United States Office of Air Quality EPA-453/R-00-008
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards November 2000
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units:
Background Information Document for
New Source Performance Standards and
Emission Guidelines
Public Comments and Responses
-------
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNITS:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
FOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
Public Comments and Responses
Revised Draft
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 2000
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS 2
2.1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 12
3.0 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNITS .... 14
3.1 APPLICABILITY 14
3.1.1 Selection of Affected Units Hazardous Waste 14
3.1.2 Modification and Reconstruction 25
3.2 PRECONSTRUCTION SITING ANALYSIS (NSPS ONLY) 27
3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 27
3.4 OPERATOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION 28
3.5 SELECTION OF THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY FLOOR 29
3.6 SELECTION OF THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY EMISSION LIMITS 32
3.7 STACK TESTING AND TEST METHODS 37
3.8 MONITORING 43
3.9 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 48
3.10 DEFINITIONS 51
3.11 SELECTION OF THE FORMAT 58
3.12 IMPACTS 58
3.13 STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS 59
3.14 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 60
3.15 STATE REQUIREMENTS (EMISSION GUIDELINES ONLY) 62
3.16 SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS 63
3.17 AIR CURTAIN INCINERATORS 63
3.18 MISCELLANEOUS 64
in
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 30, 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new
source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for new and existing commercial
and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units under authority of section 129 and 111 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The standards and guidelines will be codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) as 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively.
This document contains summaries of the public comments that EPA received on the
proposed standards and guidelines and EPA's responses to those comments. The preamble and
this summary of comments and responses serve as the basis for the revisions made to the
standards and guidelines between proposal and promulgation.
-------
2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
. The EPA received 95 comment letters during the comment period, which ended
January 31, 2000 (see Table 2-1 for a list of commenters). Generally, the comments applied
equally to the standards and guidelines. Therefore, these comment summaries are organized by
topics that apply equally to the standards and guidelines, with two exceptions. Section 3.2
(Preconstruction and Siting Analysis) applies only to the standards and section 3.15 (State
Requirements) applies only to the guidelines.
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-01 R. P. Huffman, Environmental Specialist
Bayer Corporation
Pittsburgh, PA
IV-D-02 L.L. Burrell, P.E., Environmental Issues Manager
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arlington, VA
IV-D-03 P.C. Wright, Environmental Attorney
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, MI
IV-D-04 J. Bardi, Administrative Assistant
American Society for Testing & Materials
West Conshohocken, PA
IV-D-05 L. Morrissey, Manager
ASTM Technical Committee Operations
West Conshohocken, PA
IV-D-06 Bharat Mathur, Chief
Bureau of Air
Illinois EPA
Springfield, IL
IV-D-07 John M. Daniel
Division of Air Program Coordination
Commonwealth of Virginia
Richmond, VA
IV-D-08 Andy S. Counts, VP Environmental Affairs
America Furniture Manufacturers Association (AFMA)
High Point, NC
IV-D-09 W.J. Sweeney, Corporate Environmental Manager
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
Anchorage, AK
IV-D-10 David S. Dee, Landers & Parsons, P.A.
On Behalf of Okeelanta Power Limited Partnership and Osceola Power
Limited Partnership (OPLP)
Tallahassee, FL
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-11 Bill Wilson, P.E.
Central and Southwest Services, Inc.
Dallas, TX
IV-D-12 C. David Cooper, PhD, P.E.
University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL
IV-D-13 Richard C. Abrams, Environmental Manager
Everett Facility
Kimberly-Clark
Everett, WA
IV-D-14 Mike Soots, Corporate Director
Engineering
La-Z-Boy, Inc.
Monroe, MI
IV-D-15 Tara Lee Lanier, Environmental Engineer
Ashland, Inc.
Columbus, OH
IV-D-16 Paul J. Eisele, PhD, Director
Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs
Masco Corp.
Taylor, MI
IV-D-17 John Bremerman
Biomass One, LLP
White City, OR
IV-D-18 Richard P. Moseley, Environmental Safety and Health Manager
Hickory Chair
Hickory, NC
IV-D-19 Mary Beth Bosco, Regulatory Counsel
Used Oil Management Association
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-20 Roy W. Wood
Kodak Park Environmental Services
Eastman Kodak Co.
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-21 Edward J. Campobenedetto
Institute of Clean Air Companies (1CAC)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-22 L. Glen Kurowski, Environmental Manager, Air
Monsanto
St. Louis, MS
IV-D-23 Joanna L. Johnson, General Counsel
Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA)
Dallas, TX
IV-D-24 Greg Gesell, Principal Environmental Engineer
American Ref-Fuel
Houston, TX
IV-D-25 National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-26 Francis A. Ferraro, Vice President
Environmental Management and Policy
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Hampton, NH
IV-D-27 Peggi-Ann Davis, Chairman
South Carolina Pulp & Paper Association (SCPPA)
Hartsville, SC
IV-D-28 William R. Johnson, Senior Vice President of Operations
Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc.
Hudson, NC
IV-D-29 C. Richard Titus, Executive Vice President
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA)
Reston, VA
IV-D-30 Bill W. Upton
Placer Dome U.S. Inc
Beowawe, NV
FV-D-31 Edward J. Wilusz, Director
Government Relations
Wisconsin Paper Council
Neenah, WI
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-32 Ted Holcombe, Senior Environmental Policy Engineer
Environmental Affairs Department
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, CA
IV-D-33 John E. DiFazio, Jr.
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CMSA)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-34 John R. Sreumgard, Executive VP
Scrap Tire Management Council (STMC) of the Rubber Manufacturers
Association (RMA)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-35 William J. Doyle, PhD
Marathon Oil Company
Findlay, OH
IV-D-36 Elsie L. Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Environment and Safety
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-37 Michelle G. Lusk, Director of Regulatory Affairs
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-38 Kimberlie A. Cole, Environmental Compliance Manager
GTS Duratek
Oak Ridge, TN
IV-D-39 Michael G. Dowd
On Behalf of Tractebel Power, Inc.
Richmond, VA
IV-D-40 Alan E. Stinchfield, Director
Regulatory Strategy and Technical Services
Fort James Corp.
Deerfield, IL
IV-D-41 Norman L. Morrow
ExxonMobil Chemical Co.
Houston, TX
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-42 Jim Jackson
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise, ID
IV-D-43 Llewellyn Matthews
Northwest Pulp & Paper Association
Bellevue, WA
IV-D-44 Corey A. Brandt, Environmental Projects Manager
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Spring Grove, PA
IV-D-45 Terry Carroll
Minergy Corp.
Waukesha, WI
IV-D-46 Bruce Goodman
On Behalf of Primary Power Management & Development
Grand Rapids, MI
IV-D-47 Philip T. Cavanaugh
Chevron
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-48 Howard D. Lienert, P.E., Manager
Environmental Regulatory Affairs,
International Paper
Memphis, TN
IV-D-49 Karin Ritter
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-50 Terry Godar, citizen
IV-D-51 W. Fred McGuire, Chairman
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-52 Ronald N. Liesemer
American Plastics Council
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-53 Rodger D. Randolph, Director
State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
Jefferson City, MO
IV-D-54 Roderick T. Dwyer, Deputy General Counsel
National Mining Association
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-55 Sharon Kneiss, Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
American Forest & Paper Association
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-56 Laura L. Burrell, P.E., Manager
Environmental Policy
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arlington, VA
IV-D-57 Ronald W. Gore, Chief
Air Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
IV-D-58 Matthew O. Tanzer
General Electric Co.
Fairfield, CT
IV-D-59 Michael R. Weber, Director of Environmental Affairs
CMS Generation Co.
Dearborn, MI
IV-D-60 Dana Dolloff, Director
Environmental Affairs
Rayonier
IV-D-61 John K. Pitner, Air Team Leader
West Virginia Manufacturers Association (WVMA)
IV-D-62 Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer
Virginia Power
Glen Allen, VA
IV-D-63 Sierra Club,
California Communities Against Toxics
and Desert Citizens Against Pollutants
8
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-64 Robert D. Bessette, President
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Burke, VA
IV-D-65 Bart E. Cassidy
On Behalf of Inter-Power/AhlCon Partners, LP.
Bala Cynwyd, PA
IV-D-66 Charles F. Conner, President
Corn Refiners Association
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-67 Tom Tyler, Associate Counsel
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-68 Allen R. Ellett
BP Amoco Oil
Oregon, OH
IV-D-69 John E. Pinkerton
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI)
Research Triangle Park, NC
IV-D-70 Hassan Nekoui
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
IV-D-71 Ron Helms, Air Subcommittee Chair
Alabama Pulp and Paper Council
Montgomery, AL
IV-D-72 Benjamin S. Bilus, Senior Associate Counsel
Champion International Corp.
Stamford, CT
IV-D-73 Mark Vignovic, Director
Environmental Control
Weirton Steel Corp.
Weirton, WV
IV-D-74 William D. Glover, Director of Engineering
Vaughan Bassett Furniture Co.
Galax, VA
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-75 Stephen N. Haughey
Frost & Jacobs, LLP
Cincinnati, OH
IV-D-76 Lucinda Bach, Environmental Specialist
Dayton Power & Light Co. (DP&L)
Dayton, OH
IV-D-77 Maria Zannes
Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA)
Washington, D.C.
IV-D-78 N. LaDonna Driver
Hodge & Dwyer Attorneys at Law
Springfield, IL
IV-D-79 Robert Nash, Manager
Environmental Operations
Glaxo Wellcome
Research Triangle Park, NC
IV-D-80 John Kellogg, General Manager
La-Z-Boy Oncolnton
Lincolnton, NC
IV-D-81 Mary Barraco, Manager
Compliance and Regulatory Affairs
Kinross Gold, USA, Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
IV-D-82 Midge Shelby
LWD, Inc.
Calvert City, KY
IV-D-83 Barry A. Branscome, Vice President - Engineering
Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc.
Galax, VA
IV-D-84 Tomey Turtle
Illinova Power Marketing, Inc.
IV-D-85 Melvin E. Keener, PhD, Executive Director
Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration
Washington, D.C.
10
-------
TABLE 2-1. DOCKET A-94-63 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY IV-D
Item Number Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-86 Ronald L. Pitzer, Manager
Environmental Affairs
Eli Lilly and Co.
Indianapolis, IN
IV-D-87 John R. Evans, Manager
Environmental Affairs
Lyondell Chemical Co.
Houston, TX
IV-D-88 Louis Wolfe, citizen
IV-D-89 Arthur E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Officer and Counsel
NiSource
Merrillville, IN
IV-D-90 Daniel J. Porter
Mandan Refinery
BP Amoco
Mandan, ND
IV-D-91 Dennis R. Knisley
Eastman Chemical Co.
Kingsport, TN
IV-D-92 Ron Huffman
Bayer Corporation
Pittsburgh, PA
IV-D-93 Sander Nydick
Thermo Ecotek Corporation
Waltham, MA
IV-D-94 J. L. Burgess, P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Engineering
North Dakota Department of Health
Bismarck, ND
IV-D-95 S. Bern
Air Programs Branch
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Indianapolis, IN
11
-------
2.1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document
Btu
CAA
Cd
British thermal units
Clean Air Act
Camium
CEMS Continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HC1 Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMIWI Hospital/medical/infectious waste incineration
ICCR Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking
Ibs/hr Pounds per hour
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
MWC Municipal waste combustion
ng/dscm Nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NOX Oxides of nitrogen
NSPS New source performance standards
PAH's Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pb Lead
12
-------
PCB's Polychlorinatedbiphenyl
POM's Participate organic matter
ppm - Parts per million
PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
RDF Refuse derived fuel
SNCR Selective non-catalytic reduction
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TEQ Toxic equivalency
13
-------
3.0 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNITS
3.1 APPLICABILITY
3.1.1 Selection of Affected Units
Hazardous Waste
Comment: Six commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-82, IV-D-85, IV-D-87)
requested that language be added to §§60.2020(c) and 60.2555(c) of the proposed CISWI
standards and guidelines that allows a unit to be exempt if it is operated under RCRA "Interim
Status" provisions. The commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-56,-IV-D-58, IV-D-82, IV-D-85, IV-D-87)
recommended exempting all units "required to obtain a permit under section 3005 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act," instead of those that already have a section 3005 permit.
Four commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-56, IV-D-82, IV-D-85) stated that, in §§60.2010 and
60.2550 of the proposed CISWI standards and guidelines, EPA should exempt units that are
regulated under subpart EEE: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous
Waste Combustors (September 30, 1999, FR 52827). Two commenters (IV-D-82, IV-D-85)
noted that hazardous waste combustors subject to Subpart EEE will have Title V permits for air
emissions instead of RCRA permits, and therefore, these facilities will not be required to obtain a
section 3005 air emissions permit. Three commenters (IV-D-82, IV-D-85, IV-D-92) stated that
the EPA should provide guidance on how facilities that burn both hazardous and non-hazardous
waste in the same unit will transition between the CISWI standards and guidelines and the HWC
MACT rule.
