31938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119; FRL–9148–4] 

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 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 July 19, 2010. 

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 July 6, 2010. 

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 Register, on 

June 21, 2010. Persons requesting to 

speak at a public hearing must contact 

EPA by June 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2003–0119, by one of the 

following methods: 

http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: Send your comments via 

electronic mail to a-and-r-Docket@epa.

gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0119. 

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 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 http:// 

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 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 

June 21, 2010. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony at the hearing 

should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Natural 

Resources and Commerce Group, at 

(919) 541–4487 by June 14, 2010. 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 Web site to confirm the date of the 

public hearing as well. If no one 

requests to speak at the public hearing 

by June 14, 2010 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 the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at http:// 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31939 

1Note 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. 

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; telephone number: (919) 541– 

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

C. EPA’s Approach in Conducting the FiveYear 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? 

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 Low-Income 

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 entities 1

Any industrial or commercial facility using a solid waste incinerator.211, 212, 486 Mining, oil and gas exploration operations; pipeline operators. 

221 Utility providers. 

321, 322, 337 Manufacturers of wood products; manufacturers of pulp, 

paper and paperboard; manufacturers of furniture and related products. 

325, 326 Manufacturers of chemicals and allied products; manufacturers of plastics and rubber products. 

327 Manufacturers of cement. 

333, 336 Manufacturers of machinery; manufacturers of transportation 

equipment. 

42, 44, 45 Wholesale merchants; retail merchants. 

Thistable 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 http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI to only the following 

address: Ms. Toni Jones, c/o OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404– 

02), U.S. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

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–OAR–2003–0119. 

4. Worldwide Web (WWW) 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the 

proposed action is available on the 

WWW through the Technology Transfer 

Network Web site (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 http:// 

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 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 (DC 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) ‘‘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 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 

non-hazardous 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 non-hazardous 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. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31941 

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 

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 (DC Cir. 2008) (addressing the 

similarly required two-stage 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 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 

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 ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ 

requirements. If EPA concludes that the 

more stringent regulatory options have 

unreasonable impacts, EPA 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 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 CFR 

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 chlorinated dibenzop-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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

venturi scrubbers, selective noncatalytic 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 paper, cardboard, 

plastics, glass, batteries or metals. 

Separation of wastes can reduce the 

amount of chlorine- and metalcontaining 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 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 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 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; 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? 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31943 

2EPA 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 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. 

3The 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. 

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 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 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 

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 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%) × TINV(2 × 

probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) × 

SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed 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%) × TINV(2 

× probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) × 

SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]}, for a one-tailed 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 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

4American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

Reference Method Accuracy and Precision 

(ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 

Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 

2001. 

when the database includes emissions 

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 times the method 

detection level.4 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-thefloor 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 testspecific 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 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 beyondthe-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 

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 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 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31945 

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] 

Pollutant (units) 1

Incinerators 

(2000 CISWI 

limit) 

Proposed CISWI subcategories 

Incinerators Energy 

recovery units 

Waste-burning 

kilns Burn-off 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 1,600 

dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) ..... 0 .41 0 .0025 0 .059 0 .17 25 130 

NOX (ppmv) ................................. 388 34 130 1,100 120 210 

SO2 (ppmv) .................................. 20 2 .5 4 .1 410 11 44 

Opacity (%) .................................. 10 1 1 4 2 13 

1All 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 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] 

Pollutant (units) 1 Incinerators 

(2000 limit) 

Proposed CISWI subcategories 

Incinerators Energy 

recovery units 

Waste-burning 

kilns Burn-off 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 1,200 

dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) ..... 0 .41 0 .00073 0 .0027 0 .000028 0 .00086 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 

1All 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 nonhazardous 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT IN THE

CONCURRENTLY PROPOSED RCRA RULE

Pollutant 

(units) 1

Proposed MACT floor for existing 

units 

Proposed MACT floor for new 

units 

Energy 

recovery units 

Waste-burning 

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 1,100 63 140 

SO2 (ppmv) .............................................................................................. 1,500 410 0 .040 3 .6 

Opacity (%) .............................................................................................. 1 4 1 1 

1All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen. 

B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) FiveYear 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 

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 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 

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 entitled 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31947 

‘‘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 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 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 five-year 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 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 (DC 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 

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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 ‘‘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 

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 

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 waste-burning 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 

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 waste-burning 

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). 

