Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119-0040
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
Posted Date: 2010-06-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register: June 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 31937-32004]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn10-26]                         

[[Page 31937]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 
Incineration Units; Proposed Rule

[[Page 31938]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31939]]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed rules?
    B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the 
emissions and current controls?
    C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and other 
combustion rules?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
    B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
    C. EPA's Approach in Conducting the Five-Year Review
    D. Other Proposed Amendments
    E. Proposed State Plan Implementation Schedule for Existing 
CISWI
    F. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 2000 NSPS 
and EG
IV. Rationale
    A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand and the 
Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
    B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories
    C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission Limits
    D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
    E. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
    A. What are the primary air impacts?
    B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    C. What are the energy impacts?
    D. What are the secondary air impacts?
    E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
    F. What are the benefits?
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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category                NAICS Code      potentially regulated
                                                       entities \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industrial or commercial       211, 212, 486  Mining, oil and gas
 facility using a solid waste                      exploration
 incinerator.                                      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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the 
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected 
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria 
in 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart CCCC and 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD. 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed 
action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note that the rule contains definitions of the subcategories 
of CISWI units and a list of types of combustion units that are 
excluded. For further discussion, see Section III.D.1 of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31940]]

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 non-hazardous 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

[[Page 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-the-floor'' 
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 dibenzo-p-dioxins/
dibenzofurans (dioxin, furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides 
(NOX); and acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 
sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    Depending on the type of unit and currently applicable regulations 
or permit conditions, units may or may not be equipped with add-on 
control devices to control emissions. For example, most of the CISWI 
units that operate without heat recovery are not equipped with add-on 
controls. Those that are controlled use wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, 
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or fabric filters, either alone or 
in combination. Some energy recovery units that combust solid waste are 
not equipped with add-on controls, but most are controlled with one or 
more of the following: cyclones or multi-clones, fabric filters, ESPs, 
wet scrubbers,

[[Page 31942]]

venturi scrubbers, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or spray 
dryers. In addition to add-on controls, many CISWI units are controlled 
through the use of pollution prevention measures (i.e., waste 
segregation) and good combustion control practices.
    Waste segregation is the separation of certain components of the 
waste stream in order to reduce the amount of air pollution emissions 
associated with that waste when incinerated. The separated waste may 
include paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries or metals. 
Separation of wastes can reduce the amount of chlorine- and metal-
containing wastes being incinerated, which results in lower emissions 
of HCl, dioxin, furans, Hg, Cd and Pb.
    Good combustion control practices include proper design, 
construction, operation and maintenance practices to destroy or prevent 
the formation of air pollutants prior to their release to the 
atmosphere. Test data for other types of combustion units indicate that 
as secondary chamber residence time and temperature increase, emissions 
decrease. Proper mixing of flue gases in the combustion chamber also 
promotes complete combustion. Combustion control is most effective in 
reducing dioxin, furans, other organic pollutants, PM, NOX 
and CO emissions.
    The 2000 CISWI standards and the proposed revised standards are 
designed to reduce air pollutants, including HCl, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, 
dioxin, furans (total, or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 
toxic equivalent (TEQ)), NOX and SO2, emitted 
from new and existing CISWI units. Units in the incinerator subcategory 
as defined in this proposed rule are currently subject to the 2000 
CISWI standards and are already required to be in compliance with the 
NSPS or EG. The 2000 CISWI NSPS apply to CISWI units in the incinerator 
subcategory if construction of a unit 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

[[Page 31943]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA did receive some additional emissions data earlier this 
year, but due to the court-ordered deadline, we did not have time to 
review and evaluate that data. We intend to review the data 
submitted earlier this year from a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The procedure is the same as used for the Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). While the 
HMIWI preamble referred to this measure as the upper confidence 
limit (UCL), it used the same equation. In this proposal, we refer 
to the measure as the UL, which is a more appropriate statistical 
terminology for this calculation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of 
freedom) x 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%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/
n) + (1/m))]{time} , 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

[[Page 31944]]

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-the-floor emissions limits and also minimizes the influence of 
an outlier test-specific method detection level value. The first step 
in this approach would be to identify the highest test-specific method 
detection level reported in a data set that is also equal to or less 
than the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit calculated for the 
data set. This approach has the advantage of relying on the data 
collected to develop the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit 
while to some degree minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an 
inordinately high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was 
too small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive or the 
procedure for determining the detection level was other than that 
specified).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method 
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 beyond-the-floor emissions limit. If, on the 
other hand, the value equal to three times the representative method 
detection level was greater than the calculated floor or beyond-the-
floor emissions limit, we would conclude that the calculated floor or 
beyond-the-floor emissions limit does not account entirely for 
measurement variability. We then would use the value equal to three 
times the method detection level in place of the calculated floor or 
beyond-the-floor emissions limit to ensure that the floor or beyond-
the-floor 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.

[[Page 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Proposed CISWI subcategories
                                                           Incinerators  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Pollutant (units) \1\                     (2000 CISWI                       Energy       Waste-burning                   Small, remote
                                                              limit)       Incinerators   recovery units       kilns      Burn-off ovens   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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7% oxygen.
ppmv = parts per million by volume.
mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.

    After establishing the MACT floors for each subcategory and 
pollutant, EPA also assessed options more stringent than the MACT 
floors. For reasons described in the rationale section (IV) of the 
preamble, we are not proposing limits more stringent than the MACT 
floor. However, we are proposing to amend the requirements to qualify 
for reduced testing and, thereby, we are providing an incentive for 
owners or operators to optimize a unit's carbon injection system and 
other operating parameters to further reduce both mercury and dioxin/
furan emissions.
    As stated above, the approach for new sources was similar to that 
used with the existing sources, except the best performing unit's data 
within a subcategory was used to calculate the MACT floor emission 
limit instead of the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
units. In summary, the approach ranks individual CISWI units based on 
actual performance and establishes MACT floors based on the best 
performing source for each pollutant and subcategory, with an 
appropriate accounting for emissions variability. The new source MACT 
floor emission limits for each CISWI subcategory are shown in Table 2 
of this preamble.

