2690 to 

determine compliance with the emission limitations. The 

annual performance test must be conducted using the test 

methods listed in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 

through 10 of this subpart and the procedures in §60.2690.

(b) You must continuously monitor the operating 

parameters specified in §60.2675 or established under 

§60.2680. Operation above the established maximum or below 

the established minimum operating limits constitutes a 

deviation from the established operating limits. Three-hour 

rolling 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.

* * * * *
279

(d) For energy recovery units, incinerators, burn-off 

ovens and small remote units, you must perform annual 

visual emissions test for ash handling.

(e) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for opacity (except where 

particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring systems 

are used for compliance) and the pollutants (except for 

carbon monoxide) listed in table 2 of this subpart and 

tables 6 through 10 of this subpart. 

(f) For energy recovery units, demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit using a 

carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system 

according to the following requirements:

(1) Determine continuous compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emissions limit using a 24-hour block average, 

calculated as specified in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference 

Method 19 of appendix A–7 of this part.

(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system in accordance with the applicable 

requirements of performance specification 4B of appendix B 

and the quality assurance procedures of appendix F of this 

part.

(g) For energy recovery units with design capacities 

greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, demonstrate continuous 
280

compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit 

using a particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring 

system according to the procedures in §60.2730(n). 

(h) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, fugitive ash and opacity (as mentioned in section 

60.2710(a)), nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide as listed 

in table 8 of this subpart. You must determine compliance 

with the mercury emissions limit using a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring system according to the following 

requirements:

(1) Operate a continuous emission monitor in 

accordance with performance specification 12A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B or a sorbent trap based integrated 

monitor in accordance with performance specification 12B of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix B or appendix K of 40 CFR part 75. 

The duration of the performance test must be a calendar 

month. For each calendar month in which the waste-burning

kiln operates, hourly mercury concentration data and stack 

gas volumetric flow rate data must be obtained. 

(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous 

emissions monitoring system must install, operate, 

calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously 

measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the 
281

atmosphere according to the requirements of performance 

specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality 

assurance procedure 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, upon 

promulgation.

(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln 

must demonstrate initial compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emission monitor while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and 

while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not 

operating.

(i) 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 (j) of this section. This 

requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under 

§60.13(i).

(j) For each continuous monitoring system required in 

this section, you must develop and submit to the EPA 
282

Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring plan

according to the requirements of this paragraph (j) that 

addresses paragraphs (j)(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.
283

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

in accordance with the general requirements of 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system in accordance with your sitespecific monitoring plan.

(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan.

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

use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (j) and (k)(1) through (4) of 

this section.

(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of 2 percent of the flow rate.

(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.

(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semiannually.

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

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
284

requirements in paragraphs (j) and (l)(1) through (6) of 

this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum 

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration 

quarterly and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor 

exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor.

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

use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (j) and (m)(1) through (3) of 

this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured.
285

(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two 

points every 8 hours of process operation.

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

use of equipment to monitor voltage and secondary current 

(or total power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use voltage and secondary current monitoring 

equipment to measure voltage and secondary current to the 

electrostatic precipitator.

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

use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g. , 

weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement 

device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (j) 

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

(1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate.

(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer's procedures and specifications.

(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and 

specifications.

(p) 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
286

continuously operate a bag leak detection system as 

specified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (8) of this section.

(1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.

(2) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer's written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance 

provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997.

(3) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less.

(4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor.

(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped 

with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where 

it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
287

(7) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell.

(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors.

(q) For facilities using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit, compliance with the sulfur dioxide 

emission limit may be demonstrated by using the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in §60.2165 to measure 

sulfur dioxide and calculating a 24-hour daily geometric

average emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 

19, sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable. The sulfur 

dioxide continuous emission monitoring system must be 

operated according to performance specification 2 in 

appendix B of this part and must follow the procedures and 

methods specified in this paragraph (q). For sources that 

have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million 

dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet 

sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems 

should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of 

the reference method test data in terms of the units of the 
288

emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume 

absolute value of the mean difference between the reference 

method and the continuous emission monitoring systems, 

whichever is greater.

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, 

sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and 

(q)(1)(ii) of this section.

(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, 

or 6C, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 — Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and 

Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17] must be 

used.