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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31949 

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 

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 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 Web 

site 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 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, 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 Web site accessible 

through EPA’s TTN. The WebFIRE Web 

site 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 

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 practicable. However, 

because we believe that many CISWI 

units will find it necessary to retrofit 

existing emission control equipment 

and/or install additional emission 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5All 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. 

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 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’’ 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. 

Thus, under these proposed 

amendments, units in the incinerators 

subcategory that commenced 

construction after November 30, 1999, 

and on or before June 4, 2010, 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 June 4, 2010 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 

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) FiveYear 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31951 

6 In calculating the floors for this proposed rule, 

we included units combusting manure. 

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. 

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 nontechnology 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 wasteburning kiln and energy recovery unit 

subcategories, and believe 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 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, 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 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), batchoperated, 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

7The 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)). 

8The 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. 

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 

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-bypollutant 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. 

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, 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 test-to-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 

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 subcategory = .. 28 28 28 28 

No. in MACT floor = ..................... 4 4 4 4 

Avg of top 12% ............................ 4 .01 0 .000359 0 .000362 0 .00125 

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 subcategory = .. 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 

Waste-burning kilns ...................... No. of sources in subcategory = .. 53 53 53 53 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31953 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—PM, HG, CD AND PB—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter PM 

(mg/dscm) 

Hg 

(mg/dscm) 

Cd 

(mg/dscm) Pb (mg/dscm) 

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 subcategory = .. 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 

Proposed Limit = .......................... 33 0 .014 0 .0045 0 .041 

Small, remote incinerators ............ No. of sources in subcategory = .. 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 subcategory = ................. 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 subcategory = ................. 40 40 40 

No. in MACT floor = .................................... 5 5 5 

Avg of top 12% ............................................ 0 .2415 64 .24 1 .67 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = ..................... 1 .42 124 .55 4 .01 

Proposed Limit = ......................................... 1 .5 130 4 .1 

Waste-burning kilns ..................................... No. of sources in subcategory = ................. 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 subcategory = ................. 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 subcategory = ................. 19 19 19 

No. in MACT floor = .................................... 3 3 3 

Avg of top 12% ............................................ 66 .5 91 .83 12 .18 

99% UL of top% (test runs) = ..................... 143 .7 207 43 .35 

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 

Waste-burning kilns ............................... No. of sources in subcategory = ........... 53 53 53 

No. in MACT floor = .............................. 7 7 7 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—CO AND DIOXIN/FURANS—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter CO 

(ppmdv) 

Dioxin/Furan (total 

mass basis) 

(ng/dscm) 

Dioxin/Furan (total 

TEQ basis) 

(ng/dscm) a

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. 

Using the UL approach described 

above for the dioxins/furans TEQ data 

sometimes resulted in a 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 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 

99% UL of top (test runs) = ......... 4 .37 0 .00013 0 .000115 0 .001189 

Proposed limit = ........................... 4 .4 0 .00013 0 .00012 0 .0012 

Waste-burning 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 = ........................... 240b 0 .0013 0 .057 1 .4b

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 top (test runs) = .................. 0 .169 74 .52 4 .44 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31955 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—HCl, NOX, SO2—Continued 

Subcategory Parameter HCL 

(ppmdv) 

NOX

(ppmdv) 

SO2

(ppmdv) 

Proposed limit = .................................... 0 .17 75 4 .1a

Waste-burning 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 .5c

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) 210a 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 non-zero 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 top (test runs) = 1 .39 0 .00927 0 .035 

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 

Waste-burning 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. 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 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 bestperforming 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 bestperforming 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%) × TINV(2 × 

probability, n¥1 degrees of freedom) × 

SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed 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%) × TINV(2 × 

probability, n¥1 degrees of freedom) × 

SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]}, for a one-tailed 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

CISWI. We considered how to 

appropriately account for variability, 

given the differences in opacity testing 

versus testing for the nine regulated 

pollutants. Because 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 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 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 beyondthe-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 beyondthe-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 beyondthe-floor alternatives. EPA will evaluate 

the comments and any other additional 

information and may adopt beyond-thefloor options for the final rule if any that 

are identified are determined to be 

reasonable. 

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 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 beyondthe-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 additional SO2

control device if the existing scrubber 

could not be modified to comply with 

the beyond-the-floor limit. The floor 

limits established above for wasteburning 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 wasteburning kilns. 