                       Table 2--Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
                                   [Based on the primary definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Proposed CISWI subcategories
                                                           Incinerators  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Pollutant (units) \1\                    (2000 limit)                       Energy       Waste-burning                   Small, remote
                                                                           Incinerators   recovery units       kilns      Burn-off ovens   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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.

3. How is the solid waste definition addressed in this proposed rule?
    EPA is proposing to define the non-hazardous secondary materials 
that are solid waste in a parallel notice under RCRA and the RCRA 
proposal also identifies an ``alternative approach'' for consideration 
and comment. The concurrently proposed RCRA solid waste definition is 
integral in defining the CISWI source category. As stated above, the 
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

[[Page 31946]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Proposed MACT floor for       Proposed MACT floor for new
                                                          existing units                       units
             Pollutant  (units) \1\              ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Energy       Waste-burning      Energy       Waste-burning
                                                  recovery units       kilns      recovery units       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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.

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

    Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a review of 
the standards at five-year intervals and, in accordance with CAA 
Sections 129 and 111, revise the standards. We do not interpret CAA 
Section 129(a)(5), together with CAA Section 111, as requiring EPA to 
recalculate MACT floors in connection with this periodic 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 31948]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 31950]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All sources currently subject to the 2000 CISWI EG or NSPS 
will become existing sources in the incinerators subcategory once 
the final revised CISWI standards are in place. See section III.F 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) Five-Year Review Response
    As stated above, EPA interprets CAA Section 129(a)(5) to provide 
EPA with broad discretion to revise MACT standards for incinerators. As 
we explained, we do not interpret CAA Section 129(a)(5), as requiring 
that EPA in each round of review, recalculate MACT floors, and we 
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

[[Page 31951]]

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 non-technology factors that 
affect CISWI unit performance. The proposed remand response also 
addresses whether new technologies and processes and improvements in 
practices have been demonstrated at CISWI units subject to the 2000 
CISWI rule. Furthermore, this action also proposes monitoring 
requirements for control devices that may be used to comply with the 
proposed standards by units in the subcategories that were not subject 
to the 2000 CISWI rule, but would be subject to these proposed 
standards. These controls include activated carbon injection, selective 
non-catalytic reduction and electrostatic precipitators. Our 
information indicates that these technologies are currently being used 
by some of the units that would be subject to this proposal, or have 
been applied to units in similar source categories, such as municipal 
waste combustors. We also reviewed CEMS requirements being proposed in 
standards for the non-waste burning counterparts to the waste-burning 
kiln and energy recovery unit subcategories, and believe 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), 
batch-operated, combustion units that are used to clean residual 
materials off of various metal parts, which are then reused. The amount 
of waste combusted in these units is generally small (pounds per year 
in some cases) and the configuration of the stacks that serve these 
units precludes the use of some EPA test methods for measuring 
emissions and could affect the ability to install certain control 
devices.
    Small, remote, incinerators: These are batch-operated units that 
combust less than one ton of waste per day and are farther than 50 
miles driving distance to the closest MSW landfill. To the extent that 
these are located in Alaska, a major difference in these types of units 
is the inability to operate a wet scrubber in the northern climates and 
the lack of availability of wastewater handling and treatment 
utilities. We believe this would impact their ability to meet emission 
limits for pollutants controlled by wet scrubbers. In addition, because 
of the 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

[[Page 31952]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In calculating the floors for this proposed rule, we 
included units combusting manure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-by-pollutant 
basis).\7\ Because the number of units in different subcategories may 
be different, the number of units that represent the best performing 12 
percent of different subcategories may be different. Also, 
mathematically, the number of units that represent the best performing 
12 percent of the units in a subcategory will not always be an integer. 
To ensure that each MACT standard is based on at least 12 percent of 
the units in a subcategory, EPA has determined that it is appropriate 
to always round up to the nearest integer when 12 percent of a given 
subcategory is not an integer. For example, if 12 percent of a 
subcategory is 4.1, the standards will be based on the best performing 
five units even though rounding conventions would normally lead to 
rounding down to four units. Another example from this proposal is in 
the incinerator subcategory, which includes 28 units. Twelve percent of 
28 is 3.36 units and we established the standards based on the best 
performing four units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The pollutant-by-pollutant approach is the same approach 
used for other CAA Section 129 standards and the rationale for this 
approach can be found in the preamble for the final HMIWI NSPS and 
EG (74 FR 51368, 51380 (October 6, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The procedure is the same as used for the HMIWI rule (74 FR 
51367, October 6, 2009). While the HMIWI preamble referred to this 
measure as the upper confidence limit (UCL), it used the same 
equation. In this proposal, we refer to the measure as the UL, which 
is a more appropriate statistical terminology for this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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            28           28              28              28
                                 in subcategory
                                 =.
                                No. in MACT                4            4               4               4
                                 floor =.
                                Avg of top 12%..           4.01         0.000359        0.000362        0.00125
                                99% UL of top%            12.76         0.00278         0.00124         0.00258
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed Limit =          13            0.0028          0.0013          0.0026
Energy recovery units.........  No. of sources            40           40              40              40
                                 in subcategory
                                 =.
                                No. in MACT                5            5               5               5
                                 floor =.
                                Avg of top 12%..           4.249        0.000053        0.000157        0.000967
                                99% UL of top%             9.179        0.000960        0.000409        0.00197
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed Limit =           9.2          0.00096         0.00041         0.002
Waste-burning kilns...........  No. of sources            53           53              53              53
                                 in subcategory
                                 =.