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Method 3, 

3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19–10–1981 —

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and 

Apparatus] (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 
289

control device must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated 

hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit

subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous 

emission monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur 

dioxide control device must be 50 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the 

unit subject to this rule.

(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.

(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and/or zero and 

span adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using 

other monitoring systems as approved by EPA or EPA 

Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid 

emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per 

day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 

percent of the hours per calendar year that the affected 

facility is operated and combusting solid waste (as that 

term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D 

of RCRA).

(r) For facilities using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate continuous compliance with 
290

the nitrogen oxides emission limit, compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emission limit may be demonstrated by using 

the continuous emission monitoring system specified in 

§60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a 24-

hour daily arithmetic average emission concentration using 

EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1. The nitrogen oxides 

continuous emission monitoring system must be operated 

according to performance specification 2 in appendix B of 

this part and must follow the procedures and methods 

specified in paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(5) of this 

section.

(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, 

nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) and 

(r)(1)(ii) of this section.

(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 

7C, 7D, or 7E must be used.

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–

19.10–1981 —Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
291

Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17], as applicable, must be used.

(2) The span value of the continuous emission 

monitoring system must be 125 percent of the maximum 

estimated hourly potential nitrogen oxide emissions of 

unit.

(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests must be performed in accordance 

with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.

(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions 

monitoring data are not obtained because of continuous 

emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks and zero and span adjustments, emissions data must 

be obtained using other monitoring systems as approved by 

EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, 

valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the 

hours per day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar

quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year the 

unit is operated and combusting solid waste.

(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may 

request that compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission 

limit be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 
292

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be reestablished during performance 

compliance tests.

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be 

used to determine the relationship between oxygen and 

carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3, 3A, or 3B, 

or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 —Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] 

(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.

(s) 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 24-hour block average, calculated 
293

following the procedures in EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 

of this part.

(2) Operate all continuous emissions monitoring 

system in accordance with the applicable procedures under 

appendices B and F of this part.

(t) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an 

emissions standards deviation for particulate matter, HCl, 

Pb, Cd and Hg.

61. Section 60.2715 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2715 By what date must I conduct the annual 

performance test?

You must conduct annual performance tests within 12 

months following the initial performance test. Conduct 

subsequent annual performance tests within 12 months 

following the previous one.

62. 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.

63. Section 60.2720 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2720 May I conduct performance testing less often?
294

(a) You can test less often for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, provided:

(1) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive

years.

(2) The test data results for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity is less than 75 

percent of the emissions or opacity limit. 

(3) There are no changes in the operation of the 

affected source or air pollution control equipment that 

could affect emissions. In this case, you do not have to 

conduct a performance test for that pollutant for the next 

2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the 

third year and no more than 36 months following the 

previous performance test.

(b) If your CISWI unit continues to emit less than 75 

percent of the emission limitation for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity and there are 

no changes in the operation of the affected facility or air 

pollution control equipment that could increase emissions, 

you may choose to conduct performance tests for these 

pollutants every third year, but each test must be within 

36 months of the previous performance test.

(c) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 

percent or greater of the emission or opacity limitation 
295

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or 

opacity, you must conduct annual performance tests for that 

pollutant until all performance tests over a 3-year period 

are within 75 percent of the applicable emission 

limitation.

64. Section 60.2730 is amended by revising paragraph (c)

and adding paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as follows:

§60.2730 What monitoring equipment must I install and what 

parameters must I monitor?

* * * * *

(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 mercury sorbent flow rate once per 

hour.
296

(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to 

comply with the emission limitations, you must complete the 

following:

(1) Following the date on which the initial 

performance test is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2690, whichever date comes first, 

ensure that the affected facility does not operate above 

the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary 

chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or 

the minimum reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour rolling 

averages (calculated each hour as the average of the 

previous 3 operating hours) at all times. Operating 

parameter limits are confirmed or reestablished during 

performance tests.

(2) Operation of the affected facility above the 

maximum charge rate, below the minimum secondary chamber 

temperature and below the minimum reagent flow rate 

simultaneously constitute a violation of the nitrogen 

oxides emissions limit.

(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to 

comply with the emission limits of this subpart, you must 

monitor the voltage and amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-hour 
297

block averages at or above the operating limits established 

during the mercury or particulate matter performance test.