• For Hg and CDD/CDF, activated 

carbon would be added and the carbon 

addition rate would be adjusted to meet 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31957 

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, tuneups, advanced combustion controls or 

catalytic oxidation for each subcategory 

except for waste-burning kilns and 

energy recovery units. No beyond-thefloor options are available for these two 

subcategories, as discussed below. 

CO. For CO, we evaluated afterburner 

retrofits, tune-ups, 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 $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-the-floor CO limit of 

3 ppm. In comparison, the proposed 

MACT floor emission limit is 150 ppm. 

Therefore, the beyond-the-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 

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 

beyond-the-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-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 unit-specific 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 (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-thefloor NOX emission limits. 

HCl and SO2. We expect that wasteburning 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 beyondthe-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 wasteburning 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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 

beyond-the-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 

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 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 beyond-the-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 beyondthe-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 Waste-Burning 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 controls 

described above. Table 10 of this 

preamble lists the incremental costs and 

pollutant emissions reductions relative 

to the MACT floor level of control. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31959 

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 

Hg, CDD/CDF .................................................. Energy recovery unit ....................................... 18,562,287 0.03 618,742,900 

Waste-burning 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 

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 beyondthe-floor emissions reductions for the 

‘‘alternative approach’’ identified for 

consideration and comment in a parallel 

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 waste-burning 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 beyond-thefloor costs is discussed in ‘‘Compliance 

Cost Analyses for Existing CISWI Units’’ 

found in the CISWI docket. 

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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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***’’ 

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 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, 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 wasteburning kiln are exempt from those 

standards because they are subject to the 

CISWI standards. 

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. 

• 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 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31961 

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 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. 

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, multi-metals CEMS, integrated 

sorbent trap Hg monitoring and 

integrated sorbent trap dioxin 

monitoring will be available 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. 

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 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 waste-burning 

kilns and large incinerators. EPA 

specifically solicits comment on 

appropriate size thresholds for requiring 

PM CEMS on incinerators. 

Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems. 

EPA also is proposing the optional use 

of NOX CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS, 

multi-metals 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 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-by-side 

evaluations of multi-metals CEMS with 

EPA Method 29 of appendix A–8 of 40 

CFR part 60 at industrial waste 

incinerators and found good correlation. 

EPA also approved the use of multimetals 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 multimetals 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 

Monitoring System or appendix K of 

Part 75) for waste-burning 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 multi-metals 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 site-specific monitoring 

plan. As with Hg and multi-metal 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31963 

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 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 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 ......... Integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring system (ISTDMS) 

and multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS or integrated sorbent 

trap mercury monitoring system (ISTMMS). 

Minimum Hg sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon injection) ... Hg. 

Minimum HCl sorbent flow rate (Dry scrubbers, spray dryers 

or duct sorbent injection).

HCl ......................... HCl CEMS. 

Minimum scrubber pressure drop/horsepower amperage 

(Wet scrubber).

PM, Cd, Pb, Hg ..... PM CEMS. 

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 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 (PS–12A), or 

integrated sorbent trap mercury monitoring 

system (PS–12 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF CISWI TEST METHODS AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVE METHODS—Continued 

Pollutant/parameter Test method(s) 1 Approved alternative method(s) Comments 

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. 

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 operatordeveloped 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 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). While the Court’s 

ruling did not specifically address the 

legality of source category-specific 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 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 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 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31965 

be amended by Federal rulemaking, 

thus they cannot be transferred to State, 

local or tribal air pollution control 

agencies. We are also 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 

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, burn-off 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. 

Lastly, these units would have to 

compare the control requirements 

needed to meet the CISWI emission 

limits with those needed if they stop 

burning solid waste and are then subject 

to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned 

before, we have attempted to align the 

monitoring requirements for similar 

non-waste burning sources as closely as 

possible in an effort to make them 

consistent and to help sources make the 

cross-walk between waste and nonwaste regulatory requirements as simple 

as possible. 

The emissions reductions that would 

be achieved under this proposed rule 

using the 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 

burn-off 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 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

burn-off 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 

aThe 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 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 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 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

Pollutant 

Emission reduction for CISWI subcategory model Units (ton/yr unless otherwise 

noted) 

Incinerator Burn-off oven Small, remote 

incinerator 

Energy 

recovery unit 

Waste-burning 

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/furan (total mass)1 ................................................ 0 .0 0.0 0 .003 0.01 0.001 

NOX .................................................................................. 9 .6 0.8 0 .0 133.9 1,242 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31967 

TABLE 15—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ON A MODEL PLANT BASIS—Continued 

Pollutant 

Emission reduction for CISWI subcategory model Units (ton/yr unless otherwise 

noted) 

Incinerator Burn-off oven Small, remote 

incinerator 

Energy 

recovery unit 

Waste-burning 

kiln 

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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

9Roman 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. 10Fann, 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. 