[[Page 31953]]

                                No. in MACT                7            7               7               7
                                 floor =.
                                Avg of top 12%..           5.36         0.003649        0.000112        0.00105
                                99% UL of top%            59.97         0.0240          0.000293        0.00261
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed Limit =          60            0.024           0.0003          0.0027
Burn-off ovens................  No. of sources            36           36              36              36
                                 in subcategory
                                 =.
                                No. in MACT                5            5               5               5
                                 floor =.
                                Avg of top 12%..           9.25         0.00267         0.00123         0.0125
                                99% UL of top%            32.14         0.0135          0.00448         0.0408
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed Limit =          33            0.014           0.0045          0.041
Small, remote incinerators....  No. of sources            19           19              19              19
                                 in subcategory
                                 =.
                                No. in MACT                3            3               3               3
                                 floor =.
                                Avg of top 12%..         102.93         0.0017          0.0589          0.5627
                                99% UL of top%           238.85         0.00289         0.256           1.4012
                                 (test runs) =.
                                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                28                28              28
                                         subcategory =.
                                        No. in MACT floor =.....          4                 4               4
                                        Avg of top 12%..........          0.1812           14.7             0.73
                                        99% UL of top% (test             28.05             33.09            2.48
                                         runs) =.
                                        Proposed Limit =........         29                34               2.5
Energy recovery units.................  No. of sources in                40                40              40
                                         subcategory =.
                                        No. in MACT floor =.....          5                 5               5
                                        Avg of top 12%..........          0.2415           64.24            1.67
                                        99% UL of top% (test              1.42            124.55            4.01
                                         runs) =.
                                        Proposed Limit =........          1.5             130               4.1
Waste-burning kilns...................  No. of sources in                53                53              53
                                         subcategory =.
                                        No. in MACT floor =.....          7                 7               7
                                        Avg of top 12%..........          0.5503          525.24           34.05
                                        99% UL of top% (test              1.435         1,080.3           409.67
                                         runs) =.
                                        Proposed Limit =........          1.5           1,100             410
Burn-off ovens........................  No. of sources in                36                36              36
                                         subcategory =.
                                        No. in MACT floor =.....          5                 5               5
                                        Avg of top 12%..........         27.10             51.63            0.88
                                        99% UL of top% (test            124.8             110.23           10.48
                                         runs) =.
                                        Proposed Limit =........        130               120              11
Small, remote incinerators............  No. of sources in                19                19              19
                                         subcategory =.
                                        No. in MACT floor =.....          3                 3               3
                                        Avg of top 12%..........         66.5              91.83           12.18
                                        99% UL of top% (test            143.7             207              43.35
                                         runs) =.
                                        Proposed Limit =........        150               210              44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 6--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--CO and Dioxin/Furans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Dioxin/Furan       Dioxin/Furan
            Subcategory                    Parameter          CO (ppmdv)      (total mass      (total TEQ basis)
                                                                            basis) (ng/dscm)     (ng/dscm) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators.......................  No. of sources in             28               28                 28
                                      subcategory =.
                                     No. in MACT floor =..          4                4                  4
                                     Avg of top 12%.......          0.860            0.0113             0.55877
                                     99% UL of top% (test           2.17             0.0304            27.75
                                      runs) =.
                                     Proposed Limit =.....          2.2              0.031              0.0025
Energy recovery units..............  No. of sources in             40               40                 40
                                      subcategory =.
                                     No. in MACT floor =..          5                5                  5
                                     Avg of top 12%.......         39.096            0.09824            9.8831
                                     99% UL of top% (test         146.8              0.748           7431.9
                                      runs) =.
                                     Proposed Limit =.....        150                0.75               0.059
Waste-burning kilns................  No. of sources in             53               53                 53
                                      subcategory =.
                                     No. in MACT floor =..          7                7                  7
                                     Avg of top 12%.......        147.33             0.02958            0.000935
                                     99% UL of top% (test         701.18             2.03           7,959
                                      runs) =.
                                     Proposed Limit =.....        710                2.1                0.17
Burn-off ovens.....................  No. of sources in             36               36                 36
                                      subcategory =.
                                     No. in MACT floor =..          5                5                  5
                                     Avg of top 12%.......         28.58             0.0455             b

[[Page 31954]]

                                     99% UL of top% (test          79.36           303.8                b
                                      runs) =.
                                     Proposed Limit =.....         80              310                 25
Small, remote incinerators.........  No. of sources in             19               19                 19
                                      subcategory =.
                                     No. in MACT floor =..          3                3                  3
                                     Avg of top 12%.......         17.42           473.4                b
                                     99% UL of top% (test          77.48         1,502                  b
                                      runs) =.
                                     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               0.0056         0.0001          0.0002          0.0007
                                 performer.
                                99% UL of top            0.00766        0.000123        0.000654        0.00126
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed limit =         0.0077         0.00013         0.00066         0.0013
Energy recovery units.........  Avg of top               3.270          0.000032        0.000085        0.000454
                                 performer.
                                99% UL of top            4.37           0.00013         0.000115        0.001189
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed limit =         4.4            0.00013         0.00012         0.0012
Waste-burning kilns...........  Avg of top               0.9287         0.00101         0.000038        0.000386
                                 performer.
                                99% UL of top            1.80         \a\             \a\               0.00077
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed limit =         1.8            0.024           0.0003          0.00078
Burn-off ovens................  Avg of top               6.676          0.0007          0.0008          0.0050
                                 performer.
                                99% UL of top           27.48           0.00329         0.00316         0.02859
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed limit =        28              0.0033          0.0032          0.029
Small, remote incinerators....  Avg of top              83.53           0.001           0.011           0.448
                                 performer.
                                99% UL of top          268.9            0.00126         0.0564          1.3877
                                 (test runs) =.
                                Proposed limit =    240\b\              0.0013          0.057           1.4\b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ --Only one run data point, therefore UL cannot be calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\b\ --The NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.

                       Table 8--Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units--HCl, NOX, SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                    Parameter          HCL (ppmdv)      NOX (ppmdv)        SO2 (ppmdv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators.......................  Avg of top performer.         0.0413            9.033              0.223
                                     99% UL of top (test           0.0732           18.99               1.47
                                      runs) =.
                                     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           0.169            74.52               4.44
                                      runs) =.

[[Page 31955]]

                                     Proposed limit =.....         0.17             75                  4.1\a\
Waste-burning kilns................  Avg of top performer.         0.13            108.3                1.43
                                     99% UL of top (test         \b\               134.65               3.58
                                      runs) =.
                                     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          17.56             15.43               0
                                      runs) =.
                                     Proposed limit =.....        18                16                  1.5\c\
Small, remote incinerators.........  Avg of top performer.        45.437            73.66               4.793
                                     99% UL of top (test         244.01            367.23              42.49
                                      runs) =.
                                     Proposed limit =.....    150(a)            210\a\                 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ --The NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\b\ --Only one run data point, therefore UL cannot be calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\c\ --Zero value calculated for the subcategory, which will not allow for data variability. The lowest unit with
  non-zero data was used to calculate this limit.

