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) =.

                                     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

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

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

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.

 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

    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

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

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.

   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,

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

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

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