11Pope 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. 12Laden et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

13U.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. 

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) 

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

PM2.5 Precursors ..................................... ........................ ..................................................................

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

NOX ......................................................... 1,447 $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

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 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 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31969 

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 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 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 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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

by-products of combustion, the 

formation of POM and PCBs is 

effectively reduced by the combustion 

and post-combustion practices required 

to comply with the CAA Section 129 

standards. Any POM and PCBs that do 

form during combustion are further 

controlled by the various postcombustion CISWI controls. The add-on 

PM control systems (either fabric filter 

or wet scrubber) and activated carbon 

injection 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 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 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 

$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 June 4, 2010, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by July 6, 2010. The final rule will 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31971 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

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 gas-fired 

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 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 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 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 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 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 megawatthours 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 

regard to energy supplies would not be 

significant. We, therefore, conclude that 

if there were to be any adverse energy 

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 

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 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 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 

specifications, or procedures in the final 

rule and any amendments. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31973 

14U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

15Mohai P, Saha R. ‘‘Reassessing Racial and 

Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental 

Justice Research’’. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383– 

399. 

16Mennis 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. 

17Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

18The results of the demographic analysis are 

presented in ‘‘Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts’’, April 2010, a copy of which is available 

in the docket. 

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 

Low-Income 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 

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 sources. In this 

approach, EPA reviewed the 

distributions of different sociodemographic 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 socioeconomic 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 have lower 

proportions of Whites and American 

Indians, higher proportions of AfricanAmericans, 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, lowincome, 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 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 Web site (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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 29, 2010. 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. 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]. * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

(1) A commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration unit that commenced 

construction after June 4, 2010. 

(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 paragraph (o). 

§ 60.2020 What combustion units are 

exempt from this subpart? 

This subpart exempts the types of 

units described in paragraphs (a), (c) 

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

some units are required to provide 

notifications. Air curtain incinerators 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this subpart except for the provisions in 

§§ 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260. 

* * * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Municipal waste combustion units. 

Incineration units that are regulated 

under subpart Ea of this part (Standards 

of Performance for Municipal Waste 

Combustors); 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 the 

volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter. Sewage 

sludge incineration unit designs may 

include fluidized bed and multiple 

hearth. 

§ 60.2025 [Removed] 

6. Section 60.2025 is 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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2045 Who must prepare a siting 

analysis? 

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you plan to commence construction of 

an incinerator after December 1, 2000. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis 

for CISWI units that commenced 

construction after June 4, 2010 or that 

commenced reconstruction or 

modification after [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. 

* * * * * 

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 revised to read 

as follow: 

§ 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 June 4, 2010 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 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. 

(f) If you use selective noncatalytic 

reduction to comply with the emission 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31975 

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 sitespecific 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. 

(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] 

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 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. 

(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 

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 delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at 

least 7 days’ prior notice of the 

rescheduled date of the performance 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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? 

(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. 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 § 60.2115. 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 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 § 60.2145(a)), nitrogen oxides and 

sulfur dioxide as listed 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31977 

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 wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial 

compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system while the raw mill of the in-line 

kiln/raw mill is under normal operating 

conditions and while the raw mill of the 

in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating. 

(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 

Administrator for approval a sitespecific 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. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system in accordance with 

your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

the continuous monitoring system in 

continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(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. 

(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 

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 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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. 

(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 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. 

(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. 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31979 

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. 

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, 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. 

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, 

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 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). 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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). 

(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 

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-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 one (1) 

month before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator one (1) 

month before stopping use of the 

system. 

(3) The monitor must be installed, 

evaluated and operated in accordance 

with the requirements of performance 

specification 11 of appendix B of this 

part and quality assurance requirements 

of procedure two of appendix F of this 

part and § 60.13. 

(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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31981 

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. 

(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, 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 

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 

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) 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 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. 

(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] 

(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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31982 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(p) For continuously monitored 

pollutants or parameters, you must 

document and keep a record of the 

following parameters measured using 

continuous monitoring systems. 

(1) All 6-minute average levels of 

opacity. 

(2) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

(3) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of nitrogen oxides emissions. 