Response: The EPA has modified the hazardous waste exemption in §§60.2020(g) and
60.2555(g) to exempt units that are required to get a permit under section 3005 of the SWDA and
units that are regulated under subpart EEE. Units that burn both hazardous and non-hazardous
waste at the same time would either be required to get a permit under section 3005 of the SWDA
14
-------
or would be subject to Subpart EEE, and therefore, would not be subject to the CISWI standards
and guidelines.
Tires
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-24) stated that facilities that combust tire-derived fuel
should not be subject to the CISWI standards and guidelines. Three commenters (IV-D-27, IV-
D-55, IV-D-72) stated that units burning tires and tire-derived fuel should be explicitly excluded
from the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Response: An exemption specifically for facilities that combust tire-derived fuel or tires
has not been added to the CISWI standards and guidelines. However, a definition of commercial
and industrial waste has been added to the CISWI standards and guidelines to clarify that they
only cover units burning solid waste without energy recovery. Therefore, any unit that burns tires
or tire-derived fuel for energy recovery is not subject to the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Control Devices
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-25, IV-D-49) stated that air pollution
control equipment Should be categorically exempt from the CISWI standards and guidelines.
One commenter (IV-D-35) stated that any combustion device whose function is pollution control
as mandated by another Federal or State requirement should be exempt from the CISWI
standards and guidelines. One commenter (IV-D-73) stated that the CISWI standards and
guidelines are not clear as to whether they apply to flares burning surplus, by-product, blast
furnace gas. One commenter (IV-D-94) stated that it is unclear whether incinerators used for air
pollution control are covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Response: Incinerators used as air pollution control devices and flares would not be
covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines because they are not burning contained gases.
The definition of solid waste includes only "...solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous
materials..." A definition of "contained gaseous material" has been added to the CISWI
standards and guidelines to clarify that only gases that are in a container when that container is
combusted are covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-15, IV-D-56, IV-D-58) requested that remediation
incinerators (e.g., soil and groundwater) be excluded from the CISWI standards and guidelines.
15
-------
One commenter (IV-D-15) stated that these units, which are mostly temporary skid-mounted
units that operate in one
location for no more than 6 to 36 months, were not represented in the rulemaking database.
Response: The CISWI standards and guidelines do not cover hazardous waste
combustion units. Therefore, if these remediation incinerators are burning hazardous wastes they
would not be covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines. However, if these units are not
burning hazardous wastes they are covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines. The
commenters failed to provide any technical basis on which EPA could consider an exemption for
portable remediation units.
Small Units (size issues)
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-24, IV-D-30, IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-
49, IV-D-54, IV-D-57, IV-D-81, IV-D-92, IV-D-95) stated that the CISWI standards and
guidelines should contain exemptions or subcategorizations for certain types of small units. One
commenter (IV-D-09) stated that the EPA failed to include many small to moderate (less than
500 Ib/hr and most intermittently operated) incinerators in its analysis and therefore has subjected
these units to an inappropriate level of control.
Three commenters (IV-D-30, IV-D-35, IV-D-49) stated that "Smart Ash" incinerators
should be exempt from the CISWI standards and guidelines. One commenter (IV-D-09) stated
that the EPA did not include these units, which are also known as cyclonic barrel burners, in the
regulatory analysis (50 to 150 Ibs/hr capacity and typically bum nonhazardous oily materials
including rags and sorbents).
Two commenters (IV-D-36, IV-D-95) requested that EPA clarify that small MWC units,
those with a capacity of less than 35 tons per day, are exempt from the CISWI standards and
guidelines. Three other commenters (IV-D-54, IV-D-57, IV-D-81) described small incineration
units that burn municipal wastes (i.e., food wastes, cardboard, office trash) and stated that these
small units should not be covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
One commenter (IV-D-24) stated that there should be a distinction between sizes and
types of facilities if there are facilities identified with a heat release greater than 10 million Btu/hr
that are subject to the CISWI standards and guidelines. The commenter (TV-D-24) stated that
16
-------
subcategorizing on the basis of heat release rate would allow the CIS WI standards and guidelines
to take into account differences in controls and costs.
Response: The intent of the CISWI standards and guidelines is to cover commercial and
industrial solid waste incinerators, regardless of size. However, EPA did not intend to cover
cyclonic barrel burners in the CISWI standards and guidelines, therefore, an exemption for
cyclonic barrel burners has been added to the final standards and guidelines. In addition, it is not
the intent of the CISWI standards and guidelines to cover the combustion of municipal solid
waste. Therefore, EPA revised the standards and guidelines to clarify that MWC units that
combust greater than 30 percent municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel, as defined in
40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB, and that have capacity to combust less than
35 tons per day of municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel are not subject to the CISWI
standards and guidelines.
As described in the preamble to the proposed standards and guidelines (64 FR 67097, last
paragraph of first column) "Categories may be divided into subcategories when differences (such
as design, fuel, or waste type, etc.) between given types of units lead to corresponding differences
in the technical feasibility of applying emission control techniques. The design and operating
information that EPA reviewed to date for CISWI units does not indicate the need for
subcategorization of this category." No additional data was provided after proposal to support
subcategorization. Therefore, there are no subcategories in the CISWI standards and guidelines.
The EPA's CISWI inventory included a wide range of unit designs, waste types and sizes.
The range of sizes in the database included units burning less than 100 pounds of waste per hour
to those that burn about 40,000 pounds of waste per hour. Approximately 50% of the CISWls in
the inventory database burn 500 pounds of waste per hour or less. The EPA's impacts analysis
includes a small CISWI model unit that burns 100 pounds of waste per hour.
Agricultural Waste and Pathological Exemptions
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-26) stated that the exemption for
agricultural wastes should be expanded to cover units combusting 90 percent by weight biomass
fuels (which includes bagasse and untreated wood). Alternatively, one of the commenters (IV-D-
10) suggested that the EPA could exempt both biomass fuel and agricultural waste.
17
-------
Response: The EPA did not revise the agricultural waste exemption in the CISWI
standards and guidelines to include untreated wood. It was not EPA's intent to include untreated
wood and untreated wood products in the definition of agricultural waste. In the final CISWI
standards and guidelines, CISWI units that recover energy are not covered. Therefore, units
burning bagasse or untreated wood, which recover energy (e.g., generate steam) would not be
covered.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-12, IV-D-26) stated that instead of being
measured on an instantaneous basis, the agricultural waste exemption (§60.2010(d) and
§60.2550(d)(3) of the proposed CISWI standards and guidelines) should be based on an
averaging period of a minimum of 30 days. One commenter(IV-D-86) stated that the
agricultural waste exemption should be calculated on a calendar quarter basis rather than an
instantaneous basis. In addition, two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-12) stated that the EPA should
clarify that supplemental fuels (e.g., natural gas, oil, and wood) are not considered when
calculating compliance with the 90 percent requirement.
Response: The EPA revised the agricultural waste exemption in (§60.2020(b) and
§60.2555(b) of the final CISWI standards and guidelines) to clarify that the weight of agricultural
waste is calculated on a calendar quarter basis. In addition, EPA clarified that the weight of
auxiliary fuels and combustion air are excluded.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-26, IV-D-86, IV-D-94) stated that the pathological
waste exemption (§60.2010(c) and §60.2550(d)(2) of the proposed CISWI standards and
guidelines) should be calculated on a calendar quarter basis rather than an instantaneous basis.
Response: The EPA revised the pathological waste exemption (§60.2020(a) and
§60.2555(a) of the final CISWI standards and guidelines) to clarify that the weight of
pathological waste is calculated on a calendar quarter basis. In addition, EPA clarified that the
weight of auxiliary fuels and combustion air are excluded.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-86) stated that chemotherapeutic waste and low-level
radioactive wastes should be added to the pathological waste exemption. The commenter (IV-D-
86) recommended that the EPA use the appropriate definitions from the medical waste rule at 40
CFR 60.51c. In addition, the commenter (IV-D-86) requested that a new paragraph be added to
exclude incinerator units that burn greater than 90 percent of any combination of agricultural,
pathological, chemotherapeutic, and low-level radioactive waste.
18
-------
Response: The EPA revised the pathological waste exemption in §60.2020(a) and
§60.2555(a) of the final CISWI standards and guidelines by adding low-level radioactive waste
and chemotherapeutic waste, consistent with the medical waste rule. In addition, the definitions
for chemotherapeutic waste and low-level radioactive waste from 40 CFR 60.5 Ic have been
added.
The EPA did not revise §§60.2020 and 60.2555 to exempt incinerators that burn greater
than 90 percent of any combination of agricultural, pathological, chemotherapeutic, and low-
level radioactive waste. It is the EPA's intent to exempt units that burn primarily pathological
waste or primarily agricultural waste, not units that burn a little of each of these wastes.
Parts, Rack and Dium Units
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-87, IV-D-92) stated that, since
parts, racks, and drum burn-off units were excluded from EPA's analysis, they should not be
covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Response: The EPA has added an exemption for rack, part, and drum reclamation units
to §§60.2020(k) and 60.2555(k) of the final standards and guidelines. These reclamation units
are a part of another process or manufacturing operation and are unique to the overall
manufacturing process. Therefore, they are best considered during regulation development for
the process they are part of. To the extent that rack, part and drum reclamation units are located
at major sources, these units will be covered by MACT standards developed to regulate those
major sources.
Other MACTs
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-32) stated that the standards should not apply to units
subject to current or future combustion source Standards. Another commenter (IV-D-48) stated
that there should be a general exclusion for units that are regulated under other MACT standards.
Response: The final standards and guidelines exclude combustion units that are subject
to other combustion source regulations. Specifically, the final CISWI standards and guidelines
exclude MWC units, HMIWI units, and hazardous waste combustion units. Some combustion
units that are not specifically listed in §60.2020 of subpart CCCC or §60.2555 of subpart DDDD
19
-------
are excluded because they recover energy. The final CISWI standards and guidelines do not
cover combustion units that recover energy.
Boilers
Comment: Many commenters (IV-D-11, IV-D-13, IV-D-17, IV-D-21, IV-D-31, IV-D-40,
IV-D-42, IV-D-43, IV-D-44, IV-D-46, IV-D-47, IV-D-48, IV-D-51, IV-D-55, IV-D-60, IV-D-61,
IV-D-69, IV-D-71, IV-D-72, IV-D-76, IV-D-81, IV-D-84, IV-D-89, IV-D-93) stated that the
CISWI standards and guidelines should not regulate boilers. These units included: utility boilers
that are co-fired with tires or other supplemental fuels (yard waste; wood waste from logging
operations; wood mill operations; fruit orchard operations; construction and demolition debris;
industrial waste wood consisting of crates, pallets, cribbing, dunnage; kraft paper waste from
manufacturing operations; paper pellets; non-chlorinated, non-halogenated plastics; discarded
Christmas trees); industrial boilers at pulp and paper facilities that co-fire paper mill sludge with
fossil and biomass fuels; and evaporation of boiler cleaning waste in fossil-fuel-fired steam
generators. One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that EPA should expand the list of the subparts in
40 CFR Part 60 that are excluded from the proposed CISWI standards and guidelines to include
the boilers Standards: subparts D, Da, Db, and DC.
The commenters cited the following reasons for not including boilers in the CISWI
standards and guidelines: The Congressional intent of section 129 of the CAA was to regulate
incinerators, not boilers. Boilers were intended to be regulated under the section 112 industrial
boiler MACT; EPA did not consider boilers in determining the MACT floor, emissions
limitations, or impacts; and boilers were not considered by the ICCR committee or the EPA in
developing the CISWI database or the respondent universe. Four commenters (IV-D-27, IV-D-
47, IV-D-71, IV-D-69) stated that the CISWI standards and guidelines should not regulate
process heaters.
Response: The final CISWI standards and guidelines do not cover units, such as boilers
and process heaters, that recover energy. (See the preamble to the final standards and guidelines
for further discussion.)
20
-------
De minimus for energy recovery units
Comment: Commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-32, IV-D-40, IV-D-46, IV-
D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-58, IV-D-59, IV-D-62, IV-D-71) stated that energy recovery units (i.e.,
commercial and industrial boilers) burning small amounts of solid waste should not be regulated
under the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Response: The EPA revised the final standards and guidelines so that units that recover
energy are not covered. Therefore, the energy recovery units that the commenters reference
would not be covered by the final standards and guidelines.
De minimus, energy recovery not specified
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) described flame or flash evaporation, where water
with trace amounts of VOCs are injected into the combustion zone of a burner. The commenter
(IV-D-50) stated that without a de minimus exemption, this process would be subject to the
CISWI standards and guidelines and they would not be able to comply from both a technical and
economic standpoint.
Response: The final standards and guidelines do not include a de minimus exemption.
The intent of the CISWI standards and guidelines is to cover commercial and industrial solid
waste incinerators, regardless of size or amount of waste burned.
Recovery Units
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-66, IV-D-92) stated that carbon
regeneration furnaces should be exempt from the CISWI standards and guidelines. One
commenter (IV-D-92) stated that these units are in the same category as the exclusion for units
that recover metals or catalysts.