                                       Table 9--Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units--CO and Dioxins/Furans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Dioxin/Furan    Dioxin/Furan
                                                                                                                            (Total mass     (Total TEQ
                  Subcategory                                           Parameter                           CO (ppmdv)      basis) (ng/     basis) (ng/
                                                                                                                               dscm)         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 best-performing 12 percent of sources to fall below with 99 percent 
confidence, based upon the results of the independent sample of 
observations from the same best performing sources. The 99 percent UPL 
value based on the test run data for those units in the best-performing 
12 percent can be calculated using one of the following spreadsheet 
equations depending on the distribution of the data:

    Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12%) + 
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of 
freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a 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%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) x 
SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]{time} , 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

[[Page 31956]]

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 non-hazardous 
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 beyond-the-floor alternatives.
    In developing this proposal, EPA considered for existing units the 
proposed CISWI NSPS emission limits as a basis for the beyond-the-floor 
analysis for each subcategory. The CISWI NSPS limits are the MACT 
limits applicable to new CISWI units that are established through 
analysis of the best performing single source for each regulated 
pollutant (see earlier discussion in Section IV.C above). There are 
separate NSPS limits for each of the five CISWI subcategories: 
Incinerators; energy recovery units; waste-burning kilns; burn-off 
ovens; and small, remote incinerators. We request public comments on 
all aspects of the beyond-the-floor analysis, including whether there 
are combinations of control approaches that would cost-effectively 
reduce emissions of the Section 129(a)(4) pollutants. We specifically 
request that the commenter provide cost, technical and other relevant 
information in support of any beyond-the-floor alternatives. EPA will 
evaluate the comments and any other additional information and may 
adopt beyond-the-floor options for the final rule if any that are 
identified are determined to be reasonable.
    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 beyond-the-floor options, which we found 
unreasonable.
    We analyzed the beyond-the-floor options on a pollutant-by-
pollutant basis for each subcategory. We discuss below the possible 
beyond-the-floor controls and why we rejected them.
     For PM, Cd and Pb, units would add a fabric filter if 
there were none already, or improve the fabric filter if the unit is 
already equipped with one but could not meet the beyond-the-floor 
limit. Units could also be required to add an additional PM control 
device if existing fabric filters could not be modified to comply with 
the beyond-the-floor limit.
     For HCl and SO2, units would add a packed-bed 
wet scrubber if there were none already, or if a wet scrubber already 
existed on the unit, upgrade to a larger pump to increase the liquid to 
gas ratio. If the unit was equipped with lime injection or a spray 
dryer, the beyond-the-floor technology was to add more lime for 
SO2 control. If more control was needed for SO2, 
but not HCl, and the unit has a wet scrubber already, they would add 
caustic to the scrubber liquor. Units could also be required to add an 
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 waste-burning kilns are already at the 
quantification limits of the test method and we are not aware of 
alternative methods to quantify additional reductions in HCl emissions. 
In addition, we are not aware of any control technologies available 
that would reduce HCl emission from existing waste-burning kilns to 
levels below the floor levels. Therefore, we could not evaluate a 
beyond-the-floor option for HCl emissions from waste-burning kilns.
     For Hg and CDD/CDF, activated carbon would be added and 
the carbon addition rate would be adjusted to meet

[[Page 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, tune-ups, advanced combustion controls or 
catalytic oxidation for each subcategory except for waste-burning kilns 
and energy recovery units. No beyond-the-floor options are available 
for these two subcategories, as discussed below.
    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-the-floor 
NOX emission limits.
    HCl and SO2. We expect that waste-burning kilns would 
install scrubbers to meet the proposed MACT floor emission limits for 
HCl, and the proposed EG and NSPS limits for HCl are the same. As 
discussed above, the HCl floor level for waste-burning kilns is near 
the quantification limits of the available test methods, and we are not 
aware of alternative methods to quantify beyond-the-floor reductions.
    The scrubbers needed to meet the CISWI MACT floor limits for HCl 
would also meet the CISWI MACT floor levels for SO2. 
However, we are not certain that it is feasible for existing waste-
burning kilns to utilize additional caustic in their scrubbers, or in 
their existing flue gas desulfurization devices, to be able to 
consistently meet the 3.6 ppm beyond-the-floor emission limit for 
SO2. There are limits to the amounts of additional caustic 
or lime that are technically feasible and the SO2 content of 
the 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

[[Page 31958]]

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 beyond-the-floor limits for 
these source categories would be achieved at considerable cost, would 
result in closure of additional units that would not close under the 
floor alternative, and would result in no additional emissions 
reduction; therefore, we have determined it is not reasonable to go 
beyond-the-floor for these source categories.
    Analysis Results for Energy Recovery Units and Waste-Burning Kilns. 
For the energy recovery units and waste-burning 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.

[[Page 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Incremental cost
                                                             Additional      Additional        effectiveness
            Pollutants                   Subcategory        annual costs      emissions      (additional costs/
                                                               ($/yr)        reductions     additional emissions
                                                                             (ton/year)      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 beyond-the-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-the-floor 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

[[Page 31960]]

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 
waste-burning 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 31962]]

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 multi-metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring 
method at hazardous waste combustors. EPA believes it is possible to 
adapt proposed PS-10 (Specifications and Test Procedures for Multi-
metals Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix 
B of 40 CFR part 60 or other EPA performance specifications to allow 
the use of multi-metals CEMS at CISWI. We request comment on the 
appropriateness of using multi-metals CEMS instead of initial 
performance tests coupled with PM CEMS and other surrogates. The 
procedures used in proposed PS-10 for the initial accuracy 
determination use the relative accuracy test, a comparison against a 
reference method. EPA is taking comment on an alternate initial 
accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one in section 11 of 
PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
    The proposed requirements for using Hg CEMS (performance 
specification 12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor 
Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary 
Sources) or integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring system (performance 
specification 12B--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor 
Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems from Stationary 
Sources Using a Sorbent Trap 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 site-specific 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