(4) All 1-hour average concentrations 

of carbon monoxide emissions. 

(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. 

(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 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. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was inoperative, except for 

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

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out-of-control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction or during 

another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the CISWI unit. 

(9) A brief description of the CISWI 

unit. 

(10) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(n) If there were periods during which 

the continuous monitoring system, 

including the 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. 

(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 revised to read 

as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31983 

§ 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 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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2250 What are the emission 

limitations for air curtain incinerators? 

Within 60 days after your air curtain 

incinerator reaches the charge rate at 

which it will operate, but no later than 

180 days after its initial startup, you 

must meet the two limitations specified 

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

(a) Maintain opacity to less than or 

equal to 10 percent opacity (as 

determined by the average of three 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? 

* * * * * 

(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’’, ‘‘Energy recovery 

unit’’, ‘‘Incinerator’’, ‘‘Kiln’’, ‘‘Minimum 

voltage or amperage’’, ‘‘Opacity’’, ‘‘Raw 

mill’’, ‘‘Small remote incinerator’’, ‘‘Solid 

waste incineration unit’’ and ‘‘Wasteburning kiln’’, in alphabetical order. 

b. Revising the definitions for 

‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration (CISWI) unit’’ and 

‘‘Deviation’’. 

c. 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. 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31984 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 secondary smelters) which 

combust waste for the primary purpose 

of recovering metals, (B) qualifying 

small power production facilities, as 

defined in section 3(17)(C) of the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

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

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

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

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

waste (such as units which burn tires or 

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

electric energy or in the case of 

qualifying cogeneration facilities which 

burn homogeneous waste for the 

production of electric energy and steam 

or forms of useful energy (such as heat) 

which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling 

purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators 

provided that such incinerators only 

burn wood wastes, yard wastes and 

clean lumber and that such air curtain 

incinerators comply with opacity 

limitations to be established by the 

Administrator by rule. 

* * * * * 

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). 

* * * * * 

33. The heading of 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 June 4, 2010 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 entries for 

‘‘Annual Report’’ and ‘‘Emission 

limitation or operating limit deviation 

report.’’ 

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

Report Due date Contents Reference 

* * * * * * * 

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

than 12 months following the previous report.

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

• Statement and signature by responsible 

official.

• Date of report. 

• Values for the operating limits. 

• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the 

lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded for the 

calendar year being reported.

§§ 60.2205 and 60.2210. 

• If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the 

test.

• If a performance test was not conducted 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that the requirements of § 60.2155(a) 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.

§ 60.2215 and 60.2220. 

• Dates, times and causes for monitor 

downtime incidents.

* * * * * * * 

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: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31985 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION

AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6 MONTHS

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

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

Cadmium .................................. 0.00066 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 ..................... 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 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% .......................................... 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). 

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 JUNE 4, 2010 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 

limitation a 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). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS THAT COMMENCED

CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE

6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

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

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 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 ......................................... 0.0012 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 μg/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 

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 JUNE 4, 2010 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 

limitation a 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 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31987 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR WASTE-BURNING KILNS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

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

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 values.Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4 

of this part). 

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). 

aAll 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 JUNE 4, 2010 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 

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

Cadmium .................................. 0.0032 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 ..................... 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 per dry 

standard cubic meter.

3-run average (collect enough 

volume to meet a detection 

limit data quality objective 

of 0.3 ug/dscm).

Performance test (Method 30B of 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). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31988 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR BURN-OFF OVENS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6 MONTHS

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

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

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. 

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 JUNE 4, 2010 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 

limitation a 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).

1,200 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).Performance test (Method 23 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 cubic meter).Performance test (Method 26 or 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). 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 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. 

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 revised to read 

as follows. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31989 

§ 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) 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 June 4, 2010 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 

June 4, 2010. 

41. Section 60.2525 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2525 What if my State plan is not 

approvable? 

(a) If you do not submit an approvable 

State plan (or a negative declaration 

letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA will 

develop a Federal plan according to 

§ 60.27 to implement the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart. 

Owners and operators of CISWI units 

not covered by an approved State plan 

must comply with the Federal plan. The 

Federal plan is an interim action and 

will be automatically withdrawn when 

your State plan is approved. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable 

State plan (or a negative declaration 

letter) to EPA that meets the 

requirements of this subpart and 

contains the emission limits in tables 6 

through 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 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 June 4, 2010, and for 

CISWI units in the energy recovery 

units, waste-burning kilns, burn-off 

ovens, and small remote incinerators 

subcategories that commenced 

construction before June 4, 2010, your 

state plan must include compliance 

schedules that require CISWI units to 

achieve final compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable after 

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-bycase less stringent emission standards 

and longer compliance schedules in 

§ 60.24(f). 