One commenter (IV-D-45) requested that the EPA add their glass aggregate process and
cement process, which involve the combustion of pulp and paper sludge for the primary purpose
of recovering its chemical constituents, to the list of excluded processes.
Several commenters (IV-D-33, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61, IV-D-66) stated that EPA
should provide a general exclusion for materials "combusted for the primary purpose of
recovering chemical constituents" in place of, or in addition to, the list of known processes.
21
-------
One commenter (IV-D-56) stated that catalyst metals recovery units should be explicitly
exempted by revising the solid waste definition to exclude manufacturing byproduct
streams/residues combusted for catalyst metal reclamation and reuse.
Response: The EPA did not add an exemption for carbon regeneration furnaces, glass
aggregate and cement processes, or catalyst metal recovery units. The commenter failed to
provide an adequate explanation of the carbon recovery process and how the recovered carbon is
used. The glass aggregate and cement process described by one of the commenters seems to be a
manufacturing process and not a chemical recovery process. However, a petition process has
been added to the final standards and guidelines and any unit not listed in §§60.2020(n) or
60.2555(n) may petition the Administrator, as described under §§60.2025 and 60.2555, for an
exemption under the chemical recovery process provisions.
A chemical recovery unit exemption has been added to the final standards and guidelines
for "units burning only manufacturing byproduct streams/residues containing catalyst metals
which are reclaimed and reused as catalysts or used to produce commercial grade catalysts."
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-54) supported the exemption for units burning waste
"for the primary purpose of recovering metals," but suggested that the exemption be modified to
make it clear that any secondary material combusted for material recovery purposes (e.g., to
recover metal values) is also covered.
Response: Section 129(g) of the CAA states that "solid waste incineration unit" does not
include "(A) materials recovery facilities (including primary or secondary smelters) which
combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals..." Therefore, these units continue
to be exempt from the CISWI standards and guidelines and no regulation change is necessary.
Other
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) requested an exemption, in §§60.2020 and
60.2555 of the proposed CISWI standards and guidelines, for synthesis gas production units.
The commenter provided the following recommended language:
"Synthesis gas production units. Processes who's [sic] primary purpose is the production
of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas or other gases for use in other processes are
exempt from this subpart."
22
-------
Response: In §§60.2020(n)(6) and 60.2555(n)(6) EPA has added an exemption for "units
burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas,
or other gases for use in other manufacturing processes."
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-92) requested clarification that the control of aerosols
is not be covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Response: The final standards and guidelines include a definition of "contained gaseous
material" to clarify that only those gases that are in a container when they are burned are covered
by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-92) asked for clarification as to whether analytical
ovens (muffle furnaces - these do not use controlled flame combustion) are covered by the
CISWI standards and guidelines. One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that laboratory samples not
intended for disposal should be specifically excluded from the definition of solid waste, if a
general "discard" test is not added to the solid waste definition. The commenter (IV-D-41)
suggested the following wording: "Materials are not solid wastes when combusted for the
purpose of chemical or physical analysis." The commenter (IV-D-41) stated that if none of these
changes are made to the definition of solid waste, then an across-the-board exemption for small
combustion sources should be added to the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Response: The CISWI standards and guidelines were not intended to cover analytical
ovens used to perform chemical or physical analyses of samples of materials. Therefore, to
ensure that these units are not covered, an exemption for laboratory analysis units has been added
to §§60.2020 and 602555 of the final standards and guidelines.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-58) stated that process gas incinerators that
co-fire a de minimus amount of liquids should be exempt from the CISWI standards and
guidelines. Another commenter (IV-D-92) asked for clarification as to whether units that are
burning process waste gases continuously and process waste liquids or solids occasionally are
covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines. Three commenters (IV-D-27, IV-D-55, IV-D-
72) stated that EPA should clarify that condensate derived from the overhead gases from steam
strippers and other emission control gases that are burned are not solid waste.
Response: If these units are not recovering energy, then they are covered by the CISWI
standards and guidelines. The EPA intends to cover incinerators burning any amount of
23
-------
commercial or industrial solid waste without energy recovery under the CISWI standards and
guidelines. Solid waste includes liquid, solid, and semi-solid wastes.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-39, IV-D-46) asked EPA to confirm that the
proposed emission guidelines do not apply to PURPA-qualifying (Federal Power Act, as
amended by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978) small power production facilities
that burn stable ratios of wood and biomass, and waste such as tire derived fuel, that are well
blended, or homogenized, prior to combustion. One commenter (IV-D-59) stated that in
60.2020(a)(2) and 60.2555(a)(2)of the proposed standards and guidelines, the phrase "the unit
burns homogeneous waste...to produce electricity" should be replaced with "the unit bums solid
waste (as defined in this subpart) to produce electricity (however, if the unit bums any refuse-
derived fuel, it is not exempt from this subpart)."
Response: The definition of commercial and industrial waste in the final CISWI
standards and guidelines include only those wastes combusted without energy recovery.
Therefore, since the units described by the commenters are recovering energy to produce steam
or electricity, they are exempt from the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-31) stated that the CISWI standards and guidelines
should exclude fluidized-bed units at pulp and paper mills. The commenter (IV-D-31) stated that
these units could be viewed as being subject to the CISWI standards and guidelines because they
have combustion chambers that are physically separated from the energy recovery system. The
commenter (IV-D-31) stated that there is no doubt that these units recover, export and use
energy.
Response: The EPA agrees that units physically separated from their associated energy
recovery systems maybe legitimate energy recovery devices. Therefore, the requirement for
energy recovery to be part of the unit's "integral" design has been removed. The units described
by the commenter would be considered to be recovering energy and would not be covered by the
CISWI standards and guidelines. In addition, a definition of energy recovery has been added to
the final standards and guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-37) stated that cement kilns firing solid waste should
be expressly excluded from the applicability of the proposed CISWI standards (§§60.2020 and
60.2555) by adding a provision similar to that in the MWC and MWI CISWI standards and
guidelines. The commenter (IV-D-37) stated that EPA does not have authority to regulate
24
-------
cement kilns under section 129. In addition, the commenter (IV-D-37) stated that these units
were not included in the analysis and are very different than incinerators in design and function.
Response: The EPA did not intend to cover cement kilns under the CISWI standards and
guidelines, therefore, an exemption for cement kilns has been added to §§60.2020 and 60.2555 of
the final standards and guidelines to ensure that they are not covered.
The decision not to include cement kilns in the CISWI standards and guidelines reflects
EPA's determination that cement kilns do not fit within the scope of the CISWI standards and
guidelines and are more appropriately regulated by the cement kiln regulations promulgated
under section 112. This decision does not reflect a determination that cement kilns cannot be
regulated under section 129. With the exception of those solid waste incineration units that are
expressly excluded from regulation by section 129(g)(l), Congress gave EPA the authority under
section 129 to establish regulations for all solid waste incineration units. This includes cement
kilns that combust solid waste material, including refuse-derived fuel.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-95) questioned whether a health clinic that bums
outdated pharmaceuticals would be a CISWI unit.
Response: A unit that burns outdated pharmaceuticals would be a CISWI unit under the
CISWI standards and guidelines.
3.1.2 Modification and Reconstruction
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that modifications to comply with the
subpart DDDD or Part 63 CISWI standards and guidelines should not qualify as reconstruction or
modification.
Response: The EPA believes that the commenter misread the regulations.
section 60.2015(b) of proposed subpart CCCC clearly states that if you make a physical or
operational change to your incineration unit primarily to comply with the emission guidelines in
subpart DDDD, then your incineration unit is not affected by subpart CCCC. Such changes do
not qualify as reconstruction or modification. In addition, the EPA revised the applicability of
these subparts to distinguish between units likely to be covered under section 112 (i.e., those
burning solid waste with energy recovery) and those covered under section 129 (i.e., those
burning solid waste without energy recovery). Therefore, the EPA does not expect a unit to be
25
-------
affected by regulations developed under section 112 (part 63) and regulations developed under
section 129 (part 60).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that the proposed modification and
reconstruction requirements of Subparts CCCC and DDDD are unnecessary, will result in
duplicative and unnecessary burdens, and should be deleted. The commenter (IV-D-41)
recommend that language be added to subpart CCCC to override 60.14 and 60.15 of the Part 60
general provisions. The commenter (IV-D-41) stated that, if the requirements are not deleted
from subpart CCCC, then language should be added to eliminate the initial performance test
requirements of 60.2115(a) and 60.8 for affected facilities that come under subpart CCCC
through modification or reconstruction.
The commenter (IV-D-41) also stated that, since the emission limits in the CISWI
standards and guidelines are the same, all sources in the category, whether new or existing, will
be subject to the same requirements. The commenter (IV-D-41) also stated that sources should
be allowed to opt into subpart CCCC at anytime on or after the date on which they would
become subject to the state or federal rule implementing subpart DDDD.
One commenter (IV-D-78) stated that the EPA should replace the proposed definition of
modification with the definition in §60.14 of the Part 60 general provisions. The commenter
(IV-D-78) stated that the proposed definition does not include any exceptions for maintenance,
repair and replacement.
One commenter (IV-D-78) stated that the EPA should replace the proposed definition of
reconstruction with the definition in §60.15 of the Part 60 general provisions. The commenter
(IV-D-78) stated that the proposed definition entails a much more laborious cost analysis than the
historical "reconstruction" concept, in that several years or decades worth of changes to the unit
would have to be evaluated, from both a physical and cost standpoint. In addition, the
commenter (IV-D-78) stated that the approach in the proposed CISWI standards and guidelines
depends on records of original unit costs that may no longer exist and adjustments of costs that
may have been incurred years or decades ago, to current dollar values. Another commenter (IV-
D-92) stated that the definition of reconstruction should contain the section 111 Standards look-
back of two years instead of a life-of-the-unit look-back.
Response: The definitions of modification and reconstruction in subparts CCCC and
DDDD apply, rather than the definitions in the general provisions. Section 129 directs EPA to
26
-------
adopt specific definitions for incineration units and those definitions are incorporated into
subparts CCCC and DDDD.
Section 129 also requires separate standards for new and existing solid waste combustion
units. A unit is either new or existing, but not both. Section 60.2015(b) of subpart CCCC states
that if you make a physical or operational change to your incineration unit primarily to comply
with the emission guidelines in subpart DDDD, then your incineration unit is not affected by
subpart CCCC. Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or modification. A unit cannot be
subject to subpart CCCC and subpart DDDD at the same time. Therefore, the unit will not be
subject to duplicate requirements.
3.2 PRECONSTRUCTION SITING ANALYSIS (NSPS ONLY)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the requirements for the siting analyses
should be more specific, like the RCRA incinerator CISWI standards and guidelines, or they
should be left out.
Response: The EPA did not revise the siting requirements in the Standards. Section 129
of the CAA requires siting requirements that minimize, on a site-specific basis, potential risks to
public health or the environment.
3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that the requirements for the waste •
management plan are vague and should not apply to existing facilities. Another commenter (IV-
D-92) stated that the waste management plan should be used to allow facilities to reduce their
testing and/or monitoring burden.
Response: The EPA is retaining the waste management plan requirements in the
standards and guidelines. The EPA believes that the waste management plan is necessary to
reduce the amount of toxic emissions from incinerated waste. The waste management plan
requirements have been written to provide flexibility so that site specific circumstances can be
considered.
If a facility wants to reduce their testing and/or monitoring burden through the use of
alternative procedures, 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the General Provisions allows a facility to petition the
Administrator for alternative monitoring procedures or requirements.
27
-------
3.4 OPERATOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-15, IV-D-58) stated that language should be added to
the CISWI standards and guidelines to provide a mechanism to review and approve alternative
operator availability and training for remotely operated systems. The remotely operated systems
are run using automatic shutdown systems and telemetry and do not have an on-site operator.
Response: The EPA has not added a mechanism to review and approve alternative
operator availability and training provisions for remote systems to the final standards and
guidelines. However, under the general provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), the owner or
operator can apply for the Administrator's approval of alternative plans for operator certification.
Until the Administrator approves the alternative plans, the owner or operator must comply with
the requirements as written.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-64) stated that EPA should clarify the
inconsistency in general operator accessibility requirements. The commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-
64) stated that no guidance is given for when a qualified operator is available from between 1 and
8 hours. The commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-64) recommended that the accessibility time
requirement in §60.2065(a) and §60.2635(a) of the proposal be modified to read "8 hours."
Response: The EPA revised §60.2095 to change "unavailable" to "not accessible." The
standards and guidelines require that a trained operator be accessible at all times. Accessible
means that the trained and qualified operator is either on site, or can be on site within 1 hour.
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements unless the operator is not accessible for
8 hours or more.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-22) stated that due to 12-hour work shifts, the EPA
should allow 12 hours of operation without a qualified operator before triggering additional
reporting. Another commenter (IV-D-92) stated that the EPA should allow more than one year
for operator certification.