(g) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

hydrogen chloride emissions limit, 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 of 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 
298

Federal Register. The owner or operator who elects to 

continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions instead of 

sampling and testing using EPA Method 23 of 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 appropriate 

performance 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 of appendix A-8 of this part, ASTM D6784-02 (2008), 

Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle 

Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from CoalFired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), or an 

approved alternative method for measuring mercury 

emissions, must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 
299

continuous automated sampling system and must comply with 

the requirements specified in §60.58b(p) and (q).

(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

nitrogen oxides emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous emissions monitoring system for the 

nitrogen oxides annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring 

nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 

record the output of the system. The requirements under 

performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the 

quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part 

and the procedures under §60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system.

(2) Following the date that the initial performance 

test for nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2690, compliance with the emission 

limit for nitrogen oxides required under §60.52b(d) must be 

determined based on the 24-hour daily arithmetic average of 

the hourly emission concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million 
300

by volume (dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour 

daily arithmetic average concentrations. The 1-hour 

arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data 

points required under §60.13(e)(2).

(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

sulfur dioxide emissions limit, a facility may substitute 

use of a continuous automated sampling system for the 

sulfur dioxide annual performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions limits. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system for measuring sulfur 

dioxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record 

the output of the system. requirements under performance 

specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the quality 

assurance requirements of procedure 1 of appendix F of this 

part and the procedures under §60.13 must be followed for 

installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system.

(2) Following the date that the initial performance 

test for sulfur dioxide is completed or is required to be 

completed under §60.2690, compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission limit may be determined based on the 24-

hour daily geometric average of the hourly arithmetic 

average emission concentrations using continuous emission 
301

monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages must be expressed in parts per million corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 

24-hour daily geometric 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 that do not use a wet 

scrubber, 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(e).

(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 
302

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, an owner or operator must

install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous 

emission monitoring system for monitoring particulate 

matter emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record 

the output of the system. The owner or operator of an 

affected facility who continuously monitors particulate 

matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing

using EPA Method 5 must install, calibrate, maintain and

operate a continuous emission monitoring system and must 

comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) 

through (n)(14) of this section. 
303

(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 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 
304

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

§60.2710(r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv).

(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility 

must conduct an initial performance test for particulate 

matter emissions as required under §60.2690. Compliance 

with the particulate matter emission limit must be 

determined by using the continuous emission monitoring 

system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to 

measure particulate matter and calculating a 24-hour block 

arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA 

Reference Method 19, section 4.1. 

(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission 

limit must be determined based on the 24-hour daily (block) 

average of the hourly arithmetic average emission 

concentrations using continuous emission monitoring system 

outlet data.

(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system 

hourly averages must be obtained as specified §60.2735(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 (or carbon dioxide)(dry basis) and must be 

used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average 

emission concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages 
305

must be calculated using the data points required under 

§60.13(e)(2).

(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system 

data must be used in calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum continuous emission 

monitoring system data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of 

this section are not met.

(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must 

be operated according to performance specification 11 in 

appendix B of this part. 

(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emission monitoring system required by 

performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part, 

particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must 

be collected concurrently (or within a 30-to 60-minute 

period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the 

following test methods.

(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 

must be used. 

(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference 

Method 3, 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. 
306

(14) When particulate matter emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and zero and span 

adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using other 

monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA 

Reference Method 19 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) For energy recovery units, you must install, 

operate, certify and maintain a continuous emissions

monitoring system for carbon monoxide, according to the 

requirements of performance specification 4B of appendix B 

of this part and quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix

F of this part. 

(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.

65. Section 60.2735 is revised to read as follows:

§60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I 

must obtain?
307

(a) You must conduct all monitoring at all times the 

CISWI unit is operating.

(b) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods in assessing compliance with the operating limits.

(c) For continuous emission monitoring systems for 

measuring sulfur dioxide emissions, valid continuous 

monitoring system hourly averages must be obtained as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section

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 combusting waste. All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data must be used in calculating average 

emission concentrations and percent reductions even if the 

minimum continuous emission monitoring system data 

requirements of this paragraph (c) are not met.

(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to 

calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.

(2) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour arithmetic average 

must be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis 

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system data.