* * * * * 

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 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: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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? 

* * * * * 

(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). 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

§ 60.2558 [Removed] 

49. Section 60.2558 is 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. 

* * * * * 

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: 

§ 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 sitespecific 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: 

§ 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31991 

(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 § 60.2710 

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? 

* * * * * 

(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 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 

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 

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: 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31992 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

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. 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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 

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 wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial 

compliance by operating a mercury 

continuous emission monitor while the 

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

under normal operating conditions and 

while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/ 

raw mill is not operating. 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31993 

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 sitespecific 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. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

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

(2) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system in accordance with 

your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must operate and maintain 

the continuous monitoring system in 

continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(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. 

(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 

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 

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. 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31994 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31995 

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? 

(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 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. 

(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 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 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 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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). 

(1) 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 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 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. 

(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 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 in§ 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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31997 

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 

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? 

(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 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 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 

§ 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 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 paragraph (o) of 

this section, the annual report must 

contain the following information for 

each deviation from an emission or 

operating limitation occurring for a 

CISWI unit for which you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to 

comply with the emission and operating 

limitations in this subpart. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was inoperative, except for 

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

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out-of-control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction or during 

another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

CISWI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the CISWI unit. 

(9) A brief description of the CISWI 

unit. 

(10) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(11) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(n) If there were periods during which 

the continuous monitoring system, 

including the 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. 

(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. 

* * * * * 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 31999 

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. 

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 paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for air curtain 

incinerators? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(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’’, ‘‘Energy recovery 

unit’’, ‘‘Incinerator’’, ‘‘Kiln’’, ‘‘Minimum 

voltage or amperage’’, ‘‘Opacity’’, ‘‘Raw 

mill’’, ‘‘Small remote incinerator’’, ‘‘Solid 

waste incineration unit’’ and ‘‘Wasteburning kiln’’, in alphabetical order. 

b. Revising the definitions for 

‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration (CISWI) unit’’ and 

‘‘Deviation’’. 

c. Removing the definitions 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. 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
32000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

residences, hotels and motels). Such 

term does not include incinerators or 

other units required to have a permit 

under section 3005 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act. The term ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ does not include (A) 

materials recovery facilities (including 

primary or secondary smelters) which 

combust waste for the primary purpose 

of recovering metals, (B) qualifying 

small power production facilities, as 

defined in section 3(17)(C) of the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

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

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

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

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

waste (such as units which burn tires or 

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

electric energy or in the case of 

qualifying cogeneration facilities which 

burn homogeneous waste for the 

production of electric energy and steam 

or forms of useful energy (such as heat) 

which are used for industrial, 

commercial, heating or cooling 

purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators 

provided that such incinerators only 

burn wood wastes, yard wastes and 

clean lumber and that such air curtain 

incinerators comply with opacity 

limitations to be established by the 

Administrator by rule. 

* * * * * 

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). 

* * * * * 

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. 

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the state. 

bThe date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced 

construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised State plan 

or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010. 

75. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is 

amended by revising the heading 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’’. 

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.

§§ 60.2765 and 60.2770. 

• If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the 

test.

• If a performance test was not conducted 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that the requirements of § 60.2720(a) 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.

§ 60.2775 and 60.2780 

• Copy of operating limit monitoring data 

and any test reports.


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32001 

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

Report Due date Contents Reference 

• Dates, times and causes for monitor 

downtime incidents.

* * * * * * * 

aThis 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 

limitation b 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 

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 sample time per run).Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A– 

4 of this part). 

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). 

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

YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. bAll emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

78. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
32002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium .................................. 0.00041 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 ..................... 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 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 .................... 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). 

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

79. Table 8 to Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO WASTE-BURNING

KILNS AFTER [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Cadmium .................................. 0.0003 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). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32003 

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]—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limitation a

Using this 

averaging time 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

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 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 to Subpart DDDD is added 

as follows: 

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 

limitation a 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). 

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). 

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


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
32004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

81. Table 10 to Subpart DDDD is 

added as follows: 

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 

limitation a 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 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 ........................... 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). 

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

[FR Doc. 2010–10821 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4