Response: The EPA believes that the operator training requirements are adequate and did
not revise the operator training requirements. The standards and guidelines (§60.2100(a) and
§60.2665(a)) do allow for the unit to be operated by "other plant personnel familiar with the
operation of the CISWI unit who have completed a review of the information specified in
§60.2095(a) or §60.2660(a) within the past 12 months" when an operator is not accessible for
28
-------
more than 8 hours and less than 2 weeks. However, in this case, you must record the period
when all qualified operators were not accessible and include the deviation in the annual report.
3.5 SELECTION OF THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
FLOOR
Consideration of Other Technologies
Comment: One commenter ( IV-D-88) stated the EPA failed to consider the use of
catalytic filter bags in existing baghouses as an appropriate control for dioxins. It is less
expensive and more effective than carbon injection.
Response: The EPA had no performance or cost data on catalytic filter bags at the time
of proposal, and no data were submitted with the comment. Therefore, EPA could not consider
them for the final standards and guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) said that, although add-on controls are not
required for NOX and CO, "good operation and maintenance" should be required with no numeric
emission limit.
Response: Under section 129, EPA is required to promulgate numerical emission
limitations for the pollutants listed in the statute. The EPA has no information that would lead it
to conclude that the units in the emission database are poorly operated or maintained. Therefore,
the emission limitations were established to account for the worst reasonably foreseeable
circumstance for well operated and maintained CISWI units.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-24) stated that proper and complete analysis,
addressing the full 12% of existing units should be completed to fully justify the emission
guidelines. Unless there are a full 12% of the facilities equipped with wet scrubbers, at least
some fabric filter-equipped facilities must be included in the best performing 12% to be
considered for the emission guideline floor.
Response: When developing MACT floors, EPA did include units equipped with fabric
filters in the best performing 12% for those pollutants for which fabric filters are effective (i.e.,
particulate matter, lead, and cadmium). Emission data for these units and pollutants were also
considered in determining emission limitations.
29
-------
MACT Determination Criteria
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA considered cost in determining
whether to set standards more stringent than the floors but failed to consider "non-air quality
health and environmental impacts," such as the bioaccumulative effects of dioxin and mercury on
the health of wildlife and humans. Failure to consider these impacts contravenes the CAA.
Response: The EPA did consider non-air quality impacts in determining MACT for
CISWI units. The Federal Register notices and regulatory support documents discuss the
analyses of the expected wastewater, solid waste, and energy consumption impacts associated
with regulating CISWI unit emissions.
In addition, Congress directed EPA in section 129 to set technology-based standards at
the first MACT stage and then address remaining risks to public health and the environment in
the subsequent residual risk stage in sections 129(h)(3) and 112(f)(2). Standards and emission
guidelines are technology-based standards, not health-based standards, so EPA may not set
emission limitations that eliminate all dioxin, mercury, or other emissions if such limitations are
not achievable based on current technology. The EPA must later assess the remaining risks
CISWI unit emissions pose after MACT standards are applied and establish additional standards,
if necessary, "to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health...or to prevent, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental
effect." (Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which is referred to by section 129(h)(3)).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-38) stated that EPA considered a dry/wet system to
control mercury and dioxin emissions beyond the floor levels and asserted that the cost
effectiveness is considered excessive. The commenter (IV-D-38) stated that because EPA did
not say why it was considered excessive or explain the criteria used to make this judgement, this
decision is arbitrary and capricious. The commenter (IV-D-38) also stated that EPA also failed
to consider any other beyond the floor options, such as banning or restricting combustion of
certain materials or good combustion technology and techniques. The commenter (IV-D-38)
asserted that EPA must set beyond-the-floor standards that reflect these measures.
Response: When determining whether an emission reduction beyond the MACT floor is
"achievable," the Administrator must consider "the cost of achieving such emission reduction..."
Therefore, when evaluating an air pollution control technology option beyond the MACT floor,
EPA must weigh the cost of the control option versus its environmental benefit. In the case of
30
-------
the "dry/wet" system, EPA's judgement was that the additional costs were excessive compared to
the minimal additional emission reductions that would be obtained.
The other beyond-the-floor options mentioned by the commenter (e.g., pollution
prevention techniques) were considered. However, EPA does not have data to quantify the
emission reductions associated with such techniques. As a result, EPA cannot compare the
additional emission reduction versus "the cost of achieving such reduction" to determine whether
it is achievable. At proposal, EPA requested information on emissions, current applications, and
costs for any recommended control option beyond the floor. This information was not included
with the comment, and, absent the necessary data, EPA cannot evaluate whether emission
reduction beyond the floor is achievable using these techniques.
Units Considered in MACT Determination
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-36) requested that EPA clarify whether the ordnance-
related unit in the CISWI database is considered a CISWI unit.
Response: At proposal, EPA was not aware that an ordnance-related unit was in the
CISWI database. This unit is a hazardous waste combustion unit, not a CISWI unit. Therefore,
this unit has been removed from the database and to our knowledge, this was the only ordnance-
related unit in the CISWI database.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that one of their independent power
production units, which burns biomass fuel, tire-derived fuel, and processed yard waste, was not
included in the database even though data on it was provided during the ICCR process.
Response: The final CISWI standards and guidelines do not cover units that recover
energy. See the preamble to the final standards and guidelines for further discussion.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that the CISWI database includes a
hazardous waste incinerator in Liverpool, OH. Another commenter (IV-D-58) stated that the
database used by EPA in the development of the standards and guidelines incorrectly accounted
for CISWI units they currently operate.
Response: We acknowledge that the CISWI database is not perfect. In fact, it is not
possible, given limited time and resources, to develop a database that is perfect. However, EPA
believes the CISWI database is representative of the types of units currently operating in the
CISWI category and, more importantly, that it provides an adequate basis upon which to base the
31
-------
final standards and guidelines. The hazardous waste combustion unit that the commenter refers
to was included in an earlier version of the CISWI database. However, that version of the
database was reviewed by EPA and stakeholders prior to development of the proposed standards
and guidelines and additional units were removed, such as hazardous waste combustion units,
boilers, small MWC units, and medical waste incinerator units. As a result, the hazardous waste
combustion unit that the commenter referred to is no longer in the CISWI database and was not
used in determining the emission limitations.
3.6 SELECTION OF THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
EMISSION LIMITS
Cadmium
Comment: Six commenters (IV-D-38, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-86)
noted that the data upon which the cadmium emission limit is based is extremely limited. As a
result, the commenters believed the proposed emission limit for cadmium is too stringent
compared to limits from other EPA rulemakings for similar sources (i.e., municipal waste
combustors, hazardous waste combustors, hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators), and
will not be reliably achievable in practice by units subject to the standards and guidelines, even
when employing MACT technology. One of the commenters (IV-D-38) suggested that EPA
reevaluate the emission limit using data available from these other mlemakings.
Response: See below.
Dioxin/Furans
Comment: Thirteen commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-33, IV-D-36, IV-D-38, IV-D-
56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-79, IV-D-82, IV-D-85, IV-D-86) noted that the data upon
which the dioxin/furans emission limit is based is extremely limited. As a result, the commenters
believed that the proposed emission limit for dioxin/furans is too stringent compared to limits
from other EPA rulemakings for similar sources (i.e., municipal waste combustors, hazardous
waste combustors, hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators), and will not be reliably
achievable in practice by units subject to the standards and guidelines, even when employing
MACT technology. Nine of the commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-33, IV-D-56, IV-D-58,
32
-------
IV-D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-79, IV-D-86) suggested that EPA reevaluate the emission limit using
data available from these other rulemakings.
Response: See below.
Hvdroeen Chloride (HC1)
Comment: Eight commenters (IV-D-26, IV-D-33, IV-D-38, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61,
IV-D-64, IV-D-86) suggested that the limited data upon which the proposed HC1 limit is based
does not adequately account for the variability in waste types and control technology
performance that CISWI units could reasonably foresee. Therefore, the commenters stated that a
percent reduction alternative should be added to the final standards and guidelines for HC1. One
commenter (IV-D-88), on the other hand, stated that the limit of 62 ppmvd is greater than what
can be achieved with scrubbers (e.g., they achieve 99% on new hydrochloric acid steel pickling
processes), and could, in most cases be achieved without a control device.
Response: See below.
Lead
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-38, IV-D-64) stated fliat the lead emission limit
should be reevaluated because the small number of tests appears to have resulted in a low
emission standard.
Response: See below.
Mercury
Comment: Eleven commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-33, IV-D-38, IV-D-56, IV-D-
58, IV-D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-82, IV-D-85, IV-D-86) noted that the data upon which the mercury
emission limit is based is extremely limited. As a result, the commenters believed that the
proposed emission limit for mercury is too stringent compared to limits from other EPA
rulemakings for similar sources (i.e., municipal waste combustors, hazardous waste combustors,
hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators), and will not be reliably achievable in practice by
units subject to the standards and guidelines, even when employing MACT technology. Seven of
the commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-33, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-86) suggested
that EPA reevaluate the emission limit using data available from these other rulemakings.
33
-------
Response: See below.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that existing units burning wastes
containing measurable concentrations of organically bound nitrogen will not be able to achieve
the proposed limit for NOX. The commenter (IV-D-22) recommended a limit of 780ppm for
existing sources. One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the proposed limit ignores the
application of NOX control technologies such as selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to
facilities in similar source categories.
Response: See below.
Particulate Matter
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the proposed limit for PM is two to
three times higher than is achievable with a properly designed fabric filter or electrostatic
precipitator, which can achieve levels below 30 mg/dscm. In addition, recent CISWI standards
and guidelines for small MWC and medical waste incinerators are well below the proposed limit
of 70 mg/dscm for CISWI units. One commenter (IV-D-22) said that, due to a high percentage
of particulates less than 1.0 micron in size, they cannot meet the PM limit. The commenter (IV-
D-22) recommended that EPA allow an alternative standard of 85% PM control for units with
more than 85% by weight of PM being less than 1.0 microns. One commenter (TV-D-64) stated
that the proposed particulate matter emission limit is extremely low and not achievable in
practice. The commenter (IV-D-64) stated that EPA should reevaluate the existing database for
representativeness and determine revised emission limits to allow achievability. The commenter
(IV-D-64) stated that this reevaluation could include data from municipal waste combustors and
hazardous waste incinerators.
Response: See below.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Comment: Ten commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-26, IV-D-33, IV-D-38, IV-D-41, IV-D-56,
IV-D-58, IV-D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-86) suggested that the limited data upon which the proposed
SO, limit is based does not adequately account for the variability in waste types and control
34
-------
technology performance that CISWI units could reasonably foresee. Therefore, the commenters
stated that a percent reduction alternative should be added to the final standards and guidelines
for SO2.
Response: See below.
Inconsistency with Other Rulemakings
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-40) stated that the emission limits for cadmium,
dioxin/furans, lead, and mercury should be consistent with those from the Hazardous Waste
Combustor rule. Another commenter (IV-D-16) is concerned that the emission limits are more
stringent than those from the municipal and medical waste incinerator CISWI standards and
guidelines.
Response: See below.
Limits not Stringent Enough
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA's emission standards are less
stringent than required by the CAA. The final standards should be as stringent as those
calculated by the commenter from the CISWI database. The commenter (IV-D-63) stated that if
EPA feels their data are insufficient to represent actual performance of individual units, the EPA
should use its authority to obtain such data. The commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA's concern
that the proposed mercury standard is too stringent, which results from the EPA's erroneous
belief that all units should be able to achieve the floor levels just by employing a particular
technology, is unfounded.
Response: Comments on the selection of emission limitation are discussed and
responded to in the preamble to the final standards and guidelines.
Opacity
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-86) stated that the emissions limitation for opacity
should be removed, because an opacity limitation is not required by the CAA, and it is difficult to
obtain accurate readings when wet scrubbers are used (due to high moisture content).
Response: Section 129 of the CAA specifies that "standards promulgated under
section 111 and this section ... shall specify numerical emission limitations for ... opacity (as
35
-------
appropriate)..." In our judgement, an opacity limitation is appropriate for the CISWI units, just
as opacity limitations have been appropriate for the other categories of solid waste incineration
units regulated under section 129.
In addition, Method 9 includes procedures for how to obtain opacity readings when water
vapor (e.g., from a wet scrubber) is present in the plume. Section 2.3.1 of Method 9 states that
"when condensed water vapor is present within the plume as it emerges from the emission outlet,
opacity observations shall be made beyond the point in the plume at which condensed water
vapor is no longer visible." Section 2.3.2 of Method 9 states that "when water vapor in the
plume condenses and becomes visible at a distinct distance from the emission outlet, the opacity
of emissions should be evaluated at the emission outlet prior to the condensation of water vapor
and the formation of the steam plume."
Emission Database
Comments: Two commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-91) urged EPA to obtain more emission
data in conjunction with feed data from CISWI units in the inventory database, or, if not
available, obtain and analyze additional data from relevant sources so that the emission limits are
truly representative of MACT and also account for waste feed characteristics. Another
commenter (IV-D-79) stated that EPA should consider the specific types of waste feed as part of
its evaluation and determination of MACT standards in addition to the types of control systems
currently in use, because emissions are greatly influenced by the type of waste incinerated.