[[Page 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 site-specific 
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Pollutants
 Operating parameter/monitoring      influenced by        Alternative
  requirement  (control device         operating      monitoring options
              type)                    parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum charge (feed) rate......  All...............  None.
Minimum dioxin, furans sorbent    dioxin, furans....  Integrated sorbent
 flow rate (Activated carbon                           trap dioxin
 injection).                                           monitoring system
                                                       (ISTDMS) and
                                                       multi-metals
                                                       CEMS, Hg CEMS or
                                                       integrated
                                                       sorbent trap
                                                       mercury
                                                       monitoring system
                                                       (ISTMMS).
Minimum Hg sorbent flow rate      Hg.
 (Activated carbon injection).
Minimum HCl sorbent flow rate     HCl...............  HCl CEMS.
 (Dry scrubbers, spray dryers or
 duct sorbent injection).
Minimum scrubber pressure drop/   PM, Cd, Pb, Hg....  PM CEMS.
 horsepower amperage (Wet
 scrubber).
Minimum scrubber liquor flow      HCl, PM, Cd, Pb,    HCl CEMS, PM CEMS,
 rate (Wet scrubber).              Hg, dioxin,         multi-metals
                                   furans.             CEMS, ISTDMS and
                                                       ISTMMS.
Minimum scrubber liquor pH (Wet   HCl...............  HCl CEMS.
 scrubber).
Voltage and amperage of           PM, Cd, Pb, Hg....  PM CEMS.
 collection plates (ESP).
Reagent flow rate and secondary   NOX...............  NOX CEMS.
 chamber temperature (SNCR).
Air pollution control device      All...............  None.
 inspections.
Time of visible emissions from    PM................  None.
 ash handling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Approved alternative
        Pollutant/parameter           Test method(s) \1\            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    HCl CEMS..................  HCl CEMS are optional for
                                     26A.                                               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   Bag leak detection
                                                            or PM CEMS.                 systems are required for
                                                                                        units equipped with
                                                                                        fabric filters.

[[Page 31964]]

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 operator-developed missing data procedures, or 
parametric monitoring.
3. Have the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions changed?
    This action also revises the provisions of the 2000 CISWI rule as 
it applies to periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. This 
proposed revision affects all CISWI units, including units that were 
regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule and those units that are subject to 
this proposed rule. The revision of these provisions is a result of a 
Court decision that invalidated certain regulations related to startup, 
shutdown and malfunction in the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 551 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

[[Page 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 non-waste regulatory requirements as 
simple as possible.
    The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this proposed 
rule using the concurrently proposed definition of solid waste under 
RCRA are presented in Table 13 of this preamble.

   Table 13--Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and Alternative
   Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the ``Primary Approach''
            Emission Limits Concurrently Proposed Under RCRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reductions
                                                            achieved
                                                            assuming
                                         Reductions       incinerators,
                                      achieved through    small, remote
              Pollutant                 meeting MACT    incinerators and
                                          (ton/yr)       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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The 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.

[[Page 31966]]

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reductions
                                                            achieved
                                                            assuming
                                         Reductions       incinerators,
                                      achieved through    small, remote
              Pollutant                 meeting MACT    incinerators and
                                          (ton/yr)       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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary
  impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted energy recovery
  unit fuel.

    Based on the results of our analysis for existing units and our 
experiences with other CAA Section 129 regulations, we do not 
anticipate that any new CISWI units 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Emission reduction for CISWI subcategory model Units (ton/yr unless otherwise
                                                                      noted)
            Pollutant            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Small, remote      Energy       Waste-burning
                                    Incinerator    Burn-off oven    incinerator    recovery unit       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

[[Page 31967]]

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 waste-burning kilns decide to 
cease burning waste materials. In these cases, the energy provided by 
the burning of waste would need to be replaced with a traditional fuel, 
such as natural gas. Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of the energy 
input to 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

[[Page 31968]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Roman et al, 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of the 
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in 
the U.S.'' Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

             Table 16--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015
                                             [millions of 2008$]\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Estimated
                                             emissions
                                            reductions     Total monetized benefits    Total monetized benefits
                                             (tons per        (3% discount rate)          (7% discount rate)
                                               year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence 
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos 
Health (2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 study\11\ and the extended Six Cities 
cohort study\12\. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pope et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary 
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-
1141.
    \12\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and 
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 analysis\13\ 
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various 
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 
Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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 Benefits\2\.....  $240 to $580......  $210 to $520.
Total Social Costs\3\...........  $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 Benefits\2\.....  $2,700 to $6,700..  $2,500 to $6,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Social Costs\3\...........  $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,

[[Page 31970]]

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 post-combustion 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

[[Page 31971]]

small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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

[[Page 31972]]

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 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity being used. 
EPA estimates that many owners of CISWI units in the incinerator, burn-
off oven and small, remote incinerator subcategories may stop operating 
CISWI units and use alternative waste disposal methods, thereby not 
requiring additional energy input for operation of control devices.
    Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from 
this proposed action, EPA does not expect any significant price 
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should 
not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would 
not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any 
impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse 
outcomes that may occur with 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.

[[Page 31973]]

    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 socio-
demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission reductions 
from this rule. The review identified those census blocks within a 
circular distance of three miles of affected sources and determined the 
demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income, 
education, etc.) of these census blocks. The radius of three miles (or 
approximately five kilometers) has been used in other demographic 
analyses focused on areas around potential sources. 
14, 15, 16, 17 In addition, air modeling experience has 
shown that beyond three miles, the influence of an individual source of 
emissions can generally be considered to be small, both in absolute 
terms and relative to the influence of other sources (assuming there 
are other sources in the area, as is typical in urban areas). EPA's 
demographic analysis has shown that these areas tend to have lower 
proportions of Whites and American Indians, higher proportions of 
African-Americans, Hispanics and ``Other and Multi-racial'' 
populations, and higher proportions of families with incomes below the 
poverty level.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \15\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research''. Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \16\ Mennis J. ``Using Geographic Information Systems to Create 
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for 
Environmental Justice Analysis''. Social Science Quarterly, 
2002;83(1):281-297.
    \17\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \18\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts'', April 2010, a copy of 
which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the fact that the rule does not allow emission increases, 
the EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority, low-income, or tribal populations. However, to the 
extent that any minority, low income, or tribal subpopulation is 
disproportionately impacted by the current emissions as a result of the 
proximity of their homes to these sources, that subpopulation also 
stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from the 
emissions reductions called for by this rule.
    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote 
meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communication 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:

Sec.  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]. * * *

[[Page 31974]]

    4. Section 60.2015 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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).

Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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.

Sec.  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).

Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.2105 under Sec.  60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8).
    (9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.  
60.2125(j).
    8. Section 60.2045 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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

[[Page 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 site-specific operating parameters 
during the initial nitrogen oxides performance test to determine 
compliance with the emissions limits.
    13. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2145 by the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  60.2105.

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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

[[Page 31976]]

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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.2105 and Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2110 or Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2125.
    (b) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters 
specified in Sec.  60.2110 or established under Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 waste-burning 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 Sec.  60.13(i).
    (j) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section, 
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a 
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this 
paragraph (j) that addresses paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section.
    (1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60 
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous 
monitoring system.
    (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 Sec.  60.11(d).
    (v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  60.13.
    (vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  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

[[Page 31978]]

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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2141.
    22. Section 60.2155 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 31980]]

and must comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.2125, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides 
required under Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.2165(n) are not 
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system and must 
perform the annual performance tests for opacity consistent with Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.13 and 
according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (3) As specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31981]]

using the data points required under Sec.  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:

Sec.  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).

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2110(d) through (f) or 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.2110(d) through (f) or Sec.  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.

[[Page 31982]]

    (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

Sec.  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:

[[Page 31983]]

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 one-hour 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:

Sec.  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 ``Waste-burning 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''.

Sec.  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

[[Page 31984]]

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 refuse-derived fuel) for the 
production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration 
facilities which burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric 
energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are 
used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) 
air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood 
wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain 
incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be established by the 
Administrator by rule.
* * * * *
    Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in 
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the 
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA).
* * * * *
    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       Name and    Sec.  Sec.   60.2205 and 60.2210.
                                    months following      address.
                                    the submission of     Statement
                                    the initial test      and signature by
                                    report. Subsequent    responsible
                                    reports are to be     official.
                                    submitted no more     Date of
                                    than 12 months        report..
                                    following the         Values for
                                    previous report.      the operating
                                                          limits..
                                                          Highest
                                                          recorded 3-hour
                                                          average and the
                                                          lowest 3-hour
                                                          average, as
                                                          applicable, for
                                                          each operating
                                                          parameter recorded
                                                          for the calendar
                                                          year being
                                                          reported.
                                                          If a
                                                          performance test
                                                          was conducted
                                                          during the
                                                          reporting period,
                                                          the results of the
                                                          test.
                                                          If a
                                                          performance test
                                                          was not conducted
                                                          during the
                                                          reporting period,
                                                          a statement that
                                                          the requirements
                                                          of Sec.
                                                          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   By August 1 of that    Dates and   Sec.   60.2215 and 60.2220.
 limit deviation report.            year for data         times of deviation.
                                    collected during      Averaged
                                    the first half of     and recorded data
                                    the calendar year.    for those dates.
                                    By February 1 of      Duration
                                    the following year    and causes of each
                                    for data collected    deviation and the
                                    during the second     corrective actions
                                    half of the           taken.
                                    calendar year.        Copy of
                                                          operating limit
                                                          monitoring data
                                                          and any test
                                                          reports.
                                                          Dates,
                                                          times and causes
                                                          for monitor
                                                          downtime incidents.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This 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:

[[Page 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          You must meet this                                 And determining
        For the air pollutant            emission  limitation     Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                                 \a\                      time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.00066 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  1.4 parts per million    24-hour block average..  Carbon Monoxide
                                        dry volume.                                       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     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.00073 nanograms per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Hydrogen chloride....................  0.074 parts per million  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 2    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meters).                 part).
Lead.................................  0.0013 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Mercury..............................  0.00013 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       enough volume to meet    (Method 30B of
                                        meter.                   a detection limit data   appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 quality objective of     part).
                                                                 0.03 ug/dscm).
Opacity..............................  1%.....................  Three 1-hour blocks      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  19 parts per million     3-run average (1-hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part). Use
                                                                                          a span gas with a
                                                                                          concentration of 100
                                                                                          ppm or less.
Particulate matter (filterable)......  0.0077 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meters).                 appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                          part).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  1.5 parts per million    3-run average (1-hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                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    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.00012 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  3 parts per million dry  24 hour block average..  Carbon monoxide
                                        volume.                                           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  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).

[[Page 31986]]

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.0027 nanograms per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Hydrogen chloride....................  0.17 parts per million   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 2    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meters).                 part).
Lead.................................  0.0012 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Mercury..............................  0.00013 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       enough volume to meet    (Method 30B of
                                        meter.                   a detection limit data   appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 quality objective of     part).
                                                                 0.03 [mu]g/dscm).
Opacity..............................  1%.....................  6-minute averages; 1-    Continuous opacity
                                                                 hour block average for   monitoring
                                                                 units that operate dry   (performance
                                                                 control systems.         specification 1 of
                                                                                          appendix B of this
                                                                                          part), unless equipped
                                                                                          with a wet scrubber.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  75 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter (filterable)......  4.4 milligrams per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 2    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meters).                 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    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4 of this
                                                                                          part. Use a span gas
                                                                                          with a concentration
                                                                                          of 20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash.........................  Visible emissions for    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.00030 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  36 parts per million     24-hour block average..  Carbon monoxide
                                        dry volume.                                       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    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.000028 nanograms per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Hydrogen chloride....................  1.5 parts per million    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  0.00078 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.

[[Page 31987]]

Mercury..............................  0.024 milligrams per     24-hour block average..  Mercury CEMS
                                        dry standard cubic                                (performance
                                        meter.                                            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      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  140 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter (filterable)......  1.8 milligrams per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 4    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meters).                 appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                          part).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  3.6 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4 of this
                                                                                          part. Use a span gas
                                                                                          with a concentration
                                                                                          of 20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash.........................  Visible emissions for    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

    38. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:

  Table 8 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Burn-off Ovens That Commenced Construction After
 June 4, 2010 or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [the Date 6 Months After Publication of the
                                                   Final Rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.0032 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meter).                  ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  74 parts per million     24 hour block average..  Carbon monoxide
                                        dry volume.                                       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  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.00086 nanograms per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 4    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Hydrogen chloride....................  17.6 parts per million   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  0.029 milligrams per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meter).                  ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Mercury..............................  0.0033 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       enough volume to meet    (Method 30B of
                                        meter.                   a detection limit data   appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 quality objective of     part).
                                                                 0.3 ug/dscm).
Opacity..............................  2%.....................  Three 1-hour blocks      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  16 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part). Use
                                                                                          a span gas with a
                                                                                          concentration of 100
                                                                                          ppm or less.
Particulate matter (filterable)......  28 milligrams per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 and
                                                                 meter).                  appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                          part).

[[Page 31988]]

Sulfur dioxide.......................  1.5 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                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    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
      For the air pollutant            You must meet this       Using this averaging      compliance using this
                                    emission limitation \a\             time                     method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..........................  0.057 milligrams per dry   3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
                                    standard cubic meter.      minimum volume of 1 dry   29 of appendix A-8 of
                                                               standard cubic meter).    this part). Use ICPMS
                                                                                         for the analytical
                                                                                         finish.
Carbon monoxide..................  4.0 parts per million dry  24 hour block average...  Carbon monoxide
                                    volume.                                              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    3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
                                    standard cubic meter.      minimum volume of 1 dry   23 of appendix A-7 of
                                                               standard cubic meter).    this part).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency  94 nanograms per dry       3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
 basis).                            standard cubic meter.      minimum volume of 1 dry   23 of appendix A-7 of
                                                               standard cubic meter).    this part).
Hydrogen chloride................  150 parts per million dry  3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
                                    volume.                    minimum volume of 1 dry   26 or 26A of appendix A-
                                                               standard cubic meter).    8 of this part).
Lead.............................  1.4 milligrams per dry     3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
                                    standard cubic meter.      minimum volume of 1 dry   29 of appendix A-8 of
                                                               standard cubic meter).    this part). Use ICPMS
                                                                                         for the analytical
                                                                                         finish.
Mercury..........................  0.0013 milligrams per dry  3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
                                    standard cubic meter.      minimum volume of 1 dry   29 of appendix A-8 of
                                                               standard cubic meter).    this part).
Opacity..........................  13%......................  Three 1-hour blocks       Performance test (Method
                                                               consisting of ten 6-      9 of appendix A-4 of
                                                               minute average opacity    this part).
                                                               values.
Oxides of nitrogen...............  210 parts per million dry  3-run average (1 hour     Performance test (Method
                                    volume.                    minimum sample time per   7E of appendix A-4 of
                                                               run).                     this part).
Particulate matter (filterable)..  240 milligrams per dry     3-run average (collect a  Performance test (Method
                                    standard cubic meter.      minimum volume of 1 dry   5 or 29 of appendix A-3
                                                               standard cubic meter).    or appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                         part).
Sulfur dioxide...................  43 parts per million dry   3-run average (1 hour     Performance test (Method
                                    volume.                    minimum sample time per   6 or 6c of appendix A-4
                                                               run).                     of this part. Use a
                                                                                         span gas with a
                                                                                         concentration of 200
                                                                                         ppm or less.
Fugitive ash.....................  Visible emissions for no   Three 1-hour observation  Visible emission test
                                    more than 5% of the        periods.                  (Method 22 of appendix
                                    hourly observation                                   A-7 of this part).
                                    period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

Subpart DDDD--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

    40. Section 60.2500 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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.

[[Page 31989]]

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.2535. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less 
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.  
60.24(f).
* * * * *
    45. Section 60.2541 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

[[Page 31990]]

Sec.  60.2542  What authorities will not be delegated to state, local, 
or Tribal agencies?

    The authorities listed under Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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.

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  60.2675  What operating limits must I meet and by when?

* * * * *
    (d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the 
emission limitations, you must measure the voltage and amperage of the 
electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the particulate 
matter performance test. Calculate the average value of these 
parameters for each test run. The minimum test run averages establish 
your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage operating limits for 
the electrostatic precipitator.
    (e) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the 
emission limitations, you must measure the mercury sorbent flow rate 
during the mercury performance test. The minimum mercury sorbent flow 
rate test run averages establish your site-specific minimum mercury 
sorbent flow rate.
    (f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the 
emission limitations, you must establish the maximum charge rate, the 
minimum secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI 
unit) and the minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating 
parameters during the initial nitrogen oxides performance test to 
determine compliance with the emissions limits.
    54. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  60.2710 by the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  60.2670.

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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

[[Page 31992]]

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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.2690 and Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2675 or Sec.  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 Sec.  
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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2690.
    (b) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters 
specified in Sec.  60.2675 or established under Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 waste-burning 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  60.13(i).
    (j) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section, 
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a 
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this 
paragraph (j) that addresses paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section.
    (1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60 
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous 
monitoring system.
    (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 Sec.  60.11(d).
    (v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  60.13.
    (vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 31994]]

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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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.

[[Page 31995]]

    62. Section 60.2716 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2706.
    63. Section 60.2720 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31996]]

B of this part, the quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this 
part and the procedures under Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.2690, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides 
required under Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.2730(n) are not 
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system and must 
perform the annual performance tests for opacity consistent with Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.13 and 
according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (3) As specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 inSec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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:

Sec.  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).

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.2675(d) through (f) or 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.2675(d) through (f) or Sec.  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.

[[Page 31998]]

    (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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

[[Page 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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 ``Waste-burning 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''.

Sec.  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

[[Page 32000]]

residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include incinerators 
or other units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ``solid waste incineration unit'' 
does not include (A) materials recovery facilities (including primary 
or secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of 
recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power production facilities, as 
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in 
section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which 
burn homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil, but 
not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric 
energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn 
homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and steam or 
forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, 
commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain 
incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood wastes, 
yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators 
comply with opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator 
by rule.
* * * * *
    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 dates\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment 1--Submit final control plan.  (Dates to be specified in state
                                          plan).
Increment 2--Final compliance..........  (Dates to be specified in state
                                          plan)\b\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the state.
\b\ The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of
  state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced
  construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later
  than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised State
  plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
  FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that commenced construction on or
  before 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 Requirements\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Report                     Due date              Contents                    Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Annual report....................  No later than 12       Name and    Sec.  Sec.   60.2765 and 60.2770.
                                    months following      address.
                                    the submission of     Statement
                                    the initial test      and signature by
                                    report. Subsequent    responsible
                                    reports are to be     official.
                                    submitted no more     Date of
                                    than 12 months        report.
                                    following the         Values for
                                    previous report.      the operating
                                                          limits.
                                                          Highest
                                                          recorded 3-hour
                                                          average and the
                                                          lowest 3-hour
                                                          average, as
                                                          applicable, for
                                                          each operating
                                                          parameter recorded
                                                          for the calendar
                                                          year being
                                                          reported.
                                                          If a
                                                          performance test
                                                          was conducted
                                                          during the
                                                          reporting period,
                                                          the results of the
                                                          test.
                                                          If a
                                                          performance test
                                                          was not conducted
                                                          during the
                                                          reporting period,
                                                          a statement that
                                                          the requirements
                                                          of Sec.
                                                          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   By August 1 of that    Dates and   Sec.   60.2775 and 60.2780
 limit deviation report.            year for data         times of deviation.
                                    collected during      Averaged
                                    the first half of     and recorded data
                                    the calendar year.    for those dates.
                                    By February 1 of      Duration
                                    the following year    and causes of each
                                    for data collected    deviation and the
                                    during the second     corrective actions
                                    half of the           taken.
                                    calendar year.
                                                          Copy of
                                                          operating limit
                                                          monitoring data
                                                          and any test
                                                          reports.

[[Page 32001]]

                                                          Dates,
                                                          times and causes
                                                          for monitor
                                                          downtime incidents.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.

    77. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:

Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60-Model Rule-Emission Limitations That Apply to Incinerators on and After [Date
                                        To Be Specified in State Plan] a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \b\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.0013 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  2.2 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 10 of appendix
                                                                 per run).                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  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 2    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.0025 nanograms per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 23 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Hydrogen chloride....................  29 parts per million     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  0.0026 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Mercury..............................  0.0028 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 or 30B of
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Opacity..............................  1%.....................  Three 1-hour blocks      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  34 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........  13 milligrams per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meter).                  appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                          part).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  2.5 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                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    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
  revised state plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
\b\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

    78. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:

[[Page 32002]]

 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.00041 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  150 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 10 of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)....  0.75 nanograms per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.059 nanograms per dry  3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Hydrogen chloride....................  1.5 parts per million    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  0.002 milligrams per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meters).                 ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Mercury..............................  0.00096 milligrams per   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Opacity..............................  1%.....................  6-minute averages; 1-    Continuous opacity
                                                                 hour block average for   monitoring
                                                                 units that operate dry   (performance
                                                                 control systems.         specification 1 of
                                                                                          appendix B of this
                                                                                          part), unless equipped
                                                                                          with a wet scrubber.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  130 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........  9.2 milligrams per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meter).                  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    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4 of this
                                                                                          part. Use a span gas
                                                                                          with a concentration
                                                                                          of 20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash.........................  Visible emissions for    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.0003 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part).
                                                                 meters).
Carbon monoxide......................  710 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 10 of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)....  2.1 nanograms per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      0.17 nanograms per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Hydrogen chloride....................  1.5 parts per million    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  0.0027 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 2    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part).
                                                                 meters).

[[Page 32003]]

Mercury..............................  0.024 milligrams per     3-run average (collect   Mercury CEMS
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (performance
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       specification 12A of
                                                                 meter).                  appendix B of this
                                                                                          part or mercury
                                                                                          sorbent trap method
                                                                                          specified in appendix
                                                                                          K of part 75)
Opacity..............................  4%.....................  Three 1-hour blocks      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  1100 parts per million   3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........  60 milligrams per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  410 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4 of this
                                                                                          part.
Fugitive ash.........................  Visible emissions for    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.0045 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meter).                  ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide......................  80 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 10, 10A, or
                                                                 per run).                10B of appendix A-4 of
                                                                                          this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)....  310 nanograms per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      25 nanograms per dry     3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Hydrogen chloride....................  130 parts per million    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  0.041 milligrams per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part). Use
                                                                 meter).                  ICPMS for the
                                                                                          analytical finish.
Mercury..............................  0.014 milligrams per     3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Opacity..............................  2%.....................  Three 1-hour blocks      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  120 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........  33 milligrams per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meter).                  appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                          part).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  11 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4 of this
                                                                                          part. Use a span gas
                                                                                          with a concentration
                                                                                          of 50 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash.........................  Visible emissions for    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.

[[Page 32004]]

    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             And determining
        For the air pollutant             You must meet this      Using this averaging    compliance using this
                                       emission limitation \a\            time                    method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..............................  0.26 milligrams per dry  3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Carbon monoxide......................  78 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 10 of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)....  1600 nanograms per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency      130 nanograms per dry    3-run average (collect   Performance test
 basis).                                standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 23 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-7 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Hydrogen chloride....................  150 parts per million    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry volume.              a minimum volume of 1    (Method 26A of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-8 of this
                                                                 meter).                  part).
Lead.................................  1.4 milligrams per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                                                 dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Mercury..............................  0.0029 milligrams per    3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        dry standard cubic       a minimum volume of 1    (Method 29 of appendix
                                        meter.                   dry standard cubic       A-8 of this part).
                                                                 meter).
Opacity..............................  13%....................  Three 1-hour blocks      Performance test
                                                                 consisting of ten 6-     (Method 9 of appendix
                                                                 minute average opacity   A-4 of this part).
                                                                 values.
Oxides of nitrogen...................  210 parts per million    3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 7E of appendix
                                                                 per run).                A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........  240 milligrams per dry   3-run average (collect   Performance test
                                        standard cubic meter.    a minimum volume of 1    (Method 5 or 29 of
                                                                 dry standard cubic       appendix A-3 or
                                                                 meter).                  appendix A-8 of this
                                                                                          part).
Sulfur dioxide.......................  44 parts per million     3-run average (1 hour    Performance test
                                        dry volume.              minimum sample time      (Method 6 or 6c of
                                                                 per run).                appendix A-4 of this
                                                                                          part).
Fugitive ash.........................  Visible emissions for    Three 1-hour             Visible emission test
                                        no more than 5% of the   observation periods.     (Method 22 of appendix
                                        hourly observation                                A-7 of this part).
                                        period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All 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