(d) For continuous emission monitoring systems for 

measuring nitrogen oxides emissions, valid continuous 
308

emission monitoring system hourly averages must be obtained 

as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this 

section 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 combusting waste. All valid continuous 

emission monitoring system data must be used in calculating 

average emission concentrations and percent reductions even 

if the minimum continuous emission monitoring system data 

requirements of this paragraph (d) are not met.

(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to 

calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.

(2) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour arithmetic average 

must be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis 

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system data.

(e) For continuous emission monitoring systems for 

measuring particulate matter emissions, valid continuous 

monitoring system hourly averages must be obtained as 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) 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 source is combusting waste. 

All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must 
309

be used in calculating average emission concentrations and 

percent reductions even if the minimum continuous emission 

monitoring system data requirements of this paragraph (c) 

are not met.

(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to 

calculate each one-hour arithmetic average.

(2) Each particulate matter one-hour arithmetic 

average must be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly 

basis using the one-hour arithmetic average of the oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system 

data.

66. 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 (t).

§60.2740 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) as 

specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (t) 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 
310

§60.2675(d) through (f) or §60.2680, you must maintain data 

collected for all operating parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits.

* * * * *

(c) [Reserved]

(d) [Reserved]

(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for 

which data show a deviation from the operating limits in 

table 3 of this subpart or a deviation from other operating 

limits established under §60.2675(d) through (f) or 

§60.2680 with a description of the deviations, reasons for 

such deviations, and a description of corrective actions 

taken.

* * * * *

(n) Maintain records of the annual air pollution 

control device inspections that are required for each CISWI 

unit subject to the emissions limits in table 2 of this 

subpart or tables 6 through 10 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 
311

following parameters measured using continuous monitoring 

systems.

(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.

(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur 

dioxide emissions.

(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen 

oxides emissions.

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon 

monoxide emissions.

(5) All one-hour average concentrations of 

particulate matter emissions.

(6) All one-hour average concentrations of mercury 

emissions.

(7) All one-hour average concentrations of hydrogen 

chloride emissions.

(p) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times and durations. 

(q) If you choose to stack test less frequently than 

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

keep annual records that document that your emissions in 

the previous stack test(s) were less than 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit and document that there was no 

change in source operations including fuel composition and 

operation of air pollution control equipment that would 
312

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.

67. Section 60.2770 is amended by revising paragraph (e) 

and adding paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as follows:

§60.2770 What information must I include in my annual 

report?

* * * * *

(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or 

operating limit that applies to you has been reported, a 

statement that there was no deviation from the emission 

limitations or operating limits during the reporting 

period.
313

* * * * *

(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction.

(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating 

limitation that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are 

not using a CMS to comply with the emission or operating 

limitations in this subpart, the annual report must contain 

the following information.

(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at 

which the deviation occurred during the reporting period.

(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of 

deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.

(m) If there were periods during which the continuous 

monitoring system, including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was out of control as specified in 
314

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 
315

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes.

(7) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the CISWI unit 

at which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period.

(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the CISWI unit.

(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.

(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit.

(12) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period.

(n) If there were periods during which the continuous 

monitoring system, including the continuous emission 

monitoring system, was not out of control as specified in 

paragraph (o) of this section, a statement that there were 

not periods during which the continuous monitoring system 

was out of control during the reporting period.
316

(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.

68. 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.

* * * * *
317

69. 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 conducted to

demonstrate compliance with this subpart, the owner or 

operator of the affected facility must submit the test data 

to EPA by entering the data electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database through EPA’s Central Data Exchange. The 

owner or operator of an affected source shall enter the 

test data into EPA’s database using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool or other compatible electronic spreadsheet. 

Only performance evaluation data collected using methods 

compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 

submitted electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database.

70. 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 

affected by this subpart must operate pursuant to a permit 

issued under Section 129(e) and title V of the Clean Air 

Act.
318

* * * * *

71. 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.

* * * * *

72. Section 60.2870 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 

to read as follows:

§ 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for air curtain incinerators?

* * * * *

(c) * * *
319

(1) The types of materials you plan to combust in 

your air curtain incinerator.

(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.

* * * * *

73. Section 60.2875 is amended by:

a. Adding definitions for “Burn-off oven”, “Bypass 

stack”, “Kiln”, “Energy recovery unit”, “Incinerator”, 

“Minimum voltage or amperage”, “Opacity”, “Raw mill”, 

“Small remote incinerator”, “Solid waste incineration unit” 

and “Waste-burning kiln”, in alphabetical order.

b. Revising the definition for “Commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit.”

c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for 

“Deviation.”

d. Removing the definition for “Agricultural waste”, 

“Commercial or industrial waste”, “Malfunction” and “Solid 

Waste”.

§60.2875 What definitions must I know?

* * * * *

Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part 

reclamation unit, or drum reclamation unit. 
320

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment.

* * * * *

Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration 

(CISWI) unit means any distinct operating unit of any 

commercial or industrial facility that combusts any solid

waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR Part 241. 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. 

* * * * *
321

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 pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) for energy 

recovery. Energy recovery units include units that would 

be considered boilers and process heaters if they did not 

combust solid waste. 

* * * * *

Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of 

combusting solid waste (as the term is defined by the 

Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing 
322

combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single 

chamber, two-chamber and cyclonic burn barrels. 

* * * * *

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 and lime kilns, that produce quicklime by 

calcination of limestone.

* * * * *

Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the 

lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator measured from the pressure drop 

and liquid flow rate monitors during the most recent 

particulate matter or mercury performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission 

limits.

* * * * *

Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the 

transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in 

the background.

* * * * *
323

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 pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) and has the 

capacity to combust 1 ton per day or less solid waste and 

is more than 50 miles driving distance to the nearest 

municipal solid waste landfill.

Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct 

operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid 

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 
324

secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary 

purpose of recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power 

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

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying 

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

the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn 

homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used 

oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the 

production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying 

cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste for 

the production of electric energy and steam or forms of 

useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain 

incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood 

wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air 

curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be

established by the Administrator by rule.

* * * * *

Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in 

whole or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that term 

is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of 

RCRA).

* * * * *
325

74. Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules

Comply with these increments 

of progress By these datesa

Increment 1—Submit final 

control plan

(Dates to be specified in 

state plan)

Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in 

state plan)b

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of 

the state.

b The date can be no later than 3 years after the 

effective date of state plan approval or December 1, 2005 

for CISWI units that commenced construction on or before 

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

after the effective date of approval of a revised state

plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that 

commenced construction on or before [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

75. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is amended by revising the 

title and adding footnote b to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply Before. [Date to be specified in 

state plan]b

* * * * *

b The date specified in the state plan can be no later 

than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a 

revised state plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

76. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is amended by:

a. Revising the entry for “Annual Report”.
326

b. Revising the entry for “Emission limitation or 

operating limit deviation report”.

Table 5 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirementsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

* * * * * * *

Annual 

report

No later than 12 

months following the 

submission of the 

initial test report. 

Subsequent reports 

are to be submitted 

no more than 12 

months following the 

previous report

• Name and address

• Statement and 

signature by 

responsible official

• Date of report

• Values for the 

operating limits

• Highest recorded 3-

hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour 

average, as 

applicable, for each 

operating parameter 

recorded for the 

calendar year being 

reported

• If a performance 

test was conducted 

during the reporting 

period, the results 

of the test

• If a performance 

test was not 

conducted during the 

reporting period, a 

statement that the 

requirements of 

§60.2720(a) or (b) 

were met

• Documentation of 

periods when all 

qualified CISWI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for more 

than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks

§§60.2765

and 

60.2770

* * * * * * *

Emission By August 1 of that • Dates and times of §60.2775
327

Report Due date Contents Reference

limitation 

or operating 

limit 

deviation 

report

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

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

and 

60.2780

* * * * * * *

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced 

sections of the rule for the complete requirements.

77. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:

Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply To Incinerators On and After [Date 

to be specified in state plan]a

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationb

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.0013

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Carbon monoxide 2.2 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 10 of appendix 

A-4 of this part). 

Use a maximum 

allowable drift of 0.2 

ppm and a span gas 

with a CO 

concentration of 10 

ppm or less. The span 

gas must contain 

approximately the same 
328

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationb

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

concentration of CO2 

expected from the 

source.

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

0.031

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix

A-7 of this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.0025

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

29 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.0026

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Mercury 0.0028

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 or 30B of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Opacity 1% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity 

values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

34 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

Performance test 

(Method 7E of appendix 

A-4 of this part).
329

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationb

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

sample time 

per run)

Particulate 

matter

filterable

13 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 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Sulfur dioxide 2.5 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part. Use a maximum 

allowable drift of 0.2 

ppm and a span gas 

with concentration of 

5 ppm or less. 

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

a The date specified in the state plan can be no later 

than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a 

revised state plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

b All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

78. 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 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

Cadmium 0.00041

milligrams 

3-run average 

(collect a 

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 
330

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Carbon monoxide 150 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 10 of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

0.75

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.059

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

1.5 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 1 

dry standard 

cubic meter)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.002

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A-8 of this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Mercury 0.00096

milligrams 

per dry 

standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum 

volume of 2 

dry standard 

cubic meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of appendix 

A of this part).

Opacity 1% 6-minute 

averages;

1-hour block 

average for 

Continuous opacity 

monitoring 

(performance 

specification 1 of 
331

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging 

time

And determining 

compliance using this 

method

units that 

operate dry 

control 

systems

appendix B of this 

part), unless equipped 

with a wet scrubber.

Oxides of 

nitrogen

130 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of appendix 

A-4 of this part).

Particulate 

matter

filterable

9.2

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 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of this 

part) if the unit has 

a design capacity less 

than or equal to 250 

MMBtu/hr; or PM CEMS 

(performance 

specification 11 of 

appendix B of this 

part) if the unit has 

a design capacity 

greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr.

Sulfur dioxide 4.1 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum 

sample time 

per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part. Use a span gas 

with a concentration 

of 20 ppm or less.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission test 

(Method 22 of appendix 

A-7 of this part).

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

79. Table 8 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
332

Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply to Waste-burning Kilns After [DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Cadmium 0.0003

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Carbon monoxide 710 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 10 of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

2.1 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

0.17 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

1.5 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Lead 0.0027

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 2 dry 

standard cubic 

meters)

Performance test

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of this 

part).

Mercury 0.024

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Mercury CEMS 

(performance 

specification 12A of 

appendix B of this 

part or mercury 

sorbent trap method 
333

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

specified in 

appendix K of part 

75)

Opacity 4% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

1100 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part).

Particulate 

matter

filterable

60 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 of 

appendix A-3 of this 

part).

Sulfur dioxide 410 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of this 

part.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of this 

part).

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

80. Table 9 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
334

Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply to Burn-off Ovens After [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Cadmium 0.0045

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Carbon monoxide 80 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 10, 10A, or 

10B of appendix A-4

of this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

310 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

25 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

130 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).

Lead 0.041

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part). Use 

ICPMS for the 

analytical finish.

Mercury 0.014

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).
335

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Opacity 2% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average 

opacity values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of 

appendix A-4 of 

this part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

120 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of 

appendix A-4 of 

this part).

Particulate 

matter

filterable

33 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 of 

appendix A-3 or 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).

Sulfur dioxide 11 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour 

minimum sample 

time per run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c of 

appendix A-4 of 

this part. Use a 

span gas with a 

concentration of 50 

ppm or less.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 

5% of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

81. Table 10 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
336

Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limitations That Apply to Small, Remote Incinerators After 

[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register]

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Cadmium 0.26 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).

Carbon monoxide 78 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour minimum 

sample time per 

run)

Performance test 

(Method 10 of 

appendix A-4 of 

this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass

basis)

1600 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

130 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 23 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

Hydrogen 

chloride

150 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter

Performance test 

(Method 26A of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).

Lead 1.4 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meter)

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).

Mercury 0.0029

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

Performance test 

(Method 29 of 

appendix A-8 of 

this part).
337

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission

limitationa

Using this 

averaging time

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

meter)

Opacity 13% Three 1-hour 

blocks 

consisting of 

ten 6-minute 

average opacity 

values

Performance test 

(Method 9 of 

appendix A-4 of 

this part).

Oxides of 

nitrogen

210 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour minimum 

sample time per 

run)

Performance test 

(Method 7E of 

appendix A-4 of 

this part).

Particulate 

matter

filterable

240 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 

of appendix A-3 

or appendix A-8

of this part).

Sulfur dioxide 44 parts per 

million dry 

volume

3-run average 

(1 hour minimum 

sample time per 

run)

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6c 

of appendix A-4

of this part.

Fugitive ash Visible 

emissions for 

no more than 5%

of the hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7

of this part).

a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are 

measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.