Response: The types of waste burned by CISWI units vary significantly, and, as a result,
there is not enough data to relate emission levels to specific types of waste. However, EPA
believes that the approach used to establish emission limitations adequately accounts for waste
variability, because it considers the worst reasonably foreseeable circumstance that a CISWI unit
may encounter. (For a complete discussion, see the preamble to the final standards and
guidelines.)
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-26, IV-D-40, IV-D-44, IV-D-46, IV-D-48) stated that
the database and information gathering have been inadequate to support the regulation of various
types of boilers and small power production facilities. Therefore, the commenteis concluded that
the CISWI standards and guidelines have insufficient sample data to accurately determine the
applicable emission limits and standards for these types of units.
36
-------
Response: The final CISWI standards and guidelines do not cover units that recover
energy. See the preamble to the final standards and guidelines for further discussion.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-79) submitted a 1997 emission test for a 2000 Ib/hr
incinerator with a hydrated lime injection system and fabric filter.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter submitting this test report. The EPA has
added the data for this unit to the CISWI emission database. The unit appears to be able to
comply with the final standards and guidelines for all pollutants. Although the data do not
demonstrate that this is the best-controlled unit in the category, the data do fall within the range
of data from units equipped with wet scrubbers or fabric filters, which were considered in setting
the emission limitations.
3.7 STACK TESTING AND TEST METHODS
Test Methods
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that Methods 6C and 26A should be
included in the emission guidelines as alternative methods.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added Methods 6C and 26A to
the CISWI standards and guidelines as alternative methods.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that §60.2700(b) of the proposal requires
that all stack tests be conducted using the minimum run duration specified in the test method.
However, the commenter (IV-D-26) pointed out that EPA Methods 5, 6, 23, and 29 in 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A do not specify minimum run durations. The commenter (IV-D-26)
suggested that the test durations should be as follows (these are equivalent to those specified in
Subparts Ea, Eb, and Cb): Method 5-2 hours; Method 6 or 6c -1 hour; Method 23 - 4 hours;
and Method 29-2 hours.
Response: The EPA revised the standards and guidelines to include a run duration of
1-hour for test Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 10, 10A, 10B, 23, 26A, and 29, which is
sufficient to collect an adequate sample.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that Method 26A should be combined with
Method 5 to reduce testing costs.
Response: It is appropriate to combine Method 26A and Method 5. Method 26A states
that "If desired, the particulate matter recovered from the filter and the probe is analyzed
37
-------
following the procedures in Method 5." Section 1.2 of Method 26A also describes a different
sampling arrangement that must be used if particulate matter is sampled concurrently.
Comment: One commenter ( IV-D-26) stated that, based on the MWC standard
development process, Method 29 has been validated down to only 57 ug/dscm for mercury and
the proposed limit is 5 ug/dscm. Another commenter (IV-D-24) stated that the emission
concentration limit of 5 ug/dscm for mercury is likely below the detectable limits of the test
method. Five commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-77, IV-D-82, IV-D-85) stated that the
proposed mercury emission limit is below the detectable limits of available and approved test
methods. In addition, two commenters (IV-D-82, IV-D-85) stated that the detection limit for SW
846 Method 0060 is 5.6 ug/dscm, therefore, a facility could never prove they were in compliance
with this standard using EPA approved test methods.
Response: The EPA revised the emission limitation for mercury to 0.47 mg/dscm (470
ug/dscm); therefore, the commenter's concern about the detection limit should no longer be an
issue. However, it should be noted that Method 29 of appendix A of part 60 is the compliance
method for mercury, rather than SW 846 Method 0060 cited by the commenter.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-40, IV-D-71) stated that the toxic equivalent (TEQ)
approach should be used for any dioxins/furans emission limits. One commenter (IV-D-71)
stated that any non-detectable compound should be calculated as zero.
Response: The dioxins/furans limit in the final standards and guidelines is on a toxic
equivalency (TEQ) basis and they contain procedures for calculating TEQ. The provisions in the
standards and guidelines §60.2125(g) and §60.2690(g) require that the measured concentration of
each isomer be multiplied by the corresponding toxic equivalent factor in table 3 of subpart
CCCC or table 4 of subpart DDDD. Nondetected isomers would be treated as zero.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-77) stated that the proposed
dioxin limit is below the analytical method detection limit (0.28 ng/dscm). One commenter (IV-
D-26) stated that the limit is also below the reference method quantization limit (2.93 ng/dscm)
of the test method based on test data analysis using paired or quad sampling. One commenter
(IV-D-24) stated that the emission concentration limit of 0.37 ng/dscm for dioxin is likely below
the detectable limit of the test method.
Response: The emission limitation for dioxin/furans in the final standards and guidelines
is 0.41 ng/dscm on a TEQ basis. Converting the dioxin/furan limitation from a TEQ basis to a
38
-------
total mass basis results in a value that is at least one order of magnitude higher than the TEQ
limitation (i.e., in the range of 4 ng/dscm or higher). Therefore, the dioxin/furan limitation in the
final standards and guidelines is well above the detection and reference method quantization
limits cited by the commenters.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-92) stated that there will be difficulty doing the
Method 9 opacity tests due to a shortage of persons certified in Method 9 opacity measurement.
Response: The EPA believes that Method 9 is the appropriate test method for the
required opacity limitation. Owners or operators may have one of their existing CISWI operators
certified in Method 9 opacity measurements.
Stack Testing
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61) stated lhat EPA should
allow the owner/operator to propose and the Administrator to approve mass balances as site-
specific alternatives to stack testing. Three commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-41, IV-D-64) stated that
EPA should provide owners/operators with the option to determine compliance through feed
composition. One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that EPA should allow feed testing and
certification of the absence Cd, Pb, Hg, chlorine and chlorides to demonstrate compliance with
Cd, Pb, Hg, hydrogen chloride and dioxin/furan limits. Another commenter (IV-D-41) stated
EPA should allow feed analyses a three hour composite feed sample analysis, along with
measured or calculated stack gas rate to be used as an alternative to the stack tests for HC1 and
metals.
Response: Under the general provisions (40 CFR 60.13(i)), facilities can apply for
approval of alternative or equivalent methods, including mass balances and feed composition, as
site-specific alternatives to performance testing. Alternatively, a facility could petition the
Administrator under §60.2115 (Standards of Performance) or §60.2680 (Emission Guideline) for
specific operating limits to be established during the initial performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter, reflecting the use of an alternative means of limiting emissions than the use
of a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-8, IV-D-82) requested that EPA delete the statement
in §§60.2145 and 602715 of the proposal, that "the Administrator may request a repeat stack test
at any time." The commenters (IV-D-8, IV-D-82) asserted that the Administrator must show
39
-------
cause for the repeat stack test and the facility must have the opportunity to respond to that
request.
Response: The EPA has not removed the statement referred to by the commenters. To
ensure that standards are complied with continuously, the EPA has the authority under
section 114(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act to conduct inspections and to "...sample any emissions
which such person is required to sample ...." The statement is included in the CISWI standards
and guidelines for clarification purposes.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) requested clarification that the initial performance
test is required "...within 60 days after your CISWI unit reaches the maximum charge rate at
which it will operate,..." Another commenter (IV-D-50) stated that "charge rate" is not defined,
nor do the standards and guidelines describe how to measure charge rate on a continuous basis,
record it once per hour, and calculate a 3-hour average, especially for a batch unit. One
commenter (IV-D-92) asked for clarification on how the charge rate is determined for a batch
unit. The commenter (TV-D-92) stated that EPA should clarify how batch units "continuously"
monitor charge rates. Another commenter (IV-D-78) stated that EPA should change the term
"charge rate" to language that is understood by historical practice or define the term "charge
rate."
Response: The EPA revised the standards and guidelines to include procedures for
calculating the maximum charge rate for continuous and intermittent units, as well as for batch
units (see §602110(a)(l) and §60.2675(a)(l) of the final standards and guidelines). The charge
rate is a measure of the capacity (e.g., waste combustion rate) at which you plan to operate the
unit. The EPA believes that this is clear in the standards and guidelines, and therefore, has not
added a definition of charge rate.
Operating Parameters
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) suggested that the petitioning and approval
process mentioned in §60.2705(b) (What are my operating parameter requirements?) be specified
and that a time period be specified for obtaining approval. The commenter (IV-D-26)
recommend that if the Administrator does not respond within a certain time frame (e.g., 60 days),
the proposed operating parameters would be considered approved until the Administrator
determines otherwise. Another commenter (IV-D-26) stated that the methods for establishing the
40
-------
minimum and maximum site-specific operating parameters during the initial stack test is not
clear. If it is intended that the stack testing be conducted over a range of operating parameters in
order to establish the minimum and maximum conditions that will demonstrate compliance with
the emission limits, then the scope of such testing would be unnecessarily extensive and
expensive. As an alternative, minimum and maximum levels for operating parameters could be
established based upon some predetermined +/- 20 percent (or other) margin around the
monitored operating parameters recorded during the initial stack testing. Another commenter
(IV-D-41) requested clarification that stack tests are not needed at all operating conditions and
feed compositions in order to determine the operating parameters. The commenter (IV-D-41)
asserted that operating parameters need to be able to show compliance at minimum and
maximum feed rates and compositions, but the testing is done at a representative feed rate. The
commenter (IV-D-41) stated that engineering analysis is needed to show that the operating
parameters proposed accomplish this need.
Response: The EPA has revised the standards and guidelines to specify the information
requirements for the petition for specific operating limits for units that use a device other than a
wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations. The petition for specific operating limits
must be submitted with the startup notification. The initial performance test cannot be conducted
until after the petition has been approved by the Administrator. Following approval, the values
for these operating limits must be submitted with the initial test report. (The EPA believes that
establishing the operating limitations warrants EPA approval.) The performance tests do not
need to be done at all possible operating conditions to establish maximum or minimum levels for
operating parameters. Performance testing, as specified in §§60.2125 and 60.2690, must consist
of a minimum of three test runs conducted under conditions representative of normal conditions.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-26) stated that the default 3-hour rolling average basis
specified by §60.2710 of the proposal for determining compliance with established operating
parameters is not appropriate. The commenter (IV-D-26) stated that the averaging period for an
operating parameter should be established on the same basis as the length of the testing
performed to establish compliance with the emission standard for which the operating parameter
is a surrogate.
Response: The EPA revised the test durations, and they are now consistent with the
operating parameter averaging times. All pollutants require a 3-run average with a 1-hour
41
-------
minimum sample time per run, so the total sampling time for the performance test that is used to
establish the parameter limits is 3 hours.
More time for Establishing Operating Parameters and/or Stack Tests
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that sources using a control device other
than a wet scrubber to comply with the SO2 and HC1 emission limits may need extra time to
obtain review and approval of stack test and operating parameter plans. The commenter (IV-D-
41) recommended either the normal 60 or 180 days, or 60 days from approval of the proposed
operating parameters, whichever is later, to complete the physical portion of the stack test. In
addition, the commenter (IV-D-41) stated that the CISWI standards and guidelines should allow
the permitting authority the right to provide an additional 30 days for submitting initial stack test
results and operating parameter values, when appropriate.
Response: The EPA did not revise the standards and guidelines to allow more time for
approval of stack test and operating parameter plans, nor did it revise the standards and
guidelines to allow more time for submitting the initial performance test results. There is
adequate time to receive approval for the alternative operating parameters from the EPA and
conduct the initial performance test before the deadline. Existing units have 180 days from the
final compliance date to conduct the initial performance test. New units have 180 days from
their initial startup or 60 days from when they reach their operating charge rate, whichever is
sooner, to conduct the initial performance test. Both existing and new units have an additional
60 days following the initial performance test to submit the initial test report.
Owners and operators of units should know what emission controls will be used and what
operating parameters are important to monitor prior to their initial startup (for new units) or the
final compliance date (for existing units). The EPA encourages that petitions for alternative
operating parameters be sent to EPA as early as possible. Once received, EPA will review each
petition in a timely manner.
3.8 MONITORING
Averaging time
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-64) stated that the 3-hour rolling
average compliance time for operating parameters should be revised to 24 hours. One of the
42
-------
commenters (IV-D-64) stated that this daily-average approach has precedent in other CISWI
standards and guidelines and is a more practical basis for determining compliance with operating
parameter limits. One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that due to concerns stemming from EPA's
Any Credible Evidence Rule, averaging times need to be specified for affected units that are
already required to use CEMS for compliance monitoring/demonstration purposes as conditions
of existing permits and/or other regulations. The commenter (IV-D-26) stated that, for units that
are required by existing permits to continuously monitor SO2 or NOX, a 24-hour arithmetic block
average compliance interval should be specified.
Response: The EPA did not revise the standards and guidelines to allow 24-hour
averaging. The 3-hour rolling averaging period was chosen to be consistent with the
performance test averaging times, which consist of three I-hour sample runs.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-86) asked EPA to clarify that the 3-hour rolling
average is not to be calculated and updated every minute, but is composed of three 1 -hour blocks.
Response: The commenter's assumption is correct. The 3-hour rolling average
comprises three 1-hour blocks. This has been clarified in the final CISWI standards and
guidelines.
Title V
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-26) stated that the emission guidelines should stipulate
that compliance with the stack test and monitoring requirements in the standards and guidelines
will meet the enhanced and periodic monitoring requirements under the Title V operating permit
program and 40 CFR Part 70 regulations.
Response: There is no reason to include any additional reference to Part 70 monitoring
requirements in the MACT rule, as the function of the permit under Part 70 is to incorporate the
MACT rule's applicable requirements including the monitoring requirements.
Charge Rate
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-26, IV-D-56, IV-D-58) stated that the
standards and guidelines should allow the use of alternative methods or operating procedures
(e.g., steam rate, oxygen content in the flue gas, etc.) that can be used as surrogate measures to
indicate charging rate. Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-12, IV-D-26) stated that it is difficult
43
-------
or impossible to obtain instantaneous readings of the charging rate of solid materials such as
biomass fuels. Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-26) stated that EPA should allow the use of
steam generation monitoring for determining charge rate.
Response: The EPA has revised the standards and guidelines to include specific
procedures for determining the charge rate for continuous, intermittent, and batch units (see
§§60.2110(a)(l) and 60.2675(a)(l) of the final standards and guidelines). The commenters'
suggestion to use steam rate or steam generation monitoring no longer applies because the
CISWI standards and guidelines do not include units that recover energy (e.g., boilers).
Allow Additional Flexibility in Determining Operating Parameters
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-50, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-64, )
provided comments on the operating limits. Three commenter (IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-64)
stated that EPA should provide the flexibility of petitioning the Administrator for alternative
operating parameters for wet scnibbers as provided in §§60.2135(b) and 60.2705(b) of the
proposal for other pollution control devices. Three commenters (IV-D-41, IV-D-56, IV-D-58)
stated that, when using a pollution control device other than a wet scrubber, the EPA should
allow the use of site-specific calibration and monitoring programs when site-specific factors and
experience necessitate the use of practices that differ from manufacturers' recommendations, or
where the manufacturer's recommendations are incomplete or become obsolete. One commenter
(IV-D-56) stated that EPA should allow the use of initial engineering data and/or manufacturer's
recommendations in determining site-specific operating parameters, because operating
parameters recorded during initial performance testing may not adequately cover the full range of
proper operation that the control systems and/or incinerator may experience.
One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that instead of minimum pressure drop across the
scrubber the EPA should focus on statistical process control, which is a better tool for setting
monitoring parameters for pH, flow, amperage and horsepower. The commenter (IV-D-50)
stated that too much differential pressure is as much of a problem as too little.
One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that EPA should require the monitoring of oxygen and
carbon monoxide. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that, as a minimum, parametric monitoring
should include temperature and flow (residence time) data that is calibrated to the conditions
established during the initial stack test and verified during the annual tests.
44
-------
Response: The EPA has revised the standards and guidelines to include specific
procedures for determining the maximum or minimum site-specific operating limits for CISWI
units using a wet scrubber or a fabric filter to comply. Owners or operators of units using a wet
scrubber or fabric filter to comply may petition the Administrator for alternative operating
parameters under section 60.13 of the Part 60 General Provisions. For CISWI units that are
using an air pollution control device other than a wet scrubber to comply with the emission
limitations, the owner or operator must petition the Administrator for site-specific operating
limitations to be established during the initial performance test and continuously monitored
thereafter.
Data Recording
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the proposed standards and guidelines
require that too much data be collected and saved. Recording data every minute and maintaining
the data for 5 years could amount to 8,059,200 pieces of data for one scrubber. Under the Acid
Rain CISWI standards and guidelines, CEMS for SO2 and NOX only have to be able to make four
readings per hour, and only two readings are required for a valid hourly average. One commenter
(IV-D-78) stated that the data recording frequency should be changed from one minute to the
fifteen-minute provision in §60.13.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters and revised the data recording times to
every 15 minutes rather than every minute.
Comment: Two commenters (TV-D-21, FV-D-63) recommended incorporating periodic
monitoring techniques using low-cost, portable analyzers to verify unit performance and
parametric data at specific intervals. One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that yearly stack testing
does not satisfy the section 129 requirement that emission monitoring protect public health. If
CEMS are too costly or unavailable, EPA should require portable emission analyzers to test
emissions at periodic intervals.
Response: Annual performance testing is not the only testing and monitoring
requirement included in the standards and guidelines. The proposed and final standards and
guidelines include continuous monitoring requirements to ensure compliance with operating
limits, which are established during the annual performance tests (i.e., tests that demonstrate
compliance with emission limitations). The operating limits ensure that the CISWI unit and air
45
-------
pollution control equipment are operating properly, assuring the EPA and the public that the
emission reductions envisioned by the standards and guidelines are being achieved.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA claims that HC1 CEMS are too
costly based on the argument that the annual costs for the CEMS are about 70 percent of the
annual cost for operating a wet scrubber. Without an explanation of why this is considered too
costly, the decision is arbitrary and capricious.
Response: The conclusion that HC1 CEMS are too costly is simply a judgement based on
experience. To require CEMS for one pollutant at a cost approaching the annual costs for the
control technology itself is unreasonable when other methods of monitoring performance and
emissions are available that, in EPA's judgement, adequately protect public health and the
environment.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) noted that EPA claims that CEMS for PM and
mercury have not been demonstrated for the purpose of determining compliance. If CEMS for
PM or mercury have been demonstrated to be effective in other applications, they should be used
for compliance.
Response: The EPA is actively pursuing the use of CEMs for the continuous
measurement of particulate and mercury emissions. Performance specifications for these types of
monitoring devices are being developed so that they can be used for compliance determination.
Currently, these performance specifications have been proposed but have not yet been
promulgated. It would be premature to require these CEMs in the CISWI standards and
guidelines before the performance specifications are finalized. Therefore, CEMs for particulates
and mercury have not been included in the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Idle Periods
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that idle periods when the waste is not
being fed into the incinerator should also be excluded from the operating limits. The commenter
(IV-D-41) stated that their unit is a fluidized bed unit that must be maintained at operating
temperature even if waste is not being fed. The commenter (IV-D-41) stated that during these
periods they may not be able to maintain scrubber operating conditions (particularly pressure
drop), but there is no environmental issue, since the pollutants requiring control are not being fed
to the incinerator.
46
-------
Response: The important consideration with regard to emissions is not whether waste is
being fed into the incinerator but whether waste is being combusted in the incinerator. The
CISWI standards and guidelines define shutdown as "the period of time after all waste has been
combusted in the primary chamber." Therefore, if all the waste has been combusted in the
commenter's fluidized bed incinerator, then the incinerator would be considered to be shutdown
under the CISWI standards and guidelines. The operating limits do not apply during CISWI unit
shutdown.
Operating parameter compliance date
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) recommended that compliance with the operating
parameter limits begin on the date the initial stack test report is submitted, rather than on the date
of the completion of the stack test.
Response: The requirement for existing units to meet the operating limits "on the date
the initial performance test is required or completed (whichever is earlier)" has not been changed.
Since the unit is required to meet the emission limits on the date that the initial performance test
is completed, it is reasonable to expect that the unit meet the operating limits as well. Because
operating parameter values are directly measured and, unlike pollutant measurements, do not
require subsequent chemical analysis, the owner or operator will know what the operating limits
are upon completion of the performance test.
Miscellaneous
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-86, IV-D-92) asked for clarification on the minimum
data requirements. One commenter (IV-D-86) requested that EPA define or describe what is
considered a "valid operating hour" and a "valid operating day." Another commenter (IV-D-92)
asked the EPA to clarify how to show compliance for a batch unit with the requirement to collect
monitoring data for a minimum of 75% of the time in a day. The commenter (IV-D-92) asked
EPA to clarify when batch units are supposed to collect monitoring data, since startup, shutdown,
and malfunctions are excluded.
Response: The minimum monitoring requirements have been revised in the final
standards and guidelines and no longer refer to "valid monitoring data" and the percentage of
operating hours and days for which monitoring data must be collected. In the final standards and
47
-------
guidelines, monitoring data must be collected at all times that the CISWI unit is operating, except
during monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control
activities.
3.9 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: One commenter (FV-D-15) stated that facilities commencing construction
between November 30, 1999 and the promulgation date are not provided guidance on when to
file the siting analysis and waste management plan. The commenter (IV-D-15) recommended
that EPA allow 120 days following promulgation for those facilities that begin construction after
November 30, 1999 and before the promulgation date.
Response: Only those units that commence construction after the promulgation date are
required to submit a siting analysis. Therefore, a unit that commences construction between
November 30, 1999 and the promulgation date would not be required to submit a'siting analysis.
A unit that commences construction between November 30, 1999 and the promulgation
date would be a new incineration unit as defined under §60.2015 of the final standards.
Section 60.2060 of the standard requires that the waste management plan be submitted prior to
commencing construction. However, §60.2005 states that the standard does not become effective
until 6 months after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, a unit that
commences construction between November 30, 1999 and the promulgation date does not have
to submit the waste management plan until 6 months after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-65) stated that §60.2020 of the proposed rule
inappropriately requires owners of small power production facilities or cogeneration facilities to
notify EPA that its unit qualifies for exemption to the rule and to provide documentation that the
unit qualifies for exemption. The commenter (IV-D-65) stated that these requirements are
inconsistent with the express statutory determination to exempt such units without requiring any
documentation or other evidence to be submitted to EPA.
Response: The purpose of the notification requirement for small power production
facilities or cogeneration facilities is to exempt these units from the additional provisions of the
subpart. There is no statutory determination to exempt such units without requiring any
documentation or other evidence to be submitted to EPA.
48
-------
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-82, IV-D-85) stated that the period of time for
preparing the stack test report should be extended from 60 days to 90 days with the possibility of
a further extension based upon circumstances beyond the facilities control. The commenters (IV-
D-82, IV-D-85) stated that 60 days may not be enough time to perform and report on
dioxins/furans analyses, since there are only a limited number of laboratories that can perform
this analysis.
Response: The EPA believes that 60 days is an adequate amount of time to prepare and
submit a performance test report and that no regulation change is necessary.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-41) stated that the feed rate recording requirements
under §§60.2160(b)(l) and 60.2730(b)(l) of the proposal need to be clarified for continuously
fed units. The commenter (IV-D-41) recommended the following revision: "(1) CISWI unit
charge dates, times, weights, and hourly charge rates, or for continuously fed units, hourly waste
feed rates and start and stop dates and times for all waste feed periods. In addition, the
commenter (IV-D-41) recommend changing the term "charge rate" everywhere it appears in the
rule and the tables to "charge rate or waste feed rate."
Response: The EPA believes the requirements in §§60.2175(b)(l) and 60.2740(b)(l)
(§§60.2160(b)(l) and 60.2730(b)(l) of the proposal) are clear for both batch and continuous units
and that the commenter's suggested language does not add anything to the standards and
guidelines that is not already required in §§60.2175(b)(l) and 60.2740(b)(l). Therefore, the
commenter's suggested changes have not been made.'
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) recommended that the first annual report be
required 13 months after the initial stack test report and that it cover the 12 months following the
stack test report submission. The commenter (IV-D-41) stated that each subsequent annual
report should then cover the 12 months following the last report. The commenter (IV-D-41)
stated that this will allow the source 30 days to prepare and submit the report after the end of the
reporting period.
Response: The EPA has not changed the due date for the first annual report. The first
annual report is due "no later than 12 months following the submission of the initial test report"
and the initial test report is due 60 days after completion of the initial performance test.
Therefore, if the reporting period for the first annual report were to begin on the date of the
49
-------
completion of the initial performance test, then the owner or operator would have 60 days in
which to prepare and submit the first annual report.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that the semiannual reports required by
§§60.2200 and 60.2760 should be coordinated with the annual report schedule rather than on a
calendar year basis, so only two reports need be submitted per year, rather than the three
proposed.
Response: The deviation reports are not semiannual reports. The deviation report needs
to be submitted for only the half of the year in which the deviation occurred. Therefore, if you
had one deviation, you would submit only two reports that year: the annual report and the
deviation report. In addition, 40 CFR 60.19 allows an owner or operator to petition the
Administrator for alternative submittal dates.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that sources should be allowed to substitute
their semiannual Title V deviation report for the semiannual exceedence report required by the
CISWI standards and guidelines. The commenter (IV-D-41) suggested that the exceedence
reports required under §§60.2185, 60.2190, 60.2745, and 60.2750 only be required until the
source submits its first Title V deviation report, which includes these requirements.
Response: The reporting requirements of the CISWI standards and guidelines remain as
proposed. The same information may be used in the CISWI exceedance report and the Title V
exceedance report, if appropriate.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that computer records should not be
required to be maintained on site, only to be available on site.
Response: The EPA has changed the recordkeeping requirement from "maintained
onsite" to "available onsite" as requested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-86) stated that the requirement to maintain records for
"a period of at least five years" should be changed to "a period of five years."
Response: The EPA did not revise the language in the CISWI standards and guidelines.
The EPA believes the commenter's suggestion does not change the meaning of the standards and
guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-86) stated that the recordkeeping requirements in the
standards and guidelines should be made consistent with the general recordkeeping provisions in
Subpart A of Part 63, specifically: (1) Allow the most recent two years of data to be kept on-site,
50
-------
while the remaining 3 years of data maybe retained off-site; (2) allow the files to be maintained
on microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, or on microfiche.
Response: The EPA has changed the recordkeeping requirement from "maintained
onsite" to "available onsite."
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-86) stated that the EPA should allow data compression
techniques used in the SOCMI rule to reduce the volume of data that must be stored. The
commenter (IV-D-86) specifically asked for the following: (1) Allow the source to record block
average values for 15-minute or shorter periods calculated from all measured data values during
each period of at least one measured data value per minute; and (2) allow that if the daily average
value for a monitored parameter for a given operating day is within the range established, the
source need only retain block hourly average values for that operating day.
Response: The data recording requirements have been revised from every minute to
every 15 minutes in the final standards and guidelines. This change will significantly reduce the
amount of data that must be stored.
3.10 DEFINITIONS
Definition of Solid Waste
General
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-26, IV-D-35, IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-77, IV-D-
89) supported the basic structure of the definition of solid waste as proposed. However, many
commenters stated that the definition of solid waste and the definition of CISWI unit in the
proposed standards and guidelines were too broad, and therefore, inappropriately covered some
boilers and other units that recover energy from burning fuels. The commenters believe that
units that recover energy (e.g., boilers and process heaters) were intended to be regulated under
section 112 and that only incinerators were intended to be regulated under section 129. The
commenters cited the following reasons why the proposed standards and guidelines could be
inappropriately perceived as including units that recover energy:
Many commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-14, IV-D-16, IV-D-18, IV-D-26, IV-D-28, IV-
D-29, IV-D-33, IV-D-34, IV-D-46, IV-D-61, IV-D-67, IV-D-82, IV-D-83, IV-D-
84, IV-D-85) stated that the actual universe of materials burned for energy
51
-------
recovery is broader than those included as fuels in the proposed definition of solid
waste.
Many commenters (IV-D-27, IV-D-42, IV-D-48, IV-D-55, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-
D-61, IV-D-64, IV-D-71JV-D-72, IV-D-75, IV-D-78) stated that legitimate
energy recovery devices, such as process heaters, fluidized-bed units, two-stage
combustion units, and gasifiers, can be physically separated from their associated
energy recovery systems. Therefore, these units do not meet the requirement in
paragraph (2) of the definition of solid waste that stated that heat recovery must be
incorporated as a part of the unit's integral design in order to qualify for the fuels
exclusions.
Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-21, IV-D-27, IV-D-31, IV-D-40,
IV-D-45, IV-D-54, IV-D-59, IV-D-64, IV-D-65, IV-D-69, IV-D-71) stated that
viable fuels can have a heating value less than the 5,000 Btu/lb as fired
requirement that is in the definition of solid waste.
Response: See below.
Defining Solid Waste for Section 129
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-32, IV-D-51, IV-D-84) supported the development
of a solid waste definition exclusively for the section 129 program. One commenter (IV-D-51)
stated that it would be unwise and unnecessarily complex to adopt the definition of "solid waste"
used in EPA's hazardous waste program for purposes of section 129, as the two programs have
differing jurisdictional scopes and statutory goals. One commenter (IV-D-32) specifically
supported adopting a CAA section 129 definition of solid waste different from the RCRA
definition.
One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA has defined "solid waste" unlawfully and far
too narrowly. The commenter (IV-D-63) stated that the definition of "solid waste" in
40 CFR 261.2 does apply to nonhazardous waste for the purpose of section 129. The commenter
(IV-D-63) asserted that EPA must use that definition and is not free to redefine "solid waste"
now. The commenter (IV-D-63) stated that even assuming EPA is free to redefine "solid waste,"
the proposed definition must be rejected as inconsistent with the SWDA and the CAA. The
commenter (IV-D-63) stated that the exclusion for any material with a heating value greater than
5000 Btu/lb and burned for energy recovery, regardless of whether it was previously discarded,
fails to give the term "discarded" its proper meaning under the SWDA and must be rejected.
52
-------
Response: See below.
Discard Concept
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-41, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61, IV-D-64) stated
that the definition of solid waste must include the concept of discard in order to be consistent
with the SWDA. (Commenters IV-D-56, IV-D-64 provided suggested language.) One
commenter (IV-D-41) pointed out that under the SWDA a material is a solid waste only if it is to
be discarded. The commenter (IV-D-41) stated that the inclusion of this test is critical to
assuring that process streams are not inappropriately identified as solid waste. One commenter
(IV-D-58) stated that the proposed definition of solid waste (with limited exclusions) includes all
materials that are combusted, including fuels combusted in internal combustion engines and fuels
combusted in process equipment that does not incorporate an integral energy recovery system.
Response: See below.
Hazardous Waste
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-54) stated that EPA
should clarify that materials that are expressly exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation (40
CFR 261.4) are not solid wastes under the CISWI standards and guidelines. One commenter
(IV-D-49) recommended adding the phrase "other than any wastes that are subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR sections 261.6(a)(3) and (4)(1998)" to subparagraph l(v) of the definition
of solid waste in §§60.2245 and 60.2850.
Response: See below.
Clarification
Comment: Two (IV-D-31, IV-D-78) commenters asked the EPA to clarify whether the
list of fuels is freestanding from the 5,000 Btu/lb requirement, or whether a material must be on
the list and meet the Btu requirement to be considered a fuel. One commenter (IV-D-78)
recommended that EPA clarify that the requirements are meant to stand independently by adding
"or" at the end of paragraph (i).
One commenter (IV-D-39) asked EPA to confirm that if a unit bums a single MSW waste
stream of tires, then the tires burned by that unit are not considered MSW and, therefore, are not
53
-------
automatically considered a "solid waste" under the proposed guidelines. Also, the commenter
(IV-D-39) asked EPA to clarify that, provided the unit does not burn any medical or RCRA
wastes, whether or not the unit is subject to the proposed guidelines depends on the Btu content
of the tires and whatever other non-MSW, non-medical and non-RCRA waste is burned.
One commenter (IV-D-78) stated that the definition of solid waste is unclear in that a
material that meets the criteria for a fuel under paragraph (2) of the definition, could still be
considered a solid waste if it is captured by the criteria under paragraph (1). The commenter
(IV-D-78) stated that this creates confusion as to whether materials such as tire derived fuel and
refuse derived fuel (RDF) are covered under the CBWI standards and guidelines. The
commenter (IV-D-78) requested that the phrase "regardless of the provisions in paragraph (2) of
this definition", be removed from paragraph (1) of the definition of solid waste.
One commenter (IV-D-78) requested that the EPA clarify whether or not all of the criteria
in (i) through (v) of paragraph (1) of the solid waste definition would have to be satisfied in order
for a material not to be a "solid waste."
Response: The EPA's response to these comments on the definition of solid waste are
addressed in the preamble to the final standards and guidelines. In response to comments, EPA
revised the definitions of solid waste and CISWI unit.
CISWI Unit
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-62) stated that for the sake of clarity, EPA should
exempt circulating fluidized bed combustion (FBC) units, because the CISWI definition does not
specifically include circulating FBC units.
Response: The EPA has not revised the definition of CISWI unit to exempt circulating
fluidized bed combustors. However, EPA did add a definition of commercial and industrial
waste that excludes units that recover energy. Therefore, if the commenter's circulating fluidized
bed combustor recovers energy, then it would not be covered by the standards and guidelines.
Biomass
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-94) suggested that the definition of clean wood be
revised to include bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs.
54
-------
Response: The final CISWI standards and guidelines do not use the term "clean wood."
Therefore, the definition for "clean wood" has been removed from the final standards and
guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) stated that yard waste should not be subject to the
CISWI standards and guidelines, especially when the yard waste is used as a fuel in a
cogeneration facility with energy recovery.
Response: The EPA revised the final standards and guidelines to exclude units that
recover energy. If the commenter combusts yard waste as a fuel in a unit at a cogeneration
facility with energy recovery, then the unit is not covered by the CISWI standards and guidelines.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-05, IV-D-08, IV-D-12, IV-D-14, IV-D-
16, IV-D-18, IV-D-26, IV-D-28, IV-D-29, IV-D-40, IV-D-51, IV-D-62, IV-D-65, IV-D-74, IV-
D-83, IV-D-84, IV-D-89) requested revisions or clarifications to the definitions of biomass fuel,
coal, coal refuse, natural gas, and oil.
Response: The EPA revised the final standards and guidelines to exclude units that
recover energy. As a result, these terms are no longer needed and EPA deleted the definitions of
biomass fuel, coal, coal refuse, natural gas, and oil in the final standards and guidelines.
Contained Gaseous Material
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-35, IV-D-41, IV-D-
48, IV-D--49, IV-D-58, IV-D-64, IV-D-66, IV-D-92) stated that a definition of "contained
gaseous material" should be added to the standards and guidelines to clarify that combustion air
or other gases that are "contained" in a pipe or duct prior to introduction into the combustor are
not the subject to the standards and guidelines. Several commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-
41, IV-D-64) provided the following definition: "Contained gaseous material means gases that
are in a container when that container is combusted." One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that,
without the definition, the term contained gases could be misinterpreted to include fume
incinerators that are used as air pollution control devices to control process offgasses. One
commenter (IV-D-49) stated that the definition should be similar to the RCRA definition, where
contained gaseous material is essentially limited to gases held in an individual container such that
the gas is amenable to shipment in the container and once removed from the container and
burned, such gases cease to be considered "contained."
55
-------
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added a definition of contained
gaseous material to the final standards and guidelines. The definition is consistent with EPA's
intent at proposal, which is to consider "contained gaseous material" as gases that are in a
container when that container is combusted.
Agricultural Waste
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-12) recommended that any reference that connects
"bagasse" with the words "agricultural waste" be removed from the standards and guidelines.
The commenter (IV-D-12) stated that this can be accomplished by replacing the term
"agricultural waste" with the term "agricultural materials." Alternatively, the commenter (IV-D-
12) stated that the term "bagasse" could be removed from the definition of "agricultural waste."
Response: The EPA is retaining the definition of agricultural waste as proposed. It is
EPA's intent to include bagasse in the definition and no change is necessary.
Combustion
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-49) stated that the standards and guidelines
should contain a definition for "combustion" to clarify where combustion must take place in the
unit for the unit to be considered a CISWI unit. The commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-49) provided
the following definition: "Combustion means the burning of material in the flame zone. The
flame zone does not include the backpass of a combustion device or a stack."
Response: The EPA believes that the standards and guidelines are clear as proposed and
no change is necessary.
Homogeneous Waste
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-44, IV-D-48) stated that the standards and guidelines
should contain a definition of "homogeneous fuels." One commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the
definition of homogeneous fuels, should not result in the regulation of fuel-like materials that are
homogeneous or consistent in nature, such as tire derived fuel and paper scrap.
Response: The EPA believes that the standards and guidelines are clear as written and no
change is necessary. Sections 60.2020 of subpart CCCC and 60.2555 of subpart DDDD are
consistent with section 129 of the CAA, which defines "solid waste incineration unit." Under
56
-------
section 129(gXl), qualifying small power production facilities that burn homogeneous waste
such as units that burn tires or used oil (but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production
of electric energy are not considered to be solid waste incineration units. In addition, qualifying
cogeneration facilities that burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and
steam or forms of useful energy are not considered solid waste incineration units.
Municipal Solid Waste
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-59) stated that it was not clear whether tires would be
considered a fuel or a waste under the proposed CISWI solid waste definition. The commenter
(IV-D-59) stated that the definition of MSW in Subparts AAAA and BBBB differs slightly (but
significantly) from the definition in Subparts Ea and Eb. The commenter (IV-D-59) stated that to
resolve the inconsistency, the proposed definition of solid waste should only refer to the clearer
definition of MSW in Subparts AAAA and BBBB.
Response: The definition of solid waste in the final standards and guidelines reflects the
definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), and therefore, no longer
refers to the definition of municipal solid waste. In addition, the final standards and guidelines
do not cover units that recover energy.
Miscellaneous
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the definitions in the CISWI standards
and guidelines should be consistent with the definitions in Subparts E, Ea, Eb, EC, and Ed, as
well as the SWDA.
Response: These subparts were generally considered during the development of the
CISWI standards and guidelines and they were made consistent with these subparts where
appropriate. The definition of solid waste in the final standards and guidelines reflect the
definition in the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-92) asked EPA to define "distinct operating unit."
Another commenter (IV-D-22) asked EPA to clarify that the definition of CISWI unit excludes
units that are not distinct operating units, but rather are integral to a single chemical process and
treat waste solely from that process.
57
-------
Response: A definition for "distinct operating unit" has not been added. The term
"distinct operating unit" is used in the final standards and guidelines in the definition of
commercial and industrial waste as follows: "Commercial and industrial waste means solid waste
combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion without energy recovery that
is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility..." The EPA believes that this
phrase is clear since the words are used according to their common meanings. The Webster
dictionary defines "distinct" as "distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete; separate."
Commenter IV-D-22 does not provide any description of the chemical process units and their
wastes, so EPA is unable to make a determination of the applicability of the CISWI standards
and guidelines.
3.11 SELECTION OF THE FORMAT
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-24, IV-D-41) stated that percent reduction
alternatives should be added for every section 129 pollutant for which controls are specified.
One of the commenters (IV-D-41) suggested that the hazardous waste incinerator and the
municipal waste incinerator databases should be used to set the CISWI emission limits and
percentage reductions.
Response: Alternative percent reduction limitations have not been added to the final
standards and guidelines. See the preamble to the final standards and guidelines for additional
discussion.
3.12 IMPACTS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-79) stated that EPA should evaluate control equipment
other than wet scrubbers as the standard control for the CISWI standards and guidelines, because
most wet scrubbers use large volumes of water and transfer pollutants from the air phase to a
water phase. The commenter (IV-D-79) stated that, as a result, the wastewater from a scrubber
may require wastewater treatment prior to discharge. The commenter (IV-D-79) claimed that a
dry scrubber system would have less of an environmental impact than a wet scrubber.
Response: The standards and guidelines do not require that wet scrubbers be used. Any
type of air pollution control device, including dry scrubbers, may be used as long as the emission
limitations are met
58
-------
3.13 STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-61) stated that start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction restrictions should only apply when waste is being fed. The
commenters recommended that §§60.2110(a) and 60.2680(a) of the proposed standards and
guidelines be modified to read as follows: "The standards of this subpart apply at all times when
firing solid waste except during CISWI units startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions."
Response: The EPA has not made the edit suggested by the commenters. The EPA has
added definitions for startup, shutdown and malfunction to the final standards and guidelines that
make the commenter's edit unnecessary. The definitions make it clear that startup is the period
before waste is first charged to the unit, and shut down is the period after all the waste has been
combusted. Therefore, the standards only apply when waste is being combusted.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D41, IV-D-64, IV-D-82, IV-D-85, IV-D-
86) stated that the EPA should delete the requirements in §§60.2110(b) and 60.2680(b) of the
proposed standards and guidelines that require that "each startup, shutdown, or malfunction must
last no longer than 3 hours." Two commenters (IV-D-82, IV-D-85) indicated that some large
units take up to 72 hours to come into steady state conditions. Another commenter (IV-D-64)
stated that the 3-hour restriction does not consider the possible detrimental impact on emissions,
and is not achievable or practical for some types of incinerator designs. One commenter (IV-D-
41) stated that if 1he EPA insists on maintaining a time limit, it should be a limit on the time
waste may be fed while in startup, shutdown or malfunction mode. The commenter (IV-D-41)
stated that if a waste feed limit is specified, the start-up, shutdown and malfunction requirements
in §§60.2090(a)(3) and 60.2660(a)(3) of the proposed standards and guidelines should be deleted.
One commenter (IV-D-64) stated that malfunctions are different from startups and shutdowns
and should be dealt with separately.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that startups and shutdowns should not
be limited to 3 hours. The standards and guidelines have been revised (§§60.2120(b) and
60.2685(b) of the final standards and guidelines) so that only malfunctions are limited to 3 hours
in duration. The EPA believes that facilities should be able to correct a malfunction within 3
hours. If the malfunction cannot be corrected within three hours, then the unit should be shut
down. The malfunction should be corrected before the unit resumes operation.
59
-------
3.14 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA's parameter monitoring
requirements appear to be of little value in determining compliance and maybe unlawful. The
unspecified operating parameter ranges do not correlate directly with emission limits. In
addition, the commenter (IV-D-63) stated that the absence of reliable day-to-day emissions data
(or information that can be reliably correlated to emissions) will make it impossible for citizens
to determine CISWI units' compliance status.
Response: Operating limits are an acceptable alternative to requiring continuous
emission monitoring when CEMS are unavailable or the costs are unreasonable, and they fully
meet the provisions of the CAA. The operating limits are set during performance tests that
demonstrate compliance with emission limitations. Therefore, by requiring that operating
parameters be continuously monitored to demonstrate compliance with operating limits, we
ensure that the CISWI unit and air pollution control equipment are operating properly. We can
then be assured that the emission limitations are being achieved.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) claimed that EPA's failure to regulate drum and
parts reclaimer incinerators is unlawful, and its failure to explain this decision makes the decision
arbitrary and capricious. It appears that EPA is deliberately refusing to regulate these units even
though it knows that its refusal is likely to have serious effects on the environment and on
people's health.
Response: Drum and parts reclaimers were initially brought to our attention as a result of
our efforts to develop inventory databases for industrial combustion sources, such as boilers,
nonhazardous solid waste incinerators, combustion turbines, and internal combustion engines.
Because we had little information on these types of units, we initially grouped them into the
inventory of CISWI units.
Upon further examination and consideration, we have concluded that burn-off processes
or operations, which remove coating or residue from a material to be regenerated or reused, are
not "solid waste incineration" units within the scope of the CISWI category under section 129.
These reclamation units are a part of another process or manufacturing operation and are unique
to the overall manufacturing process. Therefore, they are best considered during regulation
development for the process they are part of. These types of units would be more appropriately
regulated under section 112. Therefore, they were removed from the CISWI database and were
60
-------
not considered when determining MACT for CISWI units. In addition, to clarify EPA's intent
not to cover these units, an exemption for rack, part and drum reclamation units was added to the
final standards and guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) stated that the definition of Administrator in the
emission guidelines is constructed so that EPA maintains the majority of the discretionary
authority, thereby necessitating the delegation of provisions back to the State. The commenter
(IV-D-07) asserted that neither the Act nor the historical record supports this for section 11 l(d)
regulations. The commenter (IV-D-07) requested that the definition of Administrator be
modified to replace "if delegated" with "if the applicable plan has been approved under
§60.27(b)."
Response: The definition of Administrator includes the EPA Administrator or a State
agency to which the EPA delegates authority. To clarify the definition of Administrator, the
phrase "if delegated by the EPA" has been removed from the definition of Administrator in the
standards and guidelines. Under section 129 and 11 l(d) of the Clean Air Act, the States are
required to develop State Plans to implement and enforce the emission guidelines. The EPA will
delegate authority to the States when EPA approves the State Plans. This process has been
followed for previous section 129 and 11 l(d) standards and guidelines.
Most of the CISWI standards are clear and nondiscretionary, and therefore, can be
delegated to the States. However, there are a few discretionary elements in the CISWI standards
that are necessary in order to provide adequate compliance flexibility. In order to ensure
nationwide consistency in the implementation of the CISWI standards, the authority for these
discretionary elements is retained by the EPA, and therefore, are not delegated to the States. For
example, §§60.2025 and 60.2558 of the standards and guidelines allow units to petition for an
exemption under the chemical recovery unit provisions. If this provision were delegated to the
States, one State could determine that a unit meets the chemical recovery exemption
requirements, whereas another State could determine that an identical unit does not meet the
chemical recovery exemption requirements. By retaining the authority for the chemical recovery
exemption petition process such inconsistencies and inequities are avoided.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA's technology-based floor approach
is unlawful and contravenes the CAA. The commenter (IV-D-63) stated that the proposed floors
do not reflect the actual performance of the best performing 12% of existing units for the
61
-------
emission guidelines or the best performing unit for the new source performance standards.
Another commenter (IV-D-21) said that the proposed limits for CO and NOX, which represent no
control and the highest uncontrolled emission rate in the database, violate the requirements of the
CAA.
Response: This comment is discussed in the preamble to the final standards and
guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA's floors for oxides of nitrogen and
carbon monoxide are unlawful (for the same reasons as the previous general floor comments).
The commenter (IV-D-63) asserted that EPA failed to explain why it used different criteria to
evaluate CO and NOx controls than the criteria used for the other pollutants and is, thus, being
capricious and arbitrary.
Response: The approach EPA used to determine MACT for CO and NOX was no
different than the approach used to determine MACT for other pollutants. The approach is
outlined in the preamble to the final standards and guidelines.
3.15 STATE REQUIREMENTS (EMISSION GUIDELINES ONLY)
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-07) stated that the requirement in 60.2515(a)(6) to
include a transcript of the public hearing on the State plan is too burdensome and should be
removed.
Response: The EPA agrees that it may be more expensive to obtain a hearing transcript.
Therefore, EPA has changed the requirement in §60.2515(a)(6) to be consistent with the general
provisions for emission guidelines in 40 CFR 60.23(f), the guidelines now read "Certification
that the hearing on the State plan was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational
affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or
written submission." The EPA notes, however, that 40 CFR 60.23(e) requires the State to
prepare and maintain a record of each hearing, including a list of witnesses and the text of each
presentation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) stated that EPA should indicate that copies of the
materials required in § 60.2515(a)(9) do not need to be submitted if the provisions of 40 CFR
§60.25(d) are met.
62
-------
Response: The EPA does not view the requirements in §60.2515(a)(9)of the CISWI
guidelines as an increase in the burden required to comply with 40 CFR §60.25(d). The same
materials that are used to comply with 40 CFR §60.25(d) can be used to satisfy the requirement
in §60.2515(a)(9) of the CISWI guidelines.
3.16 SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-63) stated that EPA should use authority under
§129(a)(4) to establish emission limits for PCBs, POMs, and PAHs. Another commenter (IV-D-
64) supported EPA's approach of providing emission limits for only those pollutants listed in
CAA§129.
Response: Section 129 requires that numerical emission limitations be specified for
"...particulate matter, opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of
nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans." Both the
proposed and final standards and guidelines specify emission limitations for these pollutants, and
we have no data that would lead us to conclude that emission limitations for other pollutants
should be added. We believe, however, that the emission limitations in the final standards and
guidelines will require application of air pollution control technologies that will also minimize
emissions of PCBs, POMs, and PAHs.
3.17 AIR CURTAIN INCINERATORS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-68, IV-D-90) stated that air curtain incinerators that
combust waste comprising primarily "yard waste", clean waste paper and cardboard should be
exempted from the CISWI standards and guidelines. One commenter (IV-D-68) stated that
emissions from those incinerators cannot be appreciably different from those burning clean wood
and lumber, and, if incineration is not used, the volume of these wastes in landfills will increase.
One commenter (IV-D-68) stated that the preamble to the standards and guidelines includes the
term "yard waste" in the description of wood waste, but the standards and guidelines do not
clearly make this distinction. The commenters (IV-D-68, IV-D-90) stated that there is no
meaningful way to quantify the emissions from an air curtain incinerator. One commenter (IV-
D-68) stated that the only monitoring requirement for this type of incinerator should be a visible
opacity standard.
63
-------
Response: The provision that air curtain incinerators meet only opacity limitations is
restricted by Section 129(g)(l)(c) of the Clean Air Act to "air curtain incinerators provided that
such incinerators only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber." Therefore, it is
inappropriate to extend the provision to air curtain incinerators that burn waste paper and
cardboard.
Air curtain incinerators that burn 100% yard waste are subject to the MWC regulations
(40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb, Ea, Eb, AAAA and BBBB), and therefore, are not subject to the
CISWI standards and guidelines.
The EPA has clarified that the air curtain incinerator provisions in the CISWI standards
and guidelines cover air curtain incinerators that burn only:
1. 100% wood waste;
2. 100% clean lumber; or
3. 100% a mixture of only wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste.
3.18 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment Period
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-02, IV-D-03, IV-D-06, IV-D-70, IV-D-
91) requested that the comment period be extended. One commenter (IV-D-01) requested a
60-day extension, two commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-70) requested a 30-day extension, and two
commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-06) requested at least a 30-day extension. Another commenter
(IV-D-92) requested that the EPA accept comments after the comment period closes.
Response: The comment period was not extended, 60 days is adequate time to prepare
comments.
Corrections
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that table 2 of Subpart DDDD should be
labeled "for existing sources", rather than "for new sources."
Response: The EPA corrected this typographical error in the final guidelines.
64
-------
Clarification
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-36) stated that §60.2550 of subpart CCCC should be
clarified by either merging paragraph (a) and (d), or by adding "and that meet all the criteria in
paragraph (d)" to the end of paragraph (a).
Response: The EPA revised subpart CCCC by merging paragraphs (a) and (d) of
§60.2550 to clarify the requirements.
65
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-453/R-00-008
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Commercial and Industrial Solid >
Incineration Units: Background Information Docun
Source Performance Standards and Emission Guide
Comments and Responses
»Vaste
nent for New
slines - Public
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November, 2000
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1 . CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document contains summaries of the public comments that EPA received on the proposed standards and
guidelines and EPA's responses to those comments. The preamble and this summary of comments and
responses serve as the basis for the revisions made to the standards and guidelines between proposal and
promulgation.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution control
1 9. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 2 1 . NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 68
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |