*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Note
to
reader
­
this
represents
the
proposed
rule
that
was
submitted
to
OMB
­
it
does
not
reflect
changes
that
were
made
after
submitting
the
proposal
to
OMB.
Changes
that
were
made
during
the
OMB
review
period
can
be
viewed
in
the
redline­
strikeout
version
of
the
proposal
that
is
available
elsewhere
in
the
docket.

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
FRL­
]
RIN
2060­
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Proposed
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
(
Phase
I
Final
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II)
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.
SUMMARY:
This
action
proposes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
These
combustors
include
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
known
collectively
as
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
HWCs).
EPA
has
identified
these
HWCs
as
major
sources
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions.
These
proposed
standards
will,
when
final,
implement
section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
by
requiring
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
meet
HAP
emission
standards
reflecting
the
application
of
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
The
HAP
emitted
by
facilities
in
the
incinerator,
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boiler,
process
heater,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
source
categories
include
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
dioxins
and
furans,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
lead,
manganese,
and
mercury.
Exposure
to
these
substances
has
been
demonstrated
to
cause
adverse
health
effects
such
as
irritation
on
the
lung,
skin,
and
mucus
membranes,
effects
on
the
central
nervous
system,
kidney
damage,
and
cancer.
The
adverse
health
effects
associated
with
the
exposure
to
these
specific
HAP
are
further
described
in
the
preamble.
In
general,
these
findings
have
only
been
shown
with
concentrations
higher
than
those
typically
in
the
ambient
air.
This
action
also
presents
our
tentative
decision
regarding
the
February
28,
2002
petition
for
rulemaking
submitted
by
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
to
the
Administrator,
relating
to
EPA's
implementation
of
the
so­
called
omnibus
permitting
authority
under
section
3005
(
c)
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
which
requires
that
each
permit
issued
under
RCRA
contain
such
terms
and
conditions
as
are
determined
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
that
petition,
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
requests
that
we
repeal
the
existing
site­
specific
risk
assessment
policy
and
technical
guidance
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
and
that
we
promulgate
the
policy
and
guidance
as
rules
in
accordance
with
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
if
we
continue
to
believe
that
site­
specific
risk
assessments
may
be
necessary.
DATES:
Submit
comments
on
or
before
[
insert
date
75
days
after
date
of
publication
in
the
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

ADDRESSES:
The
official
public
docket
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
B102,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Ave.
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460­
0002.
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section,
below.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
call
the
RCRA
Call
Center
at
1­
800­
424­
9346
or
TDD
1­
800­
553­
7672
(
hearing
impaired).
Callers
within
the
Washington
Metropolitan
Area
must
dial
703­
412­
9810
or
TDD
703­
412­
3323
(
hearing
impaired).
The
RCRA
Call
Center
is
open
Monday
 
Friday,
9
am
to
4
pm,
Eastern
Standard
Time.
For
more
information
about
this
proposal,
contact
Michael
Galbraith
at
703­
605­
0567,
or
galbraith.
michael@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
I.
Regulated
Entities
The
promulgation
of
the
proposed
rule
would
affect
the
following
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
and
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes:

Category
NAICS
code
SIC
code
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
Any
industry
that
combusts
hazardous
waste
as
defined
in
the
proposed
rule
562211
327310
327992
325
324
331
333
488,
561,
562
421
422
512,
541,
561,
812
512,
514,
541,
711
924
4953
3241
3295
28
29
33
38
49
50
51
73
89
95
Incinerator,
hazardous
waste
Cement
manufacturing,
clinker
production
Ground
or
treated
mineral
and
earth
manufacturing
Chemical
Manufacturers
Petroleum
Refiners
Primary
Aluminum
Photographic
equipment
and
supplies
Sanitary
Services,
N.
E.
C.
Scrap
and
waste
materials
Chemical
and
Allied
Products,
N.
E.
C
Business
Services,
N.
E.
C.
Services,
N.
E.
C.
Air,
Water
and
Solid
Waste
Management
This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
examples
of
the
types
of
entries
EPA
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
could
also
be
affected.
To
determine
whether
your
facility,
company,
business,
organization,
etc.,
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
Part
II
of
this
preamble.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

II.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information
?
A.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No
RCRA­
2003­
0016.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
B102,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Ave.
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460­
0002.
This
Docket
Facility
is
open
from
8:
30
to
4:
30
p.
m.
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
Docket
telephone
number
is
(
202)
566­
1744.
B.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
"
Federal
Register"
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
B.
1
of
this
section.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.
III.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
"
late."
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
A.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
1.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
"
Information
Sources,"
"
Dockets,"
and
"
EPA
Dockets."
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2003­
0016.
The
system
is
an
"
anonymous
access"
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
2.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2003­
0016.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
"
anonymous
access"
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
3.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

the
mailing
address
identified
in
B.
1
above.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
B.
By
Mail
Send
two
copies
of
your
comments
to:
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
B102,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Ave.
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460­
0002,
Attention
Docket
No.
RCRA­
2003­
0016.
C.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier
Deliver
your
comments
to:
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
B102,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Ave.
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460­
0002,
Attention
Docket
RCRA
­
2003­
0016.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,
8:
30
to
4:
30
p.
m.
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays
.
IV.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA­
2003­
0016.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
V.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?
You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Offer
alternatives.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Outline
Part
One:
Background
and
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
I.
Background
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
A.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
B.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Development
Background
of
the
Source
Categories
in
the
Proposed
Rule?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
C.
What
Is
the
Statutory
Authority
for
this
Standard?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
D.
What
Is
the
Relationship
Between
the
Proposed
Rule
and
Other
MACT
Combustion
Rules?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
E.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
with
Pollutants
Emitted
by
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
A.
What
Source
Categories
Are
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
B.
What
HAP
Are
Emitted?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
C.
Does
Today's
Proposed
Rule
Apply
to
My
Source?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
D.
What
Emissions
Limitations
Must
I
Meet?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
E.
What
Are
the
Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
F.
What
are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
G.
What
are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
36
Part
Two:
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
I.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
which
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Sources
Would
Be
Regulated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
A.
How
Are
Area
Sources
Regulated?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
B.
What
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
Are
Not
Covered
by
this
Proposal?
.
.
.
.
.
38
C.
Why
Did
EPA
Decide
Not
to
Establish
MACT
Standards
for
Sulfuric
Acid
Regeneration
Facilities?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
II.
What
Subcategorization
Considerations
Did
EPA
Evaluate?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
A.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Incinerators?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
B.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Cement
Kilns?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
C.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
D.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Boilers?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
E.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
III.
What
Data
and
Information
Did
EPA
Consider
to
Establish
the
Proposed
Standards?
.
.
47
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

A.
Data
Base
for
Phase
I
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
B.
Data
Base
for
Phase
II
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
C.
Classification
of
the
Emission
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
D.
Invitation
to
Comment
on
Data
Base
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
IV.
How
Did
EPA
Select
the
Format
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Generally
Selecting
an
Emission
Limit
Format
Rather
than
a
Percent
Reduction
Format?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Selecting
a
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions
Format
for
Some
Standards,
and
an
Emissions
Concentration
Format
for
Others?
.
.
.
.
.
52
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Selecting
Surrogates
to
Control
Multiple
HAP?
.
.
.
.
55
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Requiring
Compliance
with
Operating
Parameter
Limits
to
Ensure
Compliance
with
Emission
Standards?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
V.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Limitations
for
New
and
Existing
Units?
58
A.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Limitations
for
New
Units?
.
58
B.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Limitations
for
Existing
Units?
58
VI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
and
New
Units?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
A.
What
MACT
Methodology
Approaches
Are
Used
to
Identify
the
Best
Performers
for
the
Proposed
Floors,
and
When
Are
They
Applied?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
B.
How
Did
EPA
Select
the
Data
to
Represent
Each
Source
When
Determining
Floor
Levels?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
C.
How
Did
We
Evaluate
Whether
It
Is
Appropriate
to
Issue
Separate
Emissions
Standards
for
Various
Subcategories?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
D.
How
Did
We
Rank
Each
Source's
Performance
Levels
to
Identify
the
Best
Performing
Sources
for
the
Three
MACT
Methodologies?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
E.
How
Did
EPA
Calculate
Floor
Levels
That
Are
Achievable
for
the
Average
of
the
Best
Performing
Sources?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
78
F.
Why
Did
EPA
Default
to
the
Interim
Standards
When
Establishing
Floors?
.
.
.
81
G.
What
Other
Options
Did
EPA
Consider?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
VII.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Incinerators?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
98
A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
B.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
106
D.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108
E.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
F.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas?
.
111
G.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Carbon
Monoxide?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
H.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

VIII.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Cement
Kilns?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
116
B.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
119
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
126
D.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
128
E.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132
F.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas?
.
136
G.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Carbon
Monoxide?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
140
H.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
141
IX.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
141
A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
142
B.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
145
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
151
D.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
152
E.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
157
F.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas?
.
161
G.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Carbon
Monoxide?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
163
H.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
163
X.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
164
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
.
.
.
.
165
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
169
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
.
.
.
.
171
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
.
.
174
E.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
.
.
177
F.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Total
Chlorine?
.
.
.
.
.
.
179
G.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Carbon
Monoxide
or
Hydrocarbons?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
181
H.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
183
XI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
184
A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
186
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
189
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
.
.
.
.
191
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
.
.
194
E.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Chromium?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
196
F.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Total
Chlorine?
.
.
.
.
.
.
199
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

G.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Carbon
Monoxide
or
Hydrocarbons?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
201
H.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
202
XII.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
203
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
.
.
.
.
204
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury,
Semivolatile
Metals,
and
Low
Volatile
Metals?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
207
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Total
Chlorine?
.
.
.
.
.
.
207
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Carbon
Monoxide
or
Hydrocarbons?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
209
E.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
210
XIII.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Proposing
Alternative
Risk­
Based
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas
in
Lieu
of
the
MACT
Standard
for
Total
Chlorine?
.
.
.
.
.
.
211
[
Discussion
to
be
inserted
after
discussions
with
OAQPS]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
211
XIV.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
Testing
and
Monitoring
Requirements
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
211
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Testing
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
212
B.
What
Are
the
Dioxin/
Furan
Testing
Requirements
for
Boilers
that
Would
Not
Be
Subject
to
a
Numerical
Dioxin/
Furan
Emission
Standard?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
213
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Test
Methods?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
215
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Continuous
Monitoring
Requirements?
216
E.
What
Are
the
Averaging
Periods
for
the
Operating
Parameter
Limits,
and
How
Are
Performance
Test
Data
Averaged
to
Calculate
the
Limits?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
220
F.
How
Would
Sources
Comply
with
Emissions
Standards
Based
on
Normal
Emissions?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
221
G.
How
Would
Sources
Comply
with
Emission
Standards
Expressed
as
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
222
H.
What
Are
the
Other
Proposed
Compliance
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
223
XV.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
Compliance
Times
for
this
Proposed
Rule?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
223
XVI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Required
Records
and
Reports
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
224
A.
Summary
of
Requirements
Currently
Applicable
to
Incinerators,
Cement
Kilns,
and
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
and
that
Would
Be
Applicable
to
Boilers
and
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
224
B.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
Compliance
Progress
Report
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
225
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

XVII.
What
Are
the
Title
V
and
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
for
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sources?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
230
A.
What
Is
the
General
Approach
to
Permitting
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Sources?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
230
B.
How
Will
the
Replacement
Standards
Affect
Permitting
for
Phase
I
Sources?
.
241
C.
What
Permitting
Requirements
Is
EPA
Proposing
for
Phase
II
Sources?
.
.
.
.
.
243
D.
How
Would
this
Proposal
Affect
the
RCRA
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessment
Policy?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
248
XVIII.
What
Alternatives
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
Is
EPA
Proposing
or
Requesting
Comment
On?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
262
A.
What
Alternative
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
Is
EPA
Proposing
for
Incinerators,
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers,
and
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
262
B.
What
Alternative
to
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
On?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
265
XIX.
What
Are
the
Proposed
RCRA
State
Authorization
and
CAA
Delegation
Requirements?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
270
A.
What
Is
the
Authority
for
this
Rule?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
270
B.
Are
There
Any
Changes
to
the
CAA
Delegation
Requirements
for
Phase
I
Sources?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
271
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
CAA
Delegation
Requirements
for
Phase
II
Sources?
274
Part
Three:
Proposed
Revisions
to
Compliance
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
276
I.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Allow
Phase
I
Sources
to
Conduct
the
Initial
Performance
Test
to
Comply
with
the
Replacement
Rules
12
Months
After
the
Compliance
Date?
.
.
.
.
.
276
II.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Requirements
Promulgated
as
Interim
Standards
or
as
Final
Amendments?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
277
A.
Interim
Standards
Amendments
to
the
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
277
B.
Interim
Standards
Amendments
to
the
Compliance
Requirements
for
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
278
C.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
the
Fugitive
Emission
Requirements?
.
.
279
D.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Bag
Leak
Detector
Sensitivity?
.
.
.
.
.
.
280
E.
Final
Amendments
Waiving
Operating
Parameter
Limits
during
Testing
without
an
Approved
Test
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
281
III.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Issues
and
Amendments
that
Were
Previously
Proposed?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
281
A.
Definition
of
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Source
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
282
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

B.
Identification
of
an
Organics
Residence
Time
that
Is
Independent
of,
and
Shorter
than,
the
Hazardous
Waste
Residence
Time
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
282
C.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
to
Extend
APCD
Controls
after
the
Residence
Time
Has
Expired
when
Sources
Operate
under
Alternative
Section
112
or
129
Standards?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
283
D.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Allow
Use
of
Method
23
as
an
Alternative
to
Method
0023A
for
Dioxin/
Furan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
285
E.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
the
"
Matching
the
Profile"
Alternative
Approach
to
Establish
Operating
Parameter
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
286
F.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
to
Allow
Extrapolation
of
OPLs?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
286
G.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Delete
the
Limit
on
Minimum
Combustion
Chamber
Temperature
for
Dioxin/
Furan
for
Cement
Kilns?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
287
H.
Why
Is
EPA
Not
Proposing
to
Add
a
Maximum
pH
Limit
for
Wet
Scrubbers
to
Control
Mercury
Emissions?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
289
I.
How
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Ensure
Performance
of
Electrostatic
Precipitators,
Ionizing
Wet
Scrubbers,
and
Fabric
Filters?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
291
IV.
Other
Proposed
Compliance
Revisions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
295
A.
What
Is
the
Proposed
Clarification
to
the
Public
Notice
Requirement
for
Approved
Test
Plans?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
295
B.
What
Is
the
Proposed
Clarification
to
the
Public
Notice
Requirement
for
the
Petition
to
Waive
a
Performance
Test?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
297
Part
Four:
Impacts
of
the
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
297
I.
What
Are
the
Air
Impacts?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
297
II.
What
Are
the
Water
and
Solid
Waste
Impacts?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
300
III.
What
Are
the
Energy
Impacts?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
300
IV.
What
are
the
Control
Costs?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
300
V.
Can
We
Achieve
the
Goals
of
the
Proposed
Rule
in
a
Less
Costly
Manner?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
301
VI.
What
are
the
Economic
Impacts?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
303
A.
Market
Exit
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
303
B.
Quantity
of
Waste
Reallocated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
304
C.
Employment
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
304
VII.
What
Are
the
Benefits
of
Reductions
in
Particulate
Matter
Emissions?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
306
VIII.
What
are
the
Social
Costs
and
Benefits
of
the
Proposed
Rule?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
308
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

A.
Combustion
Market
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
309
B.
Baseline
Specification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
310
C.
Analytical
Methodology
and
Findings
­
Social
Cost
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
311
D.
Analytical
Methodology
and
Findings
­
Benefits
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
311
IX.
How
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
316
Part
Five:
Administrative
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
318
I.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
318
II.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
319
III.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
320
IV.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
321
V.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
322
VI.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
322
VII.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
323
VIII.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
323
IX.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
323
X.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
324
XI.
Congressional
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
324
Abbreviations
and
Acronyms
Used
in
This
Document
acfm
actual
cubic
feet
per
minute
Btu
British
thermal
units
CAA
Clean
Air
Act
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
DRE
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
dscf
dry
standard
cubic
foot
dscm
dry
standard
cubic
meter
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
FR
Federal
Register
gr/
dscf
grains
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
HAP
hazardous
air
pollutant(
s)
ICR
Information
Collection
Request
kg/
hr
kilograms
per
hour
kW­
hour
kilo
Watt
hour
MACT
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
mg/
dscm
milligrams
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
MMBtu
million
British
thermal
unit
ng/
dscm
nanograms
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
NESHAP
national
emission
standards
for
HAP
ng
nanograms
POHC
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
ppmv
parts
per
million
by
volume
ppmw
parts
per
million
by
weight
Pub.
L.
Public
Law
RCRA
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
SRE
system
removal
efficiency
TEQ
toxicity
equivalence
ug/
dscm
micrograms
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
U.
S.
C.
United
States
Code
Part
One:
Background
and
Summary
I.
Background
Information
A.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
1.
What
Information
Is
Covered
in
this
Preamble
and
How
Is
It
Organized?
In
this
preamble,
EPA
summarizes
the
important
features
of
these
proposed
standards
that
apply
to
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
known
collectively
as
HWCs.
This
preamble
describes:
(
1)
the
environmental,
energy,
and
economic
impacts
of
these
proposed
standards;
(
2)
the
basis
for
each
of
the
decisions
made
regarding
the
proposed
standards;
(
3)
requests
public
comments
on
certain
issues;
and
(
4)
discusses
administrative
requirements
relative
to
this
action.
2.
Where
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
Will
These
Standards
Be
Codified?
The
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
is
a
codification
of
the
general
and
permanent
rules
published
in
the
Federal
Register
by
the
Executive
departments
and
agencies
of
the
Federal
Government.
The
code
is
divided
into
50
titles
that
represent
broad
areas
subject
to
Federal
regulation.
These
proposed
rules
would
be
published
in
Title
40,
Protection
of
the
Environment,
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE:
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
From
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors.
3.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
for
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

control
of
HAP
emissions
from
each
source
category
listed
by
EPA
under
section
112(
c).
The
statute
requires
the
regulations
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable
taking
into
consideration
the
cost
of
achieving
the
emission
reduction,
any
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
MACT
(
i.
e.,
maximum
achievable
control
technology).
The
MACT
regulation
can
be
based
on
the
emission
reductions
achievable
through
application
of
measures,
processes,
methods,
systems,
or
techniques
including,
but
not
limited
to:
(
1)
reducing
the
volume
of,
or
eliminating
emissions
of,
such
pollutants
through
process
changes,
substitutions
of
materials,
or
other
modifications;
(
2)
enclosing
systems
or
processes
to
eliminate
emissions;
(
3)
collecting,
capturing,
or
treating
such
pollutants
when
released
from
a
process,
stack,
storage
or
fugitive
emission
point;
(
4)
design,
equipment,
work
practices,
or
operational
standards
as
provided
in
subsection
112(
h);
or
(
5)
a
combination
of
the
above.
See
section
112(
d)(
2)
of
the
CAA.
For
new
sources,
MACT
standards
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best­
controlled
similar
source.
See
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
Act.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best­
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
for
categories
and
subcategories
with
30
or
more
sources,
or
the
best­
performing
5
sources
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources.
Id.
This
level
of
control
is
usually
referred
to
as
the
MACT
"
floor",
the
term
used
in
the
Legislative
History.
In
essence,
MACT
standards
ensure
that
all
major
sources
of
air
toxic
(
i.
e.,
HAP)
emissions
achieve
the
level
of
control
already
being
achieved
by
the
better­
controlled
and
loweremitting
sources
in
each
category.
This
approach
provides
assurance
to
citizens
that
each
major
source
of
toxic
air
pollution
will
be
required
to
effectively
control
its
emissions
of
air
toxics.
At
the
same
time,
this
approach
provides
a
level
playing
field,
ensuring
that
facilities
that
employ
cleaner
processes
and
good
emission
controls
are
not
disadvantaged
relative
to
competitors
with
poorer
controls.
B.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Development
Background
of
the
Source
Categories
in
the
Proposed
Rule?
Today's
notice
proposes
standards
for
controlling
emissions
of
HAP
from
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
comprise
several
categories
of
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste:
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
call
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
Phase
I
sources
because
we
have
already
promulgated
standards
for
those
source
categories.
We
call
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
Phase
II
sources
because
we
intended
to
promulgate
MACT
standards
for
those
source
categories
after
promulgating
MACT
standards
for
Phase
I
sources.
The
regulatory
background
of
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
source
categories
is
discussed
below.
1.
Phase
I
Source
Categories
Phase
I
combustor
sources
are
regulated
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
which
establishes
a
"
cradle­
to­
grave"
regulatory
structure
overseeing
the
safe
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
of
hazardous
waste.
We
issued
RCRA
rules
to
control
air
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

emissions
from
incinerators
in
1981,
40
CFR
Parts
264
and
265,
Subpart
O,
and
from
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
in
1991,
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H.
These
rules
rely
generally
on
risk­
based
standards
to
achieve
the
RCRA
protectiveness
mandate.
The
Phase
I
source
categories
are
also
subject
to
standards
under
section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
We
promulgated
standards
for
Phase
I
sources
on
September
30,
1999
(
64
FR
52828).
This
final
rule
is
referred
to
as
the
Phase
I
rule
or
1999
final
rule.
These
emission
standards
created
a
technology­
based
national
cap
for
hazardous
air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
in
these
devices.
The
rule
regulates
emissions
of
numerous
hazardous
air
pollutants:
dioxin/
furans,
other
toxic
organics
(
through
surrogates),
mercury,
other
toxic
metals
(
both
directly
and
through
a
surrogate),
and
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
Where
necessary,
Section
3005(
c)(
3)
of
RCRA
provides
the
authority
to
impose
additional
conditions
in
a
RCRA
permit
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
A
number
of
parties,
representing
interests
of
both
industrial
sources
and
of
the
environmental
community,
sought
judicial
review
of
the
Phase
I
rule.
On
July
24,
2001,
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(
the
Court)
granted
portions
of
the
Sierra
Club's
petition
for
review
and
vacated
the
challenged
portions
of
the
standards.
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
v.
EPA,
255
F.
3d
855
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2001).
The
Court
held
that
EPA
had
not
demonstrated
that
its
calculation
of
MACT
floors
met
the
statutory
requirement
of
being
no
less
stringent
than
(
1)
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
and
(
2)
the
emission
control
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
controlled
similar
source
for
new
sources.
255
F.
3d
at
861,
865­
66.
As
a
remedy,
the
Court,
after
declining
to
rule
on
most
of
the
issues
presented
in
the
industry
petitions
for
review,
vacated
the
"
challenged
regulations,"
stating
that:
"[
W]
e
have
chosen
not
to
reach
the
bulk
of
industry
petitioners'
claims,
and
leaving
the
regulations
in
place
during
remand
would
ignore
petitioners'
potentially
meritorious
challenges."
Id.
at
872.
Examples
of
the
specific
challenges
the
Court
indicated
might
have
merit
were
provisions
relating
to
compliance
during
start
up/
shut
down
and
malfunction
events,
including
emergency
safety
vent
openings,
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
the
semivolatile
metal
standard
for
cement
kilns.
Id.
However,
the
Court
stated,
"[
b]
ecause
this
decision
leaves
EPA
without
standards
regulating
[
hazardous
waste
combustor]
emissions,
EPA
(
or
any
of
the
parties
to
this
proceeding)
may
file
a
motion
to
delay
issuance
of
the
mandate
to
request
either
that
the
current
standards
remain
in
place
or
that
EPA
be
allowed
reasonable
time
to
develop
interim
standards."
Id.
Acting
on
this
invitation,
all
parties
moved
the
Court
jointly
to
stay
the
issuance
of
its
mandate
for
four
months
to
allow
EPA
time
to
develop
interim
standards,
which
would
replace
the
vacated
standards
temporarily,
until
final
standards
consistent
with
the
Court's
mandate
are
promulgated.
The
interim
standards
were
published
on
February
13,
2002
(
67
FR
6792).
EPA
did
not
justify
or
characterize
these
standards
as
conforming
to
MACT,
but
rather
as
an
interim
measure
to
prevent
the
adverse
environmental
and
other
consequences
that
would
result
from
the
regulatory
gap
resulting
from
no
standards
being
in
place.
Id.
at
6795­
96.
The
motion
also
indicates
that
EPA
will
issue
final
standards
which
comply
with
the
Court's
opinion
by
June
14,
2005,
and
it
indicates
that
EPA
and
Petitioner
Sierra
Club
intend
to
enter
into
a
settlement
agreement
requiring
us
to
promulgate
final
rules
by
that
date,
and
that
date
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

be
judicially
enforceable.
EPA
and
Sierra
Club
entered
into
that
settlement
agreement
on
March
4,
2002.
The
joint
motion
also
details
other
actions
we
agreed
to
take,
including
issuing
a
one­
year
extension
to
the
September
30,
2002
compliance
date
(
66
FR
63313,
December
6,
2001),
and
promulgating
several
of
the
compliance
and
implementation
amendments
to
the
rule
which
we
proposed
on
July
3,
2001
(
66
FR
35126).
These
final
amendments
were
published
on
February
14,
2002
(
67
FR
6968).
2.
Phase
II
Source
Categories
Phase
II
combustors
­­
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
­
­
are
also
regulated
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
pursuant
to
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H,
and
(
for
reasons
discussed
below)
are
also
subject
to
the
MACT
standard
setting
process
in
section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA.
We
delayed
promulgating
MACT
standards
for
these
source
categories
pending
reevaluation
of
the
MACT
standard
setting
methodology
following
the
Court's
decision
to
vacate
the
standards
for
the
Phase
I
source
categories.
We
have
also
entered
into
a
judicially
enforceable
consent
decree
with
Sierra
Club
which
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
MACT
standards
for
the
Phase
II
sources
by
June
14,
2005
­­
the
same
date
that
(
for
independent
reasons)
is
required
for
the
replacement
standards
for
Phase
I
sources.
Note
that
the
statutory
deadline
for
EPA
to
promulgate
MACT
standards
for
the
Phase
II
sources
was
November
15,
2000.
Section
112(
j)(
2)
of
the
CAA
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
source
to
submit
a
permit
application
no
later
than
18
months
after
this
statutory
deadline
if
EPA
has
not
yet
promulgated
MACT
requirements.
This
process,
commonly
referred
to
as
the
"
MACT
Hammer,"
was
generally
intended
to
initiate
a
site­
specific
MACT
permitting
process
in
the
absence
of
nationally
promulgated
MACT
standards.
The
status
of
the
MACT
Hammer
requirements,
and
the
potential
effect
they
may
have
on
Phase
II
sources,
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVII.
C.
C.
What
Is
the
Statutory
Authority
for
this
Standard?
Section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
the
EPA
promulgate
regulations
requiring
the
control
of
HAP
emissions
from
major
and
certain
area
sources.
The
control
of
HAP
is
achieved
through
promulgation
of
emission
standards
under
sections
112(
d)
and
(
in
a
second
round
of
standard
setting)
(
f)
and,
in
appropriate
circumstances,
work
practice
standards
under
section
112(
h).
EPA's
initial
list
of
categories
of
major
and
area
sources
of
HAP
selected
for
regulation
in
accordance
with
section
112(
c)
of
the
Act
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
among
the
listed
174
categories
of
sources.
The
listing
was
based
on
the
Administrator's
determination
that
they
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
emit
several
of
the
188
listed
HAP
in
quantities
sufficient
to
designate
them
as
major
sources.
D.
What
Is
the
Relationship
Between
the
Proposed
Rule
and
Other
MACT
Combustion
Rules?
The
proposed
amendments
to
the
Subpart
EEE,
Part
63,
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
would
apply
to
the
source
categories
that
are
currently
subject
to
that
subpart­­
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
Today's
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

1
Note,
however,
that
fugitive
emissions
attributable
to
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
from
the
combustion
device
are
regulated
pursuant
to
Subpart
EEE.

2
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
combust
hazardous
waste
would
also
be
affected
sources
subject
to
Subpart
NNNNN
if
they
produce
a
liquid
acid
product
that
contains
greater
than
30%
hydrochloric
acid.
proposed
rule,
however,
would
also
amend
Subpart
EEE
to
establish
MACT
standards
for
the
Phase
II
source
categories­­
those
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
Generally
speaking,
you
are
an
affected
source
pursuant
to
Subpart
EEE
if
you
combust,
or
have
previously
combusted,
hazardous
waste
in
an
incinerator,
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
boiler,
or
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace.
You
continue
to
be
an
affected
source
until
you
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
and
initiate
closure
requirements
pursuant
to
RCRA.
See
§
63.1200(
b).
If
you
never
previously
combusted
hazardous
waste,
or
have
ceased
burning
hazardous
waste
and
initiated
RCRA
closure
requirements,
you
are
not
subject
to
Subpart
EEE.
Rather,
EPA
has
promulgated
or
proposed
separate
MACT
standards
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
within
the
following
source
categories:
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incinerators
(
40
CFR
Part
60,
Subparts
CCCC
and
DDDD);
Portland
cement
manufacturing
facilities
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
LLL);
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
proposed
Subpart
DDDDD);
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
NNNNN).
In
addition,
EPA
considered
whether
to
establish
MACT
standards
for
lightweight
aggregate
manufacturing
facilities
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste,
and
determined
that
they
are
not
major
sources
of
HAP
emissions.
Thus,
EPA
has
not
established
MACT
standards
for
lightweight
aggregate
manufacturing
facilities
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
Note
that
non­
stack
emissions
points
are
not
regulated
under
Subpart
EEE.
1
Emissions
attributable
to
storage
and
handling
of
hazardous
waste
prior
to
combustion
(
i.
e.,
emissions
from
tanks,
contatiners,
equipment,
and
process
vents)
would
continue
to
be
regulated
pursuant
to
either
RCRA
Subpart
AA,
BB,
and
CC
or
an
applicable
MACT
that
applies
to
the
beforementioned
material
handling
devices.
Emissions
unrelated
to
the
hazardous
waste
operations
may
be
regulated
pursuant
to
other
MACT
rulemakings.
For
example,
Portland
cement
manufacturing
facilities
that
combust
hazardous
waste
are
subject
to
both
Subpart
EEE
and
Subpart
LLL,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities
that
combust
hazardous
waste
may
be
subject
to
both
Subpart
EEE
and
Subpart
NNNNN.
2
In
these
instances
Subpart
EEE
controls
HAP
emissions
from
the
cement
kiln
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
stack,
while
Subparts
LLL
and
NNNNN
would
control
HAP
emissions
from
other
operations
that
are
not
directly
related
to
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
clinker
cooler
emissions
for
cement
production
facilities,
and
hydrochloric
acid
product
transportation
and
storage
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
facilities).
Note
that
if
you
temporarily
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
for
any
reason,
you
remain
an
affected
source
and
are
still
subject
to
the
applicable
Subpart
EEE
requirements.
However,
even
as
an
affected
source,
the
proposed
emission
standards
or
operating
limits
derived
from
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

3
See
"
Evaluating
the
Carcinogenicity
of
Antimony,"
Risk
Assessment
Issue
Paper
(
98­
030/
07­
26­
99),
Superfund
Technical
Support
Center,
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment,
July
26,
1999.
hazardous
waste
combustors
do
not
apply
if:
1)
hazardous
waste
is
not
in
the
combustion
chamber
and
you
elect
to
comply
with
other
MACT
(
or
CAA
section
129)
standards
that
otherwise
would
be
applicable
if
you
were
not
burning
hazardous
waste,
e.
g.,
the
nonhazardous
waste
burning
Portland
Cement
Kiln
MACT
(
Subpart
LLL);
or
(
2)
you
are
in
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
mode
of
operation.
E.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
with
Pollutants
Emitted
by
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors?
Today's
proposed
rule
protects
air
quality
and
promotes
the
public
health
by
reducing
the
emissions
of
some
of
the
HAP
listed
in
Section
112(
b)(
1)
of
the
CAA.
Emissions
data
collected
in
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule
show
that
metals,
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
dioxins
and
furans,
and
other
organic
compounds
are
emitted
from
hazardous
waste
combustors.
The
HAP
that
would
be
controlled
with
this
rule
are
associated
with
a
variety
of
adverse
health
affects.
These
adverse
health
effects
include
chronic
health
disorders
(
e.
g.,
irritation
of
the
lung,
skin,
and
mucus
membranes
and
effects
on
the
blood,
digestive
tract,
kidneys,
and
central
nervous
system),
and
acute
health
disorders
(
e.
g.,
lung
irritation
and
congestion,
alimentary
effects
such
as
nausea
and
vomiting,
and
effects
on
the
central
nervous
system).
Provided
below
are
brief
descriptions
of
risks
associated
with
HAP
that
are
emitted
from
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Note
that
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
risks
associated
with
these
emissions
is
included
in
Part
Four.
Antimony
Antimony
occurs
at
very
low
levels
in
the
environment,
both
in
the
soils
and
foods.
Higher
concentrations,
however,
are
found
at
antimony
processing
sites,
and
in
their
hazardous
wastes.
The
most
common
industrial
use
of
antimony
is
as
a
fire
retardant
in
the
form
of
antimony
trioxide.
Chronic
occupational
exposure
to
antimony
(
generally
antimony
trioxide)
is
most
commonly
associated
with
"
antimony
pneumoconiosis,"
a
condition
involving
fibrosis
and
scarring
of
the
lung
tissues.
Studies
have
shown
that
antimony
accumulates
in
the
lung
and
is
retained
for
long
periods
of
time.
Effects
are
not
limited
to
the
lungs,
however,
and
myocardial
effects
(
effects
on
the
heart
muscle)
and
related
effects
(
e.
g.,
increased
blood
pressure,
altered
EKG
readings)
are
among
the
best­
characterized
human
health
effects
associated
with
antimony
exposure.
Reproductive
effects
(
increased
incidence
of
spontaneous
abortions
and
higher
rates
of
premature
deliveries)
have
been
observed
in
female
workers
exposed
in
an
antimony
processing
facilities.
Similar
effects
on
the
heart,
lungs,
and
reproductive
system
have
been
observed
in
laboratory
animals.
EPA
recently
assessed
the
carcinogenicity
of
antimony
and
found
the
evidence
for
carcinogenicity
to
be
weak,
with
conflicting
evidence
from
inhalation
studies
with
laboratory
animals,
equivocal
data
from
the
occupational
studies,
negative
results
from
studies
of
oral
exposures
in
laboratory
animals,
and
little
evidence
of
mutagenicity
or
genotoxicity.
3
As
a
consequence,
EPA
concluded
that
insufficient
data
are
available
to
adequately
characterize
the
carcinogenicity
of
antimony
and,
accordingly,
the
carcinogenicity
of
antimony
cannot
be
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

determined
based
on
available
information.
However,
IARC
(
International
Agency
for
Research
on
Cancer)
in
an
earlier
evaluation,
concluded
that
antimony
trioxide
is
"
possibly
carcinogenic
to
humans"
(
Group
2B).
Arsenic
Acute
(
short­
term)
high­
level
inhalation
exposure
to
arsenic
dust
or
fumes
has
resulted
in
gastrointestinal
effects
(
nausea,
diarrhea,
abdominal
pain),
and
central
and
peripheral
nervous
system
disorders.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
inhalation
exposure
to
inorganic
arsenic
in
humans
is
associated
with
irritation
of
the
skin
and
mucous
membranes.
Human
data
suggest
a
relationship
between
inhalation
exposure
of
women
working
at
or
living
near
metal
smelters
and
an
increased
risk
of
reproductive
effects,
such
as
spontaneous
abortions.
Inorganic
arsenic
exposure
in
humans
by
the
inhalation
route
has
been
shown
to
be
strongly
associated
with
lung
cancer,
while
ingestion
or
inorganic
arsenic
in
humans
has
been
linked
to
a
form
of
skin
cancer
and
also
to
bladder,
liver,
and
lung
cancer.
EPA
has
classified
inorganic
arsenic
as
a
Group
A,
human
carcinogen.
Beryllium
Beryllium
is
a
hard,
grayish
metal
naturally
found
in
minerals,
rocks,
coal,
soil,
and
volcanic
dust.
Beryllium
dust
enters
the
air
from
burning
coal
and
oil.
This
beryllium
dust
will
eventually
settle
over
the
land
and
water.
It
enters
water
from
erosion
of
rocks
and
soil,
and
from
industrial
waste.
Some
beryllium
compounds
will
dissolve
in
water,
but
most
stick
to
particles
and
settle
to
the
bottom.
Most
beryllium
in
soil
does
not
dissolve
in
water
and
remains
bound
to
soil.
Beryllium
does
not
accumulate
in
the
food
chain.
Beryllium
can
be
harmful
if
you
breathe
it.
The
effects
depend
on
how
much
you
are
exposed
to
and
for
how
long.
If
beryllium
air
levels
are
high
enough,
an
acute
condition
can
result.
This
condition
resembles
pneumonia
and
is
called
acute
beryllium
disease.
Long­
term
exposure
to
beryllium
can
increase
the
risk
of
developing
lung
cancer.
Cadmium
The
acute
(
short­
term)
effects
of
cadmium
inhalation
in
humans
consist
mainly
of
effects
on
the
lung,
such
as
pulmonary
irritation.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
inhalation
or
oral
exposure
to
cadmium
leads
to
a
build­
up
of
cadmium
in
the
kidneys
that
can
cause
kidney
disease.
Cadmium
has
been
shown
to
be
a
developmental
toxicant
in
animals,
resulting
in
fetal
malformations
and
other
effects,
but
no
conclusive
evidence
exists
in
humans.
An
association
between
cadmium
exposure
and
an
increased
risk
of
lung
cancer
has
been
reported
from
human
studies,
but
these
studies
are
inconclusive
due
to
confounding
factors.
Animal
studies
have
demonstrated
an
increase
in
lung
cancer
from
long­
term
inhalation
exposure
to
cadmium.
EPA
has
classified
cadmium
as
a
Group
B1,
probable
carcinogen.
Chlorine
gas
Acute
exposure
to
high
levels
of
chlorine
in
humans
can
result
in
chest
pain,
vomiting,
toxic
pneumonitis,
and
pulmonary
edema.
At
lower
levels
chlorine
is
a
potent
irritant
to
the
eyes,
the
upper
respiratory
tract,
and
lungs.
Chronic
exposure
to
chlorine
gas
in
workers
has
resulted
in
respiratory
effects
including
eye
and
throat
irritation
and
airflow
obstruction.
Animal
studies
have
reported
decreased
body
weight
gain,
eye
and
nose
irritation,
nonneoplastic
nasal
lesions,
and
respiratory
epithelial
hyperplasia
from
chronic
inhalation
exposure
to
chlorine.
No
information
is
available
on
the
carcinogenic
effects
of
chlorine
in
humans
from
inhalation
exposure.
We
have
not
classified
chlorine
for
potential
carcinogenicity.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

4
See
"
Derivation
of
a
Provisional
Carcinogenicity
Assessment
for
Cobalt
and
Compounds,"
Risk
Assessment
Issue
Paper
(
00­
122/
1­
15­
02),
Superfund
Technical
Support
Center,
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment,
January
15,
2002.
Chromium
Chromium
may
be
emitted
in
two
forms,
trivalent
chromium
(
chromium
III)
or
hexavalent
chromium
(
chromium
VI).
The
respiratory
tract
is
the
major
target
organ
for
chromium
VI
toxicity,
for
acute
(
short­
term)
and
chronic
(
long­
term)
inhalation
exposures.
Shortness
of
breath,
coughing,
and
wheezing
have
been
reported
from
acute
exposure
to
chromium
VI,
while
perforations
and
ulcerations
of
the
septum,
bronchitis,
decreased
pulmonary
function,
pneumonia,
and
other
respiratory
effects
have
been
noted
from
chronic
exposure.
Limited
human
studies
suggest
that
chromium
VI
inhalation
exposure
may
be
associated
with
complications
during
pregnancy
and
childbirth,
while
animal
studies
have
not
reported
reproductive
effects
from
inhalation
exposure
to
chromium
VI.
Human
and
animal
studies
have
clearly
established
that
inhaled
chromium
VI
is
a
carcinogen,
resulting
in
an
increased
risk
of
lung
cancer.
EPA
has
classified
chromium
VI
as
a
Group
A,
human
carcinogen.
Chromium
III
is
less
toxic
than
chromium
VI.
The
respiratory
tract
is
also
the
major
target
organ
for
chromium
III
toxicity,
similar
to
chromium
VI.
Chromium
III
is
an
essential
element
in
humans,
with
a
daily
intake
of
50
to
200
micrograms
per
day
recommended
for
an
adult.
The
body
can
detoxify
some
amount
of
chromium
VI
to
chromium
III.
EPA
has
not
classified
chromium
III
with
respect
to
carcinogenicity.
Cobalt
Cobalt
is
a
relatively
rare
metal
that
is
produced
primarily
as
a
by­
product
during
refining
of
other
metals,
primarily
copper.
Cobalt
has
been
widely
reported
to
cause
respiratory
effects
in
humans
exposed
by
inhalation,
including
respiratory
irritation,
wheezing,
asthma,
and
pneumonia.
Cardiomyopathy
(
or
damage
to
the
heart
muscle)
has
also
been
reported,
although
this
effect
is
better
known
from
oral
exposure.
Other
effects
of
oral
exposure
in
humans
are
polycythemia
(
an
abnormally
high
number
of
red
blood
cells)
and
the
blocking
of
uptake
of
iodine
by
the
thyroid.
In
addition,
cobalt
is
a
sensitizer
in
humans
by
any
route
of
exposure.
Sensitized
individuals
may
react
to
inhalation
of
cobalt
by
developing
asthma
or
to
ingestion
or
dermal
contact
with
cobalt
by
developing
dermatitis.
Cobalt
is
as
a
vital
component
of
vitamin
B
12,
though
there
is
no
evidence
that
intake
of
cobalt
is
ever
limiting
in
the
human
diet.
A
number
of
epidemiological
studies
have
found
that
exposures
to
cobalt
are
associated
with
an
increased
incidence
of
lung
cancer
in
occupational
settings.
The
International
Agency
for
Research
on
Cancer
(
IARC,
part
of
the
World
Health
Organization)
classifies
cobalt
and
cobalt
compounds
as
"
possibly
carcinogenic
to
humans"
(
Group
2B).
The
American
Conference
of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists
(
ACGIH)
has
classified
cobalt
as
a
confirmed
animal
carcinogen
with
unknown
relevance
to
humans
(
category
A3).
An
EPA
assessment
concludes
that
under
EPA's
1986
guidelines,
cobalt
would
be
classified
as
a
probable
human
carcinogen
(
group
B1)
based
on
limited
evidence
of
carcinogenicity
in
humans
and
sufficient
evidence
of
carcinogenicity
in
animals,
as
evidenced
by
an
increased
incidence
of
alveolar/
bronchiolar
tumors
in
recent
studies
of
both
rats
and
mice.
Under
EPA's
proposed
cancer
guidelines,
cobalt
is
considered
likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans.
4
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Dioxins
and
Furans
Exposures
to
chlorinated
dibenzodioxins
and
dibenzofurans
at
levels
10
times
or
less
above
those
attributed
to
average
background
exposure
have
resulted
in
adverse
non­
cancer
health
effects
observed
both
in
animals
and,
to
a
more
limited
extent,
in
humans.
In
animals
these
effects
include
changes
in
hormone
systems,
alterations
in
fetal
development,
reduced
reproductive
capacity,
and
immunosuppression.
Effects
specifically
observed
in
humans
include
changes
in
markers
of
early
development
and
hormone
levels.
Dioxin
and
furan
exposures
are
associated
with
an
increased
risk
of
severe
skin
lesions,
altered
liver
function
and
lipid
metabolism,
general
weakness
associated
with
drastic
weight
loss,
changes
in
activity
of
various
liver
enzymes,
depression
of
the
immune
system,
and
endocrine
and
nervous
system
abnormalities.
At
much
higher
doses,
dioxins
can
cause
a
serious
skin
disease
in
humans
called
chloracne.
We
have
characterized
dioxins
and
furans
as
likely
to
be
human
carcinogens
that
are
anticipated
to
increase
the
risk
of
cancer
at
background
levels
of
exposure.
Hydrogen
chloride/
hydrochloric
acid
Hydrogen
chloride,
also
called
hydrochloric
acid,
is
corrosive
to
the
eyes,
skin,
and
mucous
membranes.
Acute
(
short­
term)
inhalation
exposure
may
cause
eye,
nose,
and
respiratory
tract
irritation
and
inflammation
and
pulmonary
edema
in
humans.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
occupational
exposure
to
hydrochloric
acid
has
been
reported
to
cause
gastritis,
bronchitis,
and
dermatitis
in
workers.
Prolonged
exposure
to
low
concentrations
may
also
cause
dental
discoloration
and
erosion.
No
information
is
available
on
the
reproductive
or
developmental
effects
of
hydrochloric
acid
in
humans.
In
rats
exposed
to
hydrochloric
acid
by
inhalation,
altered
estrus
cycles
have
been
reported
in
females
and
increased
fetal
mortality
and
decreased
fetal
weight
have
been
reported
in
offspring.
EPA
has
not
classified
hydrochloric
acid
for
carcinogenicity.
Lead
Lead
is
a
very
toxic
element,
causing
a
variety
of
effects
at
low
dose
levels.
Brain
damage,
kidney
damage,
and
gastrointestinal
distress
may
occur
from
acute
(
short­
term)
exposure
to
high
levels
of
lead
in
humans.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
exposure
to
lead
in
humans
results
in
effects
on
the
blood,
central
nervous
system
(
CNS),
blood
pressure,
and
kidneys.
Children
are
particularly
sensitive
to
the
chronic
effects
of
lead,
with
slowed
cognitive
development,
reduced
growth
and
other
effects
reported.
Reproductive
effects,
such
as
decreased
sperm
count
in
men
and
spontaneous
abortions
in
women,
have
been
associated
with
lead
exposure.
The
developing
fetus
is
at
particular
risk
from
maternal
lead
exposure,
with
low
birth
weight
and
slowed
postnatal
neurobehavioral
development
noted.
Human
studies
are
inconclusive
regarding
lead
exposure
and
cancer,
while
animal
studies
have
reported
an
increase
in
kidney
cancer
from
lead
exposure
by
the
oral
route.
EPA
has
classified
lead
as
a
Group
B2,
probable
human
carcinogen.
Manganese
Health
effects
in
humans
have
been
associated
with
both
deficiencies
and
excess
intakes
of
manganese.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
exposure
to
low
levels
of
manganese
in
the
diet
is
considered
to
be
nutritionally
essential
in
humans,
with
a
recommended
daily
allowance
of
2
to
5
milligrams
per
day
(
mg/
d).
Chronic
exposure
to
high
levels
of
manganese
by
inhalation
in
humans
results
primarily
in
central
nervous
system
(
CNS)
effects.
Visual
reaction
time,
hand
steadiness,
and
eyehand
coordination
were
affected
in
chronically­
exposed
workers.
Manganism,
characterized
by
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

feelings
of
weakness
and
lethargy,
tremors,
a
mask­
like
face,
and
psychological
disturbances,
may
result
from
chronic
exposure
to
higher
levels.
Impotence
and
loss
of
libido
have
been
noted
in
male
workers
afflicted
with
manganism
attributed
to
inhalation
exposures.
EPA
has
classified
manganese
in
Group
D,
not
classifiable
as
to
carcinogenicity
in
humans.
Mercury
Mercury
exists
in
three
forms:
elemental
mercury,
inorganic
mercury
compounds
(
primarily
mercuric
chloride),
and
organic
mercury
compounds
(
primarily
methyl
mercury).
Each
form
exhibits
different
health
effects.
Various
sources
may
release
elemental
or
inorganic
mercury;
environmental
methyl
mercury
is
typically
formed
by
biological
processes
after
mercury
has
precipitated
from
the
air.
Acute
(
short­
term)
exposure
to
high
levels
of
elemental
mercury
in
humans
results
in
central
nervous
system
(
CNS)
effects
such
as
tremors,
mood
changes,
and
slowed
sensory
and
motor
nerve
function.
High
inhalation
exposures
can
also
cause
kidney
damage
and
effects
on
the
gastrointestinal
tract
and
respiratory
system.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
exposure
to
elemental
mercury
in
humans
also
affects
the
CNS,
with
effects
such
as
increased
excitability,
irritability,
excessive
shyness,
and
tremors.
EPA
has
not
classified
elemental
mercury
with
respect
to
cancer.
Acute
exposure
to
inorganic
mercury
by
the
oral
route
may
result
in
effects
such
as
nausea,
vomiting,
and
severe
abdominal
pain.
The
major
effect
from
chronic
exposure
to
inorganic
mercury
is
kidney
damage.
Reproductive
and
developmental
animal
studies
have
reported
effects
such
as
alterations
in
testicular
tissue,
increased
embryo
resorption
rates,
and
abnormalities
of
development.
Mercuric
chloride
(
an
inorganic
mercury
compound)
exposure
has
been
shown
to
result
in
forestomach,
thyroid,
and
renal
tumors
in
experimental
animals.
EPA
has
classified
mercuric
chloride
as
a
Group
C,
possible
human
carcinogen.
Nickel
Nickel
is
a
commonly
used
industrial
metal,
and
is
frequently
associated
with
iron
and
copper
ores.
Contact
dermatitis
is
the
most
common
effect
in
humans
from
exposure
to
nickel,
whether
via
inhalation,
oral,
or
dermal
exposure.
Cases
of
nickel­
contact
dermatitis
have
been
reported
following
occupational
and
non­
occupational
exposure,
with
symptoms
of
itching
of
the
fingers,
wrists,
and
forearms.
Many
studies
have
also
demonstrated
dermal
effects
in
sensitive
humans
from
ingested
nickel,
invoking
an
eruption
or
worsening
of
eczema.
Chronic
inhalation
exposure
to
nickel
in
humans
results
in
direct
respiratory
effects,
such
as
asthma
due
to
primary
irritation,
or
an
allergic
response
and
an
increased
risk
of
chronic
respiratory
tract
infections.
Animal
studies
have
reported
a
variety
of
inflammatory
effects
on
the
lungs,
as
well
as
effects
on
the
kidneys
and
immune
system
from
inhalation
exposure
to
nickel.
Significant
differences
in
inhalation
toxicity
among
the
various
forms
of
nickel
have
been
documented,
with
soluble
nickel
compounds
being
more
toxic
to
the
respiratory
tract
than
less
soluble
compounds
(
e.
g.,
nickel
oxide).
Animal
studies
have
also
reported
effects
on
the
respiratory
and
gastrointestinal
systems,
heart,
blood,
liver,
kidney,
and
body
weight
from
oral
exposure
to
nickel,
as
well
as
to
the
fetus.
EPA
currently
classifies
nickel
refinery
dust
and
nickel
subsulfide
(
a
major
component
of
nickel
refinery
dust)
as
class
A
human
carcinogens
based
on
increased
risks
of
lung
and
nasal
cancer
in
human
epidemiological
studies
of
occupational
exposures
to
nickel
refinery
dust,
increased
tumor
incidences
in
animals
by
several
routes
of
administration
in
several
animal
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

5
Report
on
Carcinogens,
Tenth
Edition;
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
Public
Health
Service,
National
Toxicology
Program,
December
2002.

6
The
discussion
of
PM
effects
is
drawn
from
the
executive
summary
of
the
"
Fourth
External
Review
Draft
of
Air
Quality
Criteria
for
Particulate
Matter,"
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA/
600/
P­
99/
002aD,
June,
2003.

7
Secondary
PM
is
not
emitted
directly
but
is
formed
in
the
atmosphere
by
gas
phase
or
aqueous
phase
reactions
of
emissions
of
various
precursor
compounds.
species,
and
positive
results
in
genotoxicity
assays.
More
recently,
a
pair
of
inhalation
studies
performed
under
the
auspices
of
the
National
Toxicology
Program
(
NTP)
of
the
National
Institutes
of
Health
concluded
that
there
was
no
evidence
of
carcinogenic
activity
of
soluble
nickel
salts
in
rats
or
mice
and
that
there
was
some
evidence
of
carcinogenic
activity
of
nickel
oxide
in
male
and
female
rats
based
on
increased
incidence
of
alveolar/
bronchiolar
adenoma
or
carcinoma
and
increased
incidence
of
benign
or
malignant
pheochromocytoma
(
a
tumor
of
the
adrenal
gland)
and
equivocal
evidence
in
mice
based
on
marginally
increased
incidence
of
alveolar/
bronchiolar
adenoma
or
carcinoma
in
females
and
no
evidence
in
males.
The
Tenth
Annual
Report
on
Carcinogens
classifies
nickel
compounds
as
"
known
to
be
human
carcinogens."
5
This
is
consistent
with
the
International
Agency
for
Cancer
Research
(
IARC)
which
classifies
nickel
compounds
as
Group
1
human
carcinogens.
Organic
HAP
Organic
HAPs
include
halogenated
and
nonhalogenated
organic
classes
of
compounds
such
as
polycyclic
aromtic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
and
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs).
Both
PAHs
and
PCBs
are
classified
as
potential
human
carcinogens,
and
are
considered
toxic,
persistent
and
bioaccumulative.
They
include
compounds
such
as
benzene,
methane,
propane,
chlorinated
alkanes
and
alkenes,
phenols
and
chlorinated
aromatics.
Adverse
health
effects
of
HAPs
include
damage
to
the
immune
system,
as
well
as
neurological,
reproductive,
developmental,
respiratory
and
other
health
problems.
Particulate
Matter
6
Atmospheric
PM
is
composed
of
sulfate,
nitrate,
ammonium,
and
other
ions,
elemental
carbon,
particle­
bound
water,
a
wide
variety
of
organic
compounds,
and
a
large
number
of
elements
contained
in
various
compounds,
some
of
which
originate
from
crustal
materials
and
others
from
combustion
sources.
Combustion
sources
are
the
primary
origin
of
trace
metals
found
in
fine
particles
in
the
atmosphere.
Ambient
PM
can
be
of
primary
or
secondary
origin.
7
A
large
body
of
evidence
exists
from
epidemiological
studies
that
demonstrates
a
relationship
between
ambient
particulate
matter
(
PM)
and
mortality
and
morbidity
in
the
general
population
and,
when
combined
with
evidence
from
other
studies
(
e.
g.,
clinical
and
animal
studies),
indicates
that
exposure
to
PM
is
a
probable
contributing
cause
to
the
adverse
human
health
effects
that
have
been
observed.
For
example,
many
different
studies
report
that
increased
cardiovascular
and
respiratory­
related
mortality
risks
are
significantly
associated
with
various
measures
(
both
long­
term
and
short­
term)
of
ambient
PM.
Some
studies
suggest
that
a
portion
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

8
Nitrates
and
sulfates
in
PM
are
derived
primarily
from
emissions
of
SO
x
and
NO
x.

9
Nitrates
and
sulfates
in
PM
are
derived
primarily
from
emissions
of
SO
x
and
NO
x.
the
increased
mortality
may
be
associated
with
concurrent
exposures
to
PM
and
other
criteria
pollutants,
such
as
SO
2.
Much
evidence
exists
of
positive
associations
between
ambient
PM
concentrations
and
increased
respiratory­
related
hospital
admissions,
emergency
room,
and
other
medical
visits.
Additional
findings
implicate
PM
as
likely
associated
with
an
increased
occurrence
of
chronic
bronchitis
and
a
contributing
factor
in
the
exacerbation
of
asthmatic
conditions.
Recent
reports
from
prospective
cohort
studies
of
long­
term
ambient
PM
exposures
provide
substantial
evidence
of
an
association
between
increased
risk
of
lung
cancer
and
PM,
especially
exposure
to
fine
PM
or
its
components.
PM
has
other
effects,
beyond
the
health
effects
to
human
beings.
The
major
effect
of
atmospheric
PM
on
ecosystems
is
indirect
and
occurs
through
the
deposition
of
nitrates
and
sulfates
and
the
acidifying
effects
of
the
associated
hydrogen
ions
contained
in
wet
and
dry
deposition.
8
Acidification
of
surface
waters
can
have
long­
term
adverse
effects
on
aquatic
ecosystems,
including
effects
on
fish
populations,
macroinvertebrates,
species
richness,
and
zooplankton
abundance.
In
the
soil
environment,
acid
deposition
has
the
potential
to
inhibit
nutrient
uptake,
alter
the
ecological
processes
of
energy
flow
and
nutrient
cycling,
change
ecosystem
structure,
and
affect
ecosystem
biodiversity.
In
addition,
ambient
fine
particles
are
well
known
as
the
major
cause
of
visibility
impairment.
Visibility
impairment
(
or
haziness)
is
widespread
in
the
U.
S.
and
is
greatest
in
the
eastern
United
States
and
southern
California.
In
addition,
PM
exerts
important
effects
on
materials,
such
as
soiling,
corrosion,
and
degradation
of
surfaces,
and
accelerates
weathering
of
man­
made
and
natural
materials.
A
large
body
of
evidence
exists
from
epidemiological
studies
that
demonstrates
a
relationship
between
ambient
particulate
matter
(
PM)
and
mortality
and
morbidity
in
the
general
population
and,
when
combined
with
evidence
from
other
studies
(
e.
g.,
clinical
and
animal
studies),
indicates
that
exposure
to
PM
is
a
probable
contributing
cause
to
the
adverse
human
health
effects
that
have
been
observed.
For
example,
many
different
studies
report
that
increased
cardiovascular
and
respiratory­
related
mortality
risks
are
significantly
associated
with
various
measures
(
both
long­
term
and
short­
term)
of
ambient
PM.
Some
studies
suggest
that
a
portion
of
the
increased
mortality
may
be
associated
with
concurrent
exposures
to
PM
and
other
criteria
pollutants,
such
as
SO
2.
Much
evidence
exists
of
positive
associations
between
ambient
PM
concentrations
and
increased
respiratory­
related
hospital
admissions,
emergency
room,
and
other
medical
visits.
Additional
findings
implicate
PM
as
likely
associated
with
an
increased
occurrence
of
chronic
bronchitis
and
a
contributing
factor
in
the
exacerbation
of
asthmatic
conditions.
Recent
reports
from
prospective
cohort
studies
of
long­
term
ambient
PM
exposures
provide
substantial
evidence
of
an
association
between
increased
risk
of
lung
cancer
and
PM,
especially
exposure
to
fine
PM
or
its
components.
PM
has
other
effects,
beyond
the
health
effects
to
human
beings.
The
major
effect
of
atmospheric
PM
on
ecosystems
is
indirect
and
occurs
through
the
deposition
of
nitrates
and
sulfates
and
the
acidifying
effects
of
the
associated
hydrogen
ions
contained
in
wet
and
dry
deposition.
9
Acidification
of
surface
waters
can
have
long­
term
adverse
effects
on
aquatic
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

10
Incinerators
that
burn
hazardous
waste
will
also
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
incinerator
emission
limitations
pursuant
to
§
264
Subpart
O
until
they
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
interim
MACT
standards
and
remove
the
emission
limitations
from
their
RCRA
permit.
See
§
270.42
Appendix
I,
Section
a.
8
and
introductory
paragraph
to
§
270.62.
ecosystems,
including
effects
on
fish
populations,
macroinvertebrates,
species
richness,
and
zooplankton
abundance.
In
the
soil
environment,
acid
deposition
has
the
potential
to
inhibit
nutrient
uptake,
alter
the
ecological
processes
of
energy
flow
and
nutrient
cycling,
change
ecosystem
structure,
and
affect
ecosystem
biodiversity.
In
addition,
ambient
fine
particles
are
well
known
as
the
major
cause
of
visibility
impairment.
Visibility
impairment
(
or
haziness)
is
widespread
in
the
U.
S.
and
is
greatest
in
the
eastern
United
States
and
southern
California.
In
addition,
PM
exerts
important
effects
on
materials,
such
as
soiling,
corrosion,
and
degradation
of
surfaces,
and
accelerates
weathering
of
man­
made
and
natural
materials.
Selenium
Selenium
occurs
naturally
in
soils,
is
associated
with
copper
refining,
and
several
industrial
processes,
and
has
been
used
in
pesticides.
It
is
an
essential
element
and
bioaccumulates
in
certain
plant
species,
and
has
been
associated
with
toxic
effects
in
livestock
(
blind
staggers
syndrome).
Soils
containing
high
levels
of
selenium
(
seleniferous
soils
can
lead
to
high
concentration
of
selenium
in
certain
plants,
and
pose
a
hazard
to
livestock
and
other
species.
Bioaccumulation
and
magnification
of
selenium
has
also
been
observed
in
aquatic
organisms
and
has
been
shown
to
be
toxic
to
piscivorous
fish.
In
humans,
selenium
partitions
to
the
kidneys
and
liver,
and
excreted
through
the
urine
and
feces.
Selenium
intoxication
in
humans
causes
a
syndrome
known
as
selenosis.
The
condition
is
characterized
by
chronic
dermatitis,
fatigue,
anorexia,
gastroenteritis,
hepatic
degeneration,
enlarged
spleen
and
increased
concentrations
of
Se
in
the
hair
and
nails.
Clinical
signs
of
selenosis
include
a
characteristic
"
garlic
odor"
of
excess
selenium
excretion
in
the
breath
and
urine,
thickened
and
brittle
nails,
hair
and
nail
loss,
lowered
hemoglobin
levels,
mottled
teeth,
skin
lesions
and
CNS
abnormalities
(
peripheral
anesthesia,
acroparesthesia
and
pain
in
the
extremities).
Aquatic
birds
are
extremely
sensitive
to
selenium;
toxic
effects
include
teratogenesis.
Based
on
available
data,
both
aquatic
birds
aquatic
mammals
are
sensitive
ecological
receptors.

II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Source
Categories
Are
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule?
1.
Incinerators
that
Burn
Hazardous
Waste
A
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerator
is
defined
under
§
63.1201(
a)
as
a
device
that
meets
the
definition
of
an
incinerator
in
40
CFR
Part
260.10
and
that
burns
hazardous
waste
at
any
time.
Hazardous
waste
incinerators
are
currently
subject
to
the
emission
standards
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE.
10
Hazardous
waste
incinerator
design
types
include
rotary
kilns,
liquid
injection
incinerators,
fluidized
bed
incinerators,
and
fixed
hearth
incinerators.
Most
incinerators
have
air
pollution
control
equipment
to
capture
particulate
matter
(
and
nonvolatile
metals)
and
scrubbing
equipment
for
the
capture
of
acid
gases.
At
least
four
incinerators
are
equipped
with
activated
carbon
injection
systems
or
carbon
beds
to
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions
(
as
well
as
other
HAP
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

11
Cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
will
also
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnace
emission
limitations
pursuant
to
§
266
Subpart
H
until
they
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
interim
MACT
standards
and
remove
the
emission
limitations
from
their
RCRA
permit.
See
§
270.42
Appendix
I,
Section
a.
8
and
introductory
paragraph
to
§
270.66.
emissions).
Incinerators
can
be
further
classified
as
either
commercial
or
onsite.
Commercial
incinerators
accept
and
treat,
for
a
tipping
fee,
wastes
that
have
been
generated
off­
site.
The
purpose
of
commercial
incinerators
is
to
generate
profit
from
treating
hazardous
wastes.
On­
site
facilities
treat
only
wastes
that
have
been
generated
at
the
facility
to
avoid
the
costs
of
off­
site
treatment.
In
2003,
there
were
approximately
107
hazardous
waste
incinerators
in
operation,
15
of
which
were
commercial
facilities,
the
remaining
being
on­
site
facilities.
2.
Cement
Kilns
that
Burn
Hazardous
Waste
A
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kiln
is
defined
under
§
63.1201(
a).
Cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
the
emission
standards
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE.
11
Cement
kilns
are
long,
cylindrical,
slightly
inclined
rotating
furnaces
that
are
lined
with
refractory
brick
to
protect
the
steel
shell
and
retain
heat
within
the
kiln.
Cement
kilns
are
designed
to
calcine,
or
expel
carbon
dioxide
by
roasting,
a
blend
of
raw
materials
such
as
limestone,
shale,
clay,
or
sand
to
produce
portland
cement.
The
raw
materials
enter
the
kiln
at
the
elevated
end,
and
the
combustion
fuels
generally
are
introduced
into
the
lower
end
of
the
kiln
where
the
clinker
product
is
discharged.
The
materials
are
continuously
and
slowly
moved
to
the
lower
end
by
rotation
of
the
kiln.
As
they
move
down
the
kiln,
the
raw
materials
are
changed
to
cementitious
minerals
as
a
result
of
increased
temperatures
within
the
kiln.
Portland
cement
is
a
fine
powder,
usually
gray
in
color,
that
consists
of
a
mixture
of
minerals
comprising
primarily
calcium
silicates,
aluminates,
and
aluminoferrites,
to
which
small
amounts
of
gypsum
have
been
added
during
the
finish
grinding
operations.
Portland
cement
is
the
key
ingredient
in
Portland
cement
concrete,
which
is
used
in
almost
all
construction
applications.
Cement
kilns
covered
by
this
proposal
burn
hazardous
waste­
derived
fuels
to
replace
some
or
all
of
normal
fossil
fuels,
typically
coal.
Most
kilns
burn
liquid
waste;
however,
cement
kilns
also
may
burn
solids
and
small
containers
containing
viscous
or
solid
hazardous
waste
fuels.
The
annual
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rate
varies
considerably
across
sources
from
approximately
25
to
85
percent.
In
2003,
there
were
14
Portland
cement
plants
in
nine
states
operating
a
total
of
25
hazardous
waste
burning
kilns.
All
cement
kilns
use
either
bag
houses
or
electrostatic
precipitators
to
control
metal
particulate
matter
emissions.
3.
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
that
Burn
Hazardous
Waste
A
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
is
defined
under
§
63.1201(
a).
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
the
emission
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

12
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
will
also
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnace
emission
limitations
pursuant
to
§
266
Subpart
H
until
they
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
interim
MACT
standards
and
remove
the
emission
limitations
from
their
RCRA
permit.
See
§
270.42
Appendix
I,
Section
a.
8
and
introductory
paragraph
to
§
270.66.
standards
of
part
63,
subpart
EEE.
12
Raw
materials
such
as
shale,
clay,
and
slate
are
crushed
and
introduced
at
the
upper
end
of
the
rotary
kiln.
In
passing
through
the
kiln,
the
materials
reach
temperatures
of
1,900­
2,100
°
F.
Heat
is
provided
by
a
burner
at
the
lower
end
of
the
kiln
where
the
product
is
discharged.
As
the
raw
material
is
heated,
it
melts
into
a
semi­
plastic
state
and
begins
to
generate
gases
that
serve
as
the
bloating
or
expanding
agent.
As
temperatures
reach
their
maximum,
the
semi­
plastic
raw
material
becomes
viscous
and
entraps
the
expanding
gases.
This
bloating
action
produces
small,
unconnected
gas
cells,
which
remain
in
the
material
after
it
cools
and
solidifies.
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
designed
to
expand
the
raw
material
by
thermal
processing
into
a
coarse
aggregate
used
in
the
production
of
lightweight
concrete
products
such
as
concrete
block,
structural
concrete,
and
pavement.
The
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
affected
by
this
proposal
burn
hazardous
waste­
derived
fuels
to
replace
some
or
all
of
normal
fossil
fuels.
Two
of
the
facilities
burn
only
liquid
hazardous
wastes,
while
the
a
third
facility
burns
both
liquid
and
solid
wastes.
The
annual
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rate
is
100
percent.
In
2003,
there
were
three
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
facilities
in
two
states
operating
a
total
of
seven
hazardous
waste­
fired
kilns.
All
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
use
baghouses
to
control
particulate
matter
and
one
facility
also
uses
a
venturi
scrubber
to
control
acid
gas
emissions.
4.
Boilers
that
Burn
Hazardous
Waste
Boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
regulated
under
RCRA
at
part
266,
subpart
H.
We
propose
to
use
the
RCRA
definition
of
boiler
under
40
CFR
260.10
for
purposes
of
today's
rulemaking
for
simplicity
and
continuity.
This
definition
includes
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
as
well
as
thermal
units
known
in
industry
as
process
heaters.
We
propose
to
subcategorize
boilers
based
on
the
type
of
fuel
that
is
burned,
which
would
result
in
separate
emission
standards
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
We
discuss
subcategorization
options
in
more
detail
in
Part
Two,
Section
II.
Boilers
are
typically
described
by
either
their
design
or
type
of
fuel
burned.
Hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
comprise
two
basic
different
boiler
designs
­
watertube
and
firetube.
The
choice
of
which
design
to
use
depends
on
factors
such
as
the
desired
steam
quality,
thermal
efficiency,
size,
economics,
fuel
type,
and
responsiveness.
Watertube
boilers
are
those
that
flow
the
water
through
tubes
running
the
length
of
the
boiler.
The
hot
combustion
gas
surrounds
these
tubes,
causing
the
water
inside
to
get
hot.
Most
hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
use
this
design.
Watertube
boilers
can
also
burn
a
variety
of
fuel
types
including
coal,
oil,
gas,
wood,
and
municipal
or
industrial
wastes.
Firetube
boilers
are
similar
to
watertube
type,
except
the
placement
of
the
water
and
combustion
gas
is
reversed.
Here
the
hot
combustion
gas
flows
through
the
tubes,
while
the
water
surrounds
the
tubes.
This
design
does
have
some
disadvantages,
however,
in
that
they
work
well
with
only
gas
and
liquid
fuels.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

13
Please
note
that
the
RCRA
definition
of
boiler
includes
devices
defined
under
Part
63
as
boilers
and
process
heaters.
Process
heaters
are
similar
to
boilers
(
as
conventionally
defined),
except
they
heat
a
fluid
other
than
water.
This
fluid
is
often
an
oil
or
some
other
fluid
with
more
suitable
heating
properties.
Process
heaters
are
often
used
in
circumstances
where
the
amount
of
heat
needed
is
greater
than
what
can
be
delivered
by
steam.
For
the
purposes
of
this
rulemaking
and
consistent
with
current
RCRA
regulations,
process
heaters
would
be
classified
as
boilers.
Descriptions
of
liquid
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
provided
below.
a.
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers.
A
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
is
a
device
that
meets
the
definition
of
a
boiler
under
40
CFR
260.10
and
that
burns
any
combination
of
liquid
and
gas
fuels,
but
no
solids.
See
proposed
definition
in
§
63.1201(
a).
A
liquid
fuel
is
defined
as
a
fuel
that
is
pumpable
(
e.
g.,
liquid
wastes,
sludges,
or
slurries).
Most
liquid
hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
co­
fire
natural
gas,
fuel
oil,
or
process
gases
to
achieve
the
proper
combustion
temperatures
and
a
consistent
steam
supply.
There
are
approximately
104
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
85
of
which
have
not
installed
back­
end
air
pollution
control
equipment.
The
rest
of
the
liquid
boilers
use
either
a
wet
scrubber,
electrostatic
precipitator,
or
fabric
filter.
These
boilers
co­
fire
liquid
hazardous
waste
with
either
natural
gas
or
heating
oil
at
heat
input
rates
of
10%
to
100%.
b.
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers.
A
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
is
a
device
that
meets
the
definition
of
a
boiler
under
40
CFR
260.10
and
that
burns
solid
fuels,
including
both
pulverized
and
stoker
coal.
13
See
proposed
definition
in
§
63.1201(
a).
Boilers
that
co­
fire
solid
fuel
with
liquid
or
gaseous
fuels
are
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
There
are
12
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
These
boilers
co­
fire
liquid
hazardous
waste
with
coal
at
heat
input
rates
of
6%
to
33%.
Nine
of
these
boilers
are
stoker­
fired,
and
three
burn
pulverized
coal.
Two
boilers
are
equipped
with
fabric
filters
to
control
particulate
matter
and
metals,
and
10
are
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators.
5.
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
that
Process
Hazardous
Waste
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
regulated
under
RCRA
at
part
266,
subpart
H.
We
propose
to
use
the
RCRA
definition
of
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
under
40
CFR
260.10
for
purposes
of
today's
rulemaking
for
simplicity
and
continuity.
See
proposed
definition
in
§
63.1201(
a).
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
burn
chlorinated
hazardous
wastes
to
make
an
aqueous
hydrochloric
acid
for
on­
site
use
as
an
ingredient
in
a
manufacturing
process.
The
hazardous
waste
feedstocks
have
a
chlorine
content
of
over
20%
by
weight.
The
hydrochloric
acid
produced
by
burning
the
chlorinated
byproducts
dissolves
in
the
scrubber
water
to
produce
an
acid
product
containing
hydrochloric
acid
greater
than
3%
by
weight.
There
are
17
hazardous
waste
burning
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
currently
in
operation.
Chlorine­
bearing
feedstreams,
wastes,
and
auxiliary
fuels
(
usually
natural
gas)
are
burned
in
these
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
in
a
refractory
lined
chamber
similar
to
a
liquid
waste
incinerator
chamber.
Combustion
is
maintained
at
a
high
temperature,
with
adequate
excess
hydrogen
to
ensure
the
conversion
of
chlorine
in
the
feedstreams
to
hydrogen
chloride
in
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

14
Emissions
of
particulate
matter
are
of
interest
because
metal
HAP,
except
notably
for
mercury,
are
in
the
particulate
form
in
stack
gas.
Thus,
controlling
particulate
matter
controls
metal
HAP.

15
Particulate
size
distributions
are
somewhat
dependent
on
the
type
of
combustor.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
more
information.
the
combustion
gases.
Many
furnaces
also
have
waste
heat
boilers,
similar
to
those
used
by
some
incinerators,
to
recover
heat
and
return
it
to
the
production
process.
Others
use
a
water
spray
quench
to
cool
the
combustion
gases.
The
cooled
combustion
flue
gas
is
routed
to
an
acid
recovery
system,
consisting
of
multiple
wet
scrubbing
absorption
units.
These
units
are
usually
packed
tower
or
film
tray
scrubbers
which
operate
with
an
acidic
scrubbing
solution.
The
scrubbing
solution
is
recycled
to
concentrate
the
acid
until
it
reaches
the
desired
concentration
level,
at
which
point
it
is
recovered
for
use
as
a
valuable
product.
A
final
polishing
scrubber,
operated
with
a
caustic
liquid
solution,
is
used
to
control
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.
B.
What
HAP
Are
Emitted?
Incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
can
emit
high
levels
of
dioxin/
furans
depending
on
the
design
and
operation
of
the
emission
control
equipment,
and,
for
incinerators,
whether
a
waste
heat
recovery
boiler
is
used.
Our
data
base
shows
that
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
generally
do
not
emit
high
levels
of
dioxin/
furans.
All
hazardous
waste
combustors
can
emit
high
levels
of
other
organic
HAP
if
they
are
not
designed,
operated,
and
maintained
to
operate
under
good
combustion
conditions.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
can
also
emit
high
levels
of
metal
HAP,
depending
on
the
level
of
metals
in
the
waste
feed
and
the
design
and
operation
of
air
emissions
control
equipment.
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
however,
generally
feed
and
emit
low
levels
of
metal
HAP.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
can
also
emit
high
levels
of
particulate
matter,
except
that
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
generally
feed
wastes
with
low
ash
content
and
emit
low
levels
of
particulate
matter.
14
The
majority
of
particulate
matter
emissions
from
hazardous
waste
combustors
is
in
the
form
of
fine
particulate
(
i.
e.,
50%
or
more
of
the
particulate
matter
emitted
is
2.5
microns
in
diameter
or
less).
15
Particulate
emissions
from
incinerators
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
depend
on
the
ash
content
of
the
waste
feed
and
the
design
and
operation
of
air
emission
control
equipment.
Particulate
emissions
from
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
not
significantly
affected
by
the
ash
content
of
the
hazardous
waste
fuel
because
uncontrolled
particulate
emissions
are
attributable
primarily
to
raw
material
entrained
in
the
combustion
gas.
Thus,
particulate
emissions
from
kilns
depend
on
operating
conditions
that
affect
entrainment
of
raw
material,
and
the
design
and
operation
of
the
emission
control
equipment.
C.
Does
Today's
Proposed
Rule
Apply
to
My
Source?
The
following
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
considered
to
be
affected
sources
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

subject
to
today's
proposed
rule:
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Affected
sources
do
not
include:
(
1)
sources
exempt
from
regulation
under
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H,
because
the
only
hazardous
waste
they
burn
is
listed
under
40
CFR
266.100(
c);
(
2)
research,
development,
and
demonstration
sources
exempt
under
§
63.1200(
b);
and
(
3)
boilers
exempt
from
regulation
under
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H,
because
they
meet
the
definition
of
small
quantity
burner
under
40
CFR
266.108.
See
§
63.1200(
b).
Affected
sources
also
do
not
include
emission
points
that
are
unrelated
to
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.,
cement
kiln
clinker
cooler
stack
emissions,
hydrochloric
acid
production
facility
emissions
originating
from
product
or
waste
storage
tanks
and
transfer
operations,
etc.).
This
is
because
Subpart
EEE
only
controls
HAP
emission
points
that
are
directly
related
to
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
Under
separate
rulemakings,
the
Agency
has
or
will
establish
MACT
standards,
where
warranted,
to
control
HAP
emissions
from
non­
hazardous
waste
related
emission
points.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
are
affected
sources
irrespective
of
whether
they
are
major
sources
or
area
sources.
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
I.
A,
we
are
proposing
to
subject
area
sources
of
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
to
the
major
source
MACT
standards
for
mercury,
dioxin/
furans,
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
pursuant
to
section
112(
c)(
6).
As
promulgated
in
the
1999
rule,
both
area
source
and
major
source
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
will
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
full
suite
of
Subpart
EEE
emission
standards.
D.
What
Emissions
Limitations
Must
I
Meet?
Under
today's
proposal,
you
would
have
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits
in
Tables
1
and
2.
Note
that
these
emission
limitations
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
for
each
source
category
(
and
subcategory)
in
Part
Two,
Section
VII
thru
XII.
Note
also
that
we
are
proposing
several
alternative
emission
standards:
(
1)
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
incinerators
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
would
limit
emissions
of
total
metal
HAP;
and
(
2)
you
may
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
to
the
total
chlorine
standard
applicable
to
all
source
categories,
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
under
which
you
may
establish
site­
specific,
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
based
on
national
exposure
standards.
These
alternative
standards
are
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVIII
and
Section
XIII,
respectively.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
1.
Proposed
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
Incinerators
Cement
Kilns
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers1
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers1
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces1
Dioxin/
Furans
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
0.28
for
dry
APCD
and
WHB
sources;
6
0.40
for
others
0.20
or
0.40
+

400

F
at
APCD
inlet
0.40
CO
or
THC
standard
as
a
surrogate
0.40
for
dry
APCDsources;

CO
or
THC
standard
as
surrogate
for
others
0.40
Mercury
130
ug/
dscm
64
ug/
dscm2
67
ug/
dscm2
10
ug/
dscm
3.7E­
6
lb/
MMBtu2,5
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Particulate
Matter
0.015
gr/
dscf
8
0.028
gr/
dscf
0.025
gr/
dscf
0.030
gr/
dscf
8
0.032
gr/
dscf
8
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Semivolatile
Metals
(
lead
+
cadmium)
59
ug/
dscm
4.0E­
4
lB/
MMBtu5
3.1E­
4
lb/
MMBtu5
and
250
ug/
dscm3
170
ug/
dscm
1.1E­
5
lb/
MMBtu2,5
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Low
Volatile
Metals
(
arsenic
+
beryllium
+

chromium)
84
ug/
dscm
1.4E­
5
lbs/
MMBtu5
9.5E­
5
lb/
MMBtu5
and
110
ug/
dscm3
210
ug/
dscm
1.1E­
4
lbMMBtu4,5
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Total
Chlorine
(
hydrogen
chloride
+
chlorine
gas)
1.5
ppmv
7
110
ppmv
7
150
ppmv
7
110
ppmv
7
2.5E­
2
lb/
MMBtu5,
7
14
ppmv
or
99.9927%

system
removal
efficiency
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)

or
Hydrocarbons
(
HC)
100
ppmv
CO
or
10
ppmv
HC
See
Part
Two,

Section
VIII
100
ppmv
CO
or
20
ppmv
HC
100
ppmv
CO
or
10
ppmv
HC
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
(
DRE)
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
pollutant.
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
pollutant.

Notes:

1
Particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile,
and
total
chlorine
standards
apply
to
major
sources
only
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.

2
Standard
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.

3
Sources
must
comply
with
both
the
thermal
emissions
and
emission
concentration
standards.

4
Low
volatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
for
chromium
only.
Arsenic
and
beryllium
are
not
included
in
the
low
volatile
metal
total
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.

5
Standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.

6
APCD
denotes
"
air
pollution
control
device",
WHB
denotes
"
waste
heat
boiler".
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

7
Sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
site­
specific,
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
based
on
national
exposure
standards.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIII.

8
Sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XVIII.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
2.
Proposed
Standards
for
New
Sources
Incinerators
Cement
Kilns
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
1
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
1
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces1
Dioxin/
Furans
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
0.11
for
dry
APCD
or
WHBs5;

0.2
for
others
0.20
or
0.40
+
400

F
at
inlet
to
particulate
matter
control
device
0.40
Carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
or
hydrocarbon
(
HC)
as
a
surrogate
0.015
for
dry
APCD;

CO
or
HC
as
surrogate
for
others
0.40
Mercury
8
ug/
dscm
35
ug/
dscm2
67
ug/
dscm2
10
ug/
dscm
3.8E­
7
lb/
MMBtu2,4
TCl
as
surrogate
Particulate
matter
0.00070
gr/
dscf
7
0.0058
gr/
dscf
0.0099
gr/
dscf
0.015
gr/
dscf
7
0.0076
gr/
dscf
7
TCl
as
surrogate
Semivolatile
Metals
(
lead
+
cadmium)
6.5
ug/
dscm
6.2E­
5
lb/
MMBtu4
2.4E­
5
lb/
MMBtu4
170
ug/
dscm
4.3E­
6
lb/
MMBtu2,4
TCl
as
surrogate
Low
Volatile
Metals
(
arsenic
+
beryllium
+

chromium)
8.9
ug/
dscm
1.4E­
5
lb/
MMBtu4
3.2E­
5
lb/
MMBtu4
190
ug/
dscm
3.6E­
5
lb/
MMBtu
in
HW3,4
TCl
as
surrogate
Total
Chlorine
(
Hydrogen
chloride
+

chlorine
gas)
0.18
ppmv
6
78
ppmv
6
150
ppmv
6
73
ppmv
6
7.2E­
4
lb/
MMBtu4,6
1.2
ppmv
or
99.99937%
SRE
Carbon
monoxide
(
CO)

or
Hydrocarbons
(
HC)
100
ppmv
CO
or
10
ppmv
HC
See
Part
Two,

Section
VIII
100
ppmv
CO
or
20
ppmv
HC
100
ppmv
CO
or
10
ppmv
HC
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
pollutant.
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
pollutant.

Notes:

1
Particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
total
chlorine
standards
apply
to
major
sources
only
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.

2
Standard
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.

3
Low
volatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
for
chromium
only.
Arsenic
and
beryllium
are
not
included
in
the
low
volatile
metal
total
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.

4
Standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.

5
APCD
denotes
"
air
pollution
control
device",
WHB
denotes
"
waste
heat
boiler".

6
Sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
site­
specific,
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
based
on
national
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

exposure
standards.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XVIII
and
Section
XIII.

7
Sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XVIII.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

E.
What
Are
the
Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
We
are
proposing
testing
and
initial
compliance
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
that
are
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
already
in
place
at
§
§
63.1206,
63.1207,
and
63.1208.
Please
note
also
that
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble
we
request
comment
on,
or
propose
revisions
to,
several
testing
and
initial
compliance
requirements.
Any
amendments
to
the
testing
and
compliance
requirements
that
we
promulgate
as
a
result
of
those
discussions
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
to
revise
the
existing
initial
compliance
requirements
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Under
the
proposed
revision,
owners
and
operators
of
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
would
be
required
to
conduct
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
to
document
compliance
with
the
replacement
standards
proposed
today
(
§
§
63.1203A,
63.1204A,
and
63.1205A)
within
12
months
of
the
compliance
date.
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
conduct
an
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
within
six
months
of
the
compliance
date,
and
periodic
comprehensive
performance
tests
every
five
years.
The
purpose
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test
is
to
document
compliance
with
the
emission
standards,
document
that
continuous
monitoring
systems
meet
performance
requirements,
and
establish
limits
on
operating
parameters
that
would
be
monitored
by
continuous
monitoring
systems.
Owners
and
operators
of
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
device
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
dioxin/
furan
confirmatory
performance
test
2.5
years
after
each
comprehensive
performance
test
(
i.
e.,
midway
between
comprehensive
performance
tests).
The
purpose
of
the
dioxin/
furan
confirmatory
performance
test
is
to
document
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
when
operating
within
the
range
of
normal
operations.
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
are
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
(
i.
e.,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
other
than
those
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter),
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
test
to
enable
the
Agency
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standard
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
in
controlling
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
those
sources.
The
Agency
would
use
those
emissions
data
when
reevaluating
the
MACT
standards
under
Section
112(
d)(
6)
and
when
determining
whether
to
develop
residual
risk
standards
for
these
sources
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
f)(
2).
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
use
the
following
stack
test
methods
to
document
compliance:
(
1)
Method
29
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals;
and
(
2)
Method
26A
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas;
(
3)
either
Method
0023A
or
Method
23
for
dioxin/
furans;
and
(
4)
either
Method
5
or
5i
for
particulate
matter.
The
following
is
a
proposed
time­
line
for
testing
and
initial
compliance
requirements
for
owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces:
(
1)
the
compliance
date
is
three
years
from
publication
of
the
final
rule;
(
2)
you
must
place
in
the
operating
record
a
Documentation
of
Compliance
by
the
compliance
date
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

identifying
that
the
operating
parameter
limits
you
have
determined
using
available
information
will
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standards;
(
3)
you
must
commence
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
within
six
months
of
the
compliance
date;
(
4)
you
must
complete
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
within
60
days
of
commencing
the
test;
and
(
5)
you
must
submit
a
Notification
of
Compliance
within
90
days
of
completing
the
test
documenting
compliance
with
emission
standards
and
CMS
requirements.
F.
What
are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
We
are
proposing
continuous
compliance
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
already
in
place
at
§
63.1209
and
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Please
note,
however,
that
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble
we
request
comment
on,
or
propose
revisions
to,
several
continuous
compliance
requirements.
Any
amendments
to
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
that
we
promulgate
as
a
result
of
those
discussions
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
use
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
continuous
emissions
monitors
(
as
well
as
an
oxygen
continuous
emissions
monitor
to
correct
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
values
to
7%
oxygen)
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emission
limits.
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
also
be
required
to
establish
limits
on
the
feedrate
of
metals,
chlorine,
and
(
for
some
source
categories)
ash,
key
combustor
operating
parameters,
and
key
operating
parameters
of
the
control
device
based
on
operations
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
You
must
continuously
monitor
these
parameters
with
continuos
monitoring
systems.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
C
for
a
discussion
of
the
specific
parameters
for
which
you
must
establish
limits.
G.
What
are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
We
are
proposing
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
for
solid
fuelfired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
already
in
place
at
§
§
63.1210
and
63.1211
and
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Please
note,
however,
that
we
are
proposing
a
new
requirement
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
would
require
you
to
submit
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
a
Compliance
Progress
Report.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XVI.
B.
The
proposed
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
are
summarized
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVI.

Part
Two:
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Rule
I.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
which
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Sources
Would
Be
Regulated
A.
How
Are
Area
Sources
Regulated?
We
are
proposing
to
subject
area
source
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
to
the
major
source
MACT
standards
for
mercury,
dioxin/
furan,
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons,
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

16
We
are
using
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
as
surrogates
for
control
of
polycyclic
organic
matter
emissions.

17
In
support
of
the
1999
Final
Rule,
EPA
determined
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
are
area
sources
can
emit
HAP
at
levels
that
pose
a
hazard
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Accordingly,
EPA
subjected
area
sources
within
those
source
categories
to
the
same
emission
standards
that
apply
to
major
sources.
See
64
FR
at
52837­
38
18
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs,"
March,
2004.
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
pursuant
to
section
112(
c)(
6).
16
Both
area
source
and
major
source
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
will
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
full
suite
of
Subpart
EEE
emission
standards.
17
Section
112(
c)(
6)
of
the
CAA
requires
EPA
to
list
and
promulgate
section
112(
d)(
2)
or
(
d)(
4)
standards
(
i.
e.,
standards
reflecting
MACT)
for
categories
and
subcategories
of
sources
emitting
seven
specific
pollutants.
Four
of
those
listed
pollutants
are
emitted
by
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces:
mercury,
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorodibenzofuran,
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin,
and
polycyclic
organic
matter.
EPA
must
assure
that
source
categories
accounting
for
not
less
than
90
percent
of
the
aggregated
emissions
of
each
enumerated
pollutant
are
subject
to
MACT
standards.
Congress
singled
out
the
pollutants
in
section
112(
c)(
6)
as
being
of
"
specific
concern"
not
just
because
of
their
toxicity
but
because
of
their
propensity
to
cause
substantial
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment
via
indirect
exposure
pathways
(
i.
e.,
from
the
air
through
other
media,
such
as
water,
soil,
food
uptake,
etc.).
Furthermore,
these
pollutants
have
exhibited
special
potential
to
bioaccumulate,
causing
pervasive
environmental
harm
in
biota
and,
ultimately,
human
health
risks.
We
estimate
that
approximately
1,800
pounds
of
mercury
are
emitted
annually
in
aggregate
from
hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
in
the
United
States.
18
Also,
we
estimate
that
hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
emit
in
aggregate
approximately
1.1
and
1.6
grams
TEQ
per
year
of
dioxin/
furan,
respectively.
The
Agency
has
already
counted
on
the
control
of
these
pollutants
from
area
sources
in
the
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boiler
source
category
when
we
accounted
for
at
least
90
percent
of
the
emissions
of
these
hazardous
air
pollutants
as
being
subject
to
standards
under
section
112(
c)(
6).
See
63
FR
17838;
April
10,
1998.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
to
subject
boiler
and
hydrochloric
acid
furnace
area
sources
to
the
major
source
MACT
standards
for
mercury,
dioxin/
furan,
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
pursuant
to
section
112(
c)(
6).
We
are
proposing
that
only
major
source
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
furnaces
would
be
subject
to
the
full
suite
of
Subpart
EEE
emission
standards
we
propose
today.
Section
112(
c)(
3)
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
subject
area
sources
to
the
full
suite
of
standards
applicable
to
major
sources
if
we
find
"
a
threat
of
adverse
effects
to
human
health
or
the
environment"
that
warrants
such
action.
We
cannot
make
this
finding
for
area
source
boilers
and
halogen
acid
production
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

19
We
believe
that
two
or
fewer
boilers
are
area
sources.
We
do
not
believe
any
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
area
sources.
furnaces19.
Consequently,
area
sources
in
these
categories
would
be
subject
to
the
MACT
standards
for
mercury,
dioxin/
furan,
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standards
only
to
control
the
HAP
listed
under
section
112(
c)(
6).
RCRA
standards
under
Part
266,
Subpart
H
for
particulate
matter,
metals
other
than
mercury,
and
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
would
continue
to
apply
to
these
area
sources
unless
an
area
source
elects
to
comply
with
the
major
source
standards
in
lieu
of
the
RCRA
standards.
See
proposed
§
266.100(
b)(
3)
and
the
proposed
revisions
to
§
§
270.22
and
270.66.
B.
What
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
Are
Not
Covered
by
this
Proposal?
1.
Small
Quantity
Burners
Boilers
that
are
exempt
from
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste­
burning
boilers
rule
(
part
266,
subpart
H)
under
40
CFR
section
266.108
because
they
burn
small
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
would
also
be
exempt
from
today's
proposed
rule.
Those
boilers
would
be
subject,
however,
to
the
MACT
standards
the
Agency
has
proposed
for
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers.
See
68
FR
1660,
January
13,
2003.
The
type
and
concentration
of
HAP
emissions
from
boilers
that
co­
fire
small
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
with
other
fuels
under
§
266.108
should
be
characterized
more
by
the
metals
and
chlorine
levels
in
the
primary
fuels
and
the
effect
of
combustion
conditions
on
the
primary
fuels
than
by
the
composition
and
other
characteristics
of
the
hazardous
waste
fuel.
Under
§
266.108,
boilers
that
burn
small
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
cannot
fire
hazardous
waste
at
any
time
at
a
rate
greater
than
1
percent
of
the
total
fuel
requirements
for
the
boiler.
In
addition,
a
boiler
with
a
stack
height
of
20
meters
or
less
cannot
fire
more
than
84
gallons
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
a
month,
which
would
equate
to
an
average
firing
rate
of
0.5
quarts
per
hour.
Finally,
the
hazardous
waste
fuel
must
have
a
heating
value
of
5,000
Btu/
lb
to
ensure
it
is
a
bonafide
fuel,
and
cannot
contain
hazardous
wastes
that
are
listed
because
they
contain
chlorinated
dioxins/
furans.
Given
these
restrictions,
we
believe
that
HAP
emissions
are
not
substantially
related
to
the
hazardous
waste
fuels
these
boilers
burn.
Thus,
these
boilers
are
more
appropriately
regulated
under
the
MACT
standards
proposed
at
part
63,
subpart
DDDDD,
than
the
MACT
standards
proposed
today
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Boilers
that
burn
small
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
under
§
266.108
would
become
subject
to
part
63,
subpart
DDDDD,
three
years
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
i.
e.,
the
rules
we
are
proposing
today).
Subpart
DDDDD,
as
proposed,
would
exempt
"
a
boiler
or
process
heater
required
to
have
a
permit
under
section
3005
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
[
i.
e.,
RCRA]
or
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
EEE
(
e.
g.,
hazardous
waste
combustors)."
See
§
63.7490(
b)(
4),
68
FR
at
1704.
Boilers
that
burn
small
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
fuel
under
§
266.108
are
exempt
from
the
substantive
emission
standards
of
part
266,
subpart
H,
and
the
permit
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
270
(
establishing
RCRA
permit
requirements).
In
addition,
owners
and
operators
of
such
boilers
would
not
know
whether
they
are
covered
by
part
63,
subpart
EEE,
until
we
promulgate
the
final
rule
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
Thus,
it
is
appropriate
to
require
that
these
boilers
begin
complying
with
subpart
DDDDD
three
years
after
we
publish
the
final
rule
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

20
Sulfuric
acid
recovery
furnaces
were
not
listed
as
a
source
category
on
EPA's
initial
list
of
major
source
categories
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
2.
Sources
Exempt
From
RCRA
Emission
Regulation
under
40
CFR
Part
266.100(
c).
Consistent
with
the
Phase
I
Hazardous
Waste
Combustor
MACT
rule
promulgated
in
1999,
we
would
not
subject
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
to
today's
proposed
requirements
if
the
only
hazardous
waste
combusted
is
exempt
from
regulation
pursuant
to
§
266.100(
c),
including
certain
types
of
used
oil,
landfill
gas,
and
otherwise
exempt
or
excluded
waste.
This
is
appropriate
because
HAP
emissions
from
sources
that
qualify
for
this
exemption
would
not
be
significantly
impacted
by
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
Thus,
emissions
from
these
sources
would
be
more
appropriately
regulated
by
other
promulgated
MACT
standards
that
specifically
address
emissions
from
these
sources.
3.
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Sources.
Consistent
with
the
Phase
I
Hazardous
Waste
Combustor
MACT
rule
promulgated
in
1999,
we
would
not
subject
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
research,
development,
and
demonstration
sources
to
today's
proposed
requirements.
We
explained
at
promulgation
of
the
Phase
I
MACT
standards
that
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
emission
standards
may
not
be
appropriate
for
research,
development,
and
demonstration
sources
because
of
their
typically
intermittent
operations
and
small
size.
See
64
FR
at
52839.
Given
that
emissions
from
these
sources
are
addressed
under
RCRA
on
case­
by­
case
basis
pursuant
to
§
270.65,
we
continue
to
believe
this
is
appropriate,
and
we
are
today
proposing
the
same
exemption
for
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
C.
Why
Did
EPA
Decide
Not
to
Establish
MACT
Standards
for
Sulfuric
Acid
Regeneration
Facilities?
In
the
June
27,
2000
notice
of
data
availability
for
the
Phase
II
rule,
we
requested
comment
on
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
emissions
and
other
data
pertaining
to
sulfuric
acid
regeneration
facilities.
See
65
FR
at
39581.
These
combustors
burn
spent
sulfuric
acid
and
sulfur­
bearing
wastes
to
produce
sulfuric
acid
and
are
subject
to
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
H,
(
i.
e.,
the
RCRA
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
Rule)
as
a
listed
industrial
furnace.
Upon
reviewing
the
available
data
we
conclude
that
none
of
the
sulfuric
acid
regeneration
facilities
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
major
sources
of
HAP,
and
the
level
of
emissions
from
these
sources
does
not
warrant
regulation
as
area
sources.
20
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
MACT
standards
for
these
sources
in
today's
notice.
These
combustors
will
remain
subject
to
Part
266,
Subpart
H.
The
data
and
analysis
used
to
support
this
conclusion
is
included
in
U.
S.
EPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
II:
HWC
Emissions
Database,"
March
2004.

II.
What
Subcategorization
Considerations
Did
EPA
Evaluate?
CAA
Section
112(
d)(
1)
allows
us
to
distinguish
amongst
classes,
types,
and
sizes
of
sources
within
a
category
when
establishing
floor
levels.
Subcategorization
typically
reflects
"
differences
in
manufacturing
process,
emission
characteristics,
or
technical
feasibility."
See
67
FR
78058.
A
classic
example,
provided
in
the
legislative
history
to
CAA
112(
d),
is
of
a
different
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

21
For
example,
although
the
statistical
analysis
may
find
a
significant
difference
in
emission
levels
between
potential
subcategories,
the
emission
levels
may
be
more
a
function
of
the
emission
control
equipment
rather
than
a
function
of
the
design
and
operation
of
the
combustors
within
the
subcategories.
If
differences
in
emission
levels
are
attributable
to
use
of
different
emission
control
devices,
and
if
there
is
nothing
inherent
in
the
design
or
operation
of
sources
in
both
subcategories
that
would
preclude
applicability
of
those
control
devices,
subcategorization
would
not
be
warranted.
process
leading
to
different
emissions
and
different
types
of
control
strategies
­
the
specific
example
being
Soderberg
and
prebaked
anode
primary
aluminum
processes.
See
"
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,"
vol.
1
at
1138­
39
(
floor
debates
on
Conference
Report).
If
we
determine,
for
instance,
that
a
given
source
category
includes
sources
that
are
designed
differently
such
that
the
type
or
concentration
of
HAP
emissions
are
different
we
may
subcategorize
these
sources
and
issue
separate
standards.
We
have
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
to
subcategorize
sources
that
combust
hazardous
waste
from
those
sources
that
do
not.
EPA
published
an
initial
list
of
categories
of
major
and
area
sources
of
HAP
selected
for
regulation
in
accordance
with
section
112(
c)
of
the
Act
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Hazardous
waste
incineration,
Portland
cement
manufacturing,
clay
products
manufacturing
(
including
lightweight
aggregate
manufacturing),
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
are
among
the
listed
174
categories
of
sources.
Although
some
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers
and
process
heaters,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
burn
hazardous
waste,
EPA
did
not
list
hazardous
waste
burning
sources
as
separate
source
categories.
Nonetheless,
we
generally
believe
that
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
can
emit
different
types
or
concentrations
of
HAP
emissions
because
hazardous
waste
combustors:
(
1)
have
different
fuel
HAP
concentrations;
(
2)
use
different
control
techniques
(
e.
g.,
feed
control);
and
(
3)
have
a
different
regulatory
history
given
that
their
toxic
emissions
were
regulated
pursuant
to
RCRA
standards.
As
a
result,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
subcategorize
each
source
category
listed
above
to
define
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
as
a
separate
classes
of
combustors.
We
also
assessed
if
further
subdividing
each
class
of
hazardous
waste
burning
combustors
is
warranted
using
both
engineering
judgement
and
statistical
analysis.
In
our
proposed
approach,
we
first
use
engineering
information
and
principles
to
identify
potential
subcategorization
options.
We
then
determine
if
there
is
a
statistical
difference
in
the
emission
characteristics
between
these
options.
See
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
C
for
a
discussion
of
this
statistical
analysis.
Finally,
we
review
the
results
of
the
statistical
analysis
to
determine
whether
they
are
an
appropriate
basis
for
subcategorization.
21
We
describe
below
the
subcategorization
options
we
considered
for
each
source
category.
A.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Incinerators?
We
considered
whether
to
propose
separate
standards
for
three
hazardous
waste
incinerator
subcategory
options.
First,
we
assessed
whether
government­
owned
incinerator
facilities
had
different
emission
characteristics
when
compared
to
non­
government
facilities
for
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
particulate
matter,
and
total
chlorine
floors.
After
evaluating
the
data,
we
determined
that
emission
characteristics
from
these
two
subcategories
are
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

22
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs",
March
2004.

23
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs",
March
2004.
not
statistically
different,
and,
therefore
are
not
proposing
separate
emission
standards.
Second,
we
assessed
whether
liquid
injection
incinerators
emitted
significantly
different
levels
of
metals
and
particulate
matter
compared
to
incinerators
that
feed
solid
wastes
(
e.
g.,
rotary
kilns,
fluid
bed
units,
and
hearth
fired
units).
We
define
liquid
injection
units
as
those
incinerators
that
exclusively
feed
pumpable
waste
streams
and
solid
feed
units
as
those
that
feed
a
combination
of
liquid
and
solid
wastes.
We
determined
that
emissions
of
metal
HAP
from
these
potential
subcategories
are
not
statistically
different.
22
We,
therefore,
are
not
proposing
separate
emission
standards
for
metal
HAP.
The
statistical
analysis
for
particulate
matter
shows
that
emissions
from
liquid
feed
injection
incinerators
are
higher
than
emissions
from
solid
feed
injection
units.
However,
we
believe
that
separate
standards
for
particulate
matter
are
not
warranted
because
the
difference
in
emissions
was
more
a
factor
of
the
types
of
back­
end
air
pollution
devices
used
by
the
sources
rather
than
a
factor
of
incinerator
design.
We
would
expect
particulate
emissions
to
be
potentially
higher
for
solid
feed
units,
not
lower,
because
solid
feed
units
have
higher
ash
feedrates
and
air
pollution
control
device
inlet
particulate
matter
loadings.
Therefore,
we
must
conclude
that
the
difference
is
the
product
of
less
effective
back­
end
air
pollution
control.
Third,
we
assessed
whether
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
and/
or
waste
heat
boilers
have
different
dioxin/
furan
emission
characteristics
when
compared
to
other
sources,
i.
e.,
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
or
no
air
pollution
control
devices.
Our
statistical
analysis
determined
that
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
sources
equipped
with
waste
heat
boilers
and/
or
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
are
higher.
23
We
believe
use
of
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
(
and
use
of
no
air
pollution
control
system)
can
result
in
different
dioxin/
furan
emission
characteristics
because
they
have
different
post­
combustion
particle
residence
times
and
temperature
profiles,
which
can
affect
dioxin/
furan
surface
catalyzed
formation
reaction
rates.
As
a
result,
we
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
to
subcategorize
these
different
types
of
combustors.
Note
that
we
do
not
subcategorize
based
on
the
type
of
air
pollution
control
device
used.
See
XX
FR
at
XX
(
November
XX,
2003).
[
note:
cite
to
be
completed
once
lime
MACT
published]
Dioxin/
furan
emission
characteristics
are
unique
in
that
they
are
not
typically
fed
into
the
combustion
device,
but
rather
are
formed
in
the
combustor
or
post
combustion
within
ductwork,
a
heat
recovery
boiler,
or
the
air
pollution
control
system.
Wet
and
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
are
generally
not
considered
to
be
dioxin/
furan
control
systems
because
their
primary
function
is
to
remove
metals
and/
or
total
chlorine
from
the
combustion
gas.
They
generally
do
not
remove
dioxin/
furans
from
the
incinerator
flue
gas
unless
they
are
used
in
tandem
with
carbon
injection
systems
or
carbon
beds.
(
In
contrast,
carbon
injection
systems
and
carbon
beds
are
considered
to
be
dioxin/
furan
air
pollution
control
systems).
Thus,
the
differences
in
dioxin
formation
here
reflect
something
more
akin
to
a
process
difference
resulting
in
different
emission
characteristics,
rather
than
a
difference
in
pollution­
capture
efficiencies
among
pollution
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

24
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs",
March
2004.
control
devices.
We
thus
are
not
proposing
to
subcategorize
based
on
whether
a
source
is
equipped
with
a
dioxin/
furan
control
system.
We
also
considered
whether
to
further
subcategorize
based
on
the
presence
of
a
waste
heat
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
device.
Our
analysis
determined
that
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
incinerators
with
waste
heat
boilers
are
not
statistically
different
from
those
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices.
24
We
conclude
that
further
subcategorization
is
not
necessary.
See
Part
Two,
Section
VII.
A
for
more
discussion
on
the
proposed
dioxin/
furan
standards
for
incinerators.
B.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Cement
Kilns?
We
considered
subdividing
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
by
the
clinker
manufacturing
process:
wet
process
kilns
without
in­
line
raw
mills
versus
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.
All
cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
use
one
of
these
clinker
manufacturing
processes.
Based
on
available
emissions
data,
we
evaluated
design
and
operating
features
of
each
process
to
determine
if
the
features
could
have
a
significant
impact
on
emissions.
For
the
reasons
discussed
below,
we
believe
that
subcategorization
is
not
warranted.
In
the
wet
process,
raw
materials
are
ground,
wetted,
and
fed
into
the
kiln
as
a
slurry.
Twenty­
two
of
the
25
cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
use
the
wet
process
to
manufacture
clinker.
In
the
preheater/
precalciner
kilns,
raw
materials
are
ground
dry
in
a
raw
mill
and
fed
into
the
kiln
dry.
The
remaining
three
of
the
25
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
use
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.
Combustion
gases
and
raw
materials
move
in
a
counterflow
direction
inside
a
cement
kiln
for
both
processes.
The
kiln
is
inclined,
and
raw
materials
are
fed
into
the
upper
end
while
fuels
are
typically
fired
into
the
lower
end.
Combustion
gases
move
up
the
kiln
counter
to
the
flow
of
raw
materials.
The
raw
materials
get
progressively
hotter
as
they
travel
down
the
length
of
the
kiln.
The
raw
materials
begin
to
soften
and
fuse
at
temperatures
between
2,250
and
2,700
°
F
to
form
the
clinker
product.
Wet
process
kilns
are
longer
than
the
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
in
order
to
facilitate
evaporation
of
the
water
from
the
slurried
raw
material.
The
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
begin
the
calcining
process
 
heating
of
the
limestone
to
drive
off
carbon
dioxide
to
obtain
lime
(
calcium
oxide)
 
before
the
raw
materials
are
fed
into
the
kiln.
This
is
accomplished
by
routing
the
flue
gases
from
the
kiln
up
through
the
preheater
tower
while
the
raw
materials
are
passing
down
the
preheater
tower.
The
heat
of
the
flue
gas
is
transferred
to
the
raw
material
as
they
interact
in
the
preheater
tower.
The
precalciner
is
a
secondary
firing
system
 
typically
fired
with
coal
 
located
at
the
base
of
the
preheater
tower.
Though
not
necessary
in
a
wet
process
kiln,
a
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
uses
an
alkali
bypass
designed
to
divert
a
portion
of
the
flue
gas
to
remove
problematic
volatile
constituents
such
as
alkalies
(
potassium
and
sodium
oxides),
chlorides,
and
sulfur
that,
if
not
removed,
can
lead
to
operating
problems.
In
addition,
removal
of
the
alkalies
is
necessary
so
that
their
concentrations
are
below
maximum
acceptable
levels
in
the
clinker.
An
alkali
bypass
diverts
between
10­
30%
of
the
kiln
off­
gas
before
it
reaches
the
lower
cyclone
stages
of
the
preheater
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

25
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.

26
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs",
March
2004.
tower.
Without
use
of
a
bypass,
the
high
concentration
of
volatile
constituents
at
the
lower
cyclone
stage
of
the
preheater
tower
would
create
operational
problems.
Bypass
gases
are
quenched
and
sent
to
a
dedicated
particulate
matter
control
device
to
capture
and
remove
the
volatile
constituents.
All
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
use
the
hot
flue
gases
to
dry
the
raw
materials
as
they
are
being
ground
in
the
in­
line
raw
mill.
Typically,
the
raw
mill
is
operating
or
"
on"
approximately
85%
of
the
time.
The
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills
must
operate
both
in
the
"
on"
mode
 
gases
are
routed
through
the
raw
mill
supporting
raw
material
drying
and
preparation
 
and
in
the
"
off"
mode
 
necessary
down
time
for
raw
mill
maintenance.
Given
that
there
are
few
preheater/
precalciner
cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste,
we
had
limited
emissions
data
to
evaluate
to
see
if
there
was
a
significant
difference
in
emissions.
Moreover,
we
do
not
have
any
data
from
a
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
operating
under
similar
operating
conditions
(
e.
g.,
metals
and
chlorine
feed
concentrations)
both
for
the
"
on"
mode
and
"
off"
mode.
We
evaluated
whether
there
was
a
significant
difference
in
HAP
emissions
between
wet
process
kilns
without
in­
line
raw
mills
versus
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.
We
found
a
statistically
significant
difference
in
mercury
emissions
between
wet
process
kilns
and
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
in
the
"
off"
mode.
25
But,
we
conclude
that
there
is
no
significant
difference
in
emissions
of
dioxin/
furans,
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine
between
these
types
of
kiln
systems.
26
For
wet
process
cement
kilns
without
in­
line
raw
mills,
mercury
remains
in
the
vapor
phase
at
the
typical
operating
temperatures
in
the
kiln
and
particulate
matter
control
equipment,
and
exits
the
kiln
as
volatile
stack
emissions
with
only
a
small
fraction
partitioning
to
the
clinker
or
cement
kiln
dust.
In
the
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mill,
we
believe
that
a
significant
portion
of
the
volatilized
mercury
condenses
on
to
the
surfaces
of
the
cooler
raw
material
in
the
operating
raw
mill.
The
raw
material
with
adsorbed
mercury
ends
up
in
the
raw
material
storage
bin
which
will
eventually
be
fed
to
the
kiln
and
re­
volatilized.
During
the
periods
that
the
in­
line
raw
mill
is
"
on",
mercury
is
effectively
captured
in
the
raw
mill
essentially
establishing
an
internal
recycle
loop
of
mercury
that
builds­
up
within
the
system.
Eventually,
when
the
in­
line
raw
mill
switches
to
the
"
off"
mode,
the
re­
volatilized
mercury
exits
the
kiln
as
volatile
stack
emissions.
Notwithstanding
the
apparent
removal
of
mercury
during
periods
that
the
in­
line
raw
mill
is
"
on"
in
a
preheater/
precalciner
kiln,
over
time
the
mercury
is
emitted
eventually
as
volatile
stack
emissions
because
system
removal
efficiencies
for
mercury
are
essentially
zero.
Thus,
over
a
longer
period
of
time
(
e.
g.,
one
month),
the
mass
of
mercury
emitted
by
a
wet
process
kiln
without
an
in­
line
raw
mill
and
a
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
with
an
in­
line
raw
mill
(
assuming
identical
mercury­
containing
feedstreams)
would
be
the
same.
However,
at
any
given
point
in
time,
the
stack
gas
concentration
of
mercury
of
the
two
types
of
kilns
could
be
significantly
different.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

27
We
note
that
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
we
established
a
provision
that
allows
cement
kilns
operating
in­
line
raw
mills
to
average
their
emissions
based
on
a
timeweighted
average
concentration
that
considers
the
length
of
time
the
in­
line
raw
mill
is
on­
line
and
off­
line.
See
§
63.1204(
d).
As
noted
above,
our
data
base
shows
a
significant
difference
in
mercury
emissions
between
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
when
operating
in
the
"
off"
mode
and
emissions
both
from
wet
process
kilns
and
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
in
the
"
on"
mode.
In
spite
of
this
difference,
we
don't
believe
it
technically
justified
to
subcategorize
cement
kilns
for
mercury.
27
In
conclusion,
we
propose
not
to
subcategorize
the
hazardous
waste
burning
class
of
cement
kilns
wet
process
kilns
and
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.
C.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Following
promulgation
of
the
September
1999
Final
Rule,
Solite
Corporation
filed
a
Petition
for
Review
challenging
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
new
kilns.
For
new
sources,
the
Clean
Air
Act
states
that
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
"
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
by
the
best
controlled
similar
source."
Solite
Corporation
challenged
the
standard
on
the
ground
that
Norlite
Corporation,
another
hazardous
waste­
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
source,
should
not
be
the
best
controlled
similar
source
because
they
are
designed
to
burn
for
purposes
of
treatment
hazardous
wastes
containing
high
levels
of
chlorine
and
high
mercury.
Solite
states
that
Norlite's
superior
emission
control
equipment
is
designed
to
control
the
chlorine
and
mercury
in
these
wastes
that
are
burned
for
treatment,
rather
than
primiarily
as
fuel
for
lightweight
aggregate
production.
Thus,
Solite
states
that
Norlite's
sources
should
be
considered
a
separate
class
of
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Though
we
believe
that
subcategorizing
by
the
concentrations
of
HAP
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
appropriate,
we
considered
subdividing
hazardous
waste
burning
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
by
the
types
of
hazardous
waste
they
combust:
low
Btu
wastes
with
higher
concentrations
of
chlorine
and
mercury
and
high
Btu
wastes
with
lower
concentrations
of
chlorine
and
mercury.
We
believe,
however,
that
separate
emission
standards
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
based
on
the
types
of
hazardous
waste
they
burn
are
unnecessary
because
the
floor
levels
would
not
differ
significantly
under
either
approach.
Analysis
of
available
total
chlorine
emissions
from
compliance
testing
indicates
that
the
emissions
are
significantly
different
for
sources
burning
hazardous
waste
with
high
levels
of
chlorine
compared
to
sources
burning
wastes
with
much
lower
levels
of
chlorine.
Total
chorine
emissions
range
from
14
to
116
ppmv
for
sources
feeding
higher
concentrations
of
chlorine
but
using
a
venturi
scrubber
to
control
emissions
and
range
from
500
to
2,400
ppmv
for
sources
feeding
waste
with
lower
levels
of
chlorine
and
not
using
a
wet
scrubber.
However,
when
we
identify
floor
levels
for
these
potential
subcategories
(
both
for
existing
and
new
sources),
the
calculated
floor
level
would
be
less
stringent
than
the
interim
emission
standard
sources
are
currently
achieving.
Because
all
sources
are
achieving
the
more
stringent
interim
standard,
the
interim
standard
becomes
the
default
floor
level.
Therefore,
subdividing
would
not
affect
the
proposed
floor
level.
We
have
compliance
test
mercury
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
only
one
source,
and
we
have
snap­
shot
mercury
emissions
data
within
the
range
of
normal
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

28
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standard,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.

29
See
68
FR
at
1670
(
January
13,
2003).
emissions
for
all
sources.
Snap­
shot
mercury
emissions
range
from:
(
1)
11
to
20
ug/
dscm
for
sources
with
the
potential
to
feed
higher
concentrations
of
mercury
because
they
use
a
venturi
scrubber
to
control
emissions;
and
2)
1
to
47
ug/
dscm
for
sources
that
typically
feed
lower
mercury
containing
wastes
and
do
not
use
a
wet
scrubber
to
control
mercury.
We
performed
a
statistical
test
and
confirmed
that
there
is
no
statistically
significant
difference
in
the
snap­
shot
mercury
emissions
between
sources
that
have
the
potential
to
feed
higher
levels
of
mercury
because
they
are
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber
and
with
other
sources.
Therefore,
it
appears
that
subcategorization
for
mercury
is
not
warranted.
28
D.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Boilers?
We
discuss
below
the
rationale
for
proposing
to
subcategorize
boilers
by
the
physical
form
of
the
fuels
they
burn­­
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
We
also
discuss
further
subcategorization
options
we
considered
for
each
of
those
subcategories
and
explain
why
we
believe
that
further
subcategorization
is
not
warranted.
1.
Subcategorization
by
Physical
Form
of
Fuels
Burned
There
are
substantial
design
differences
and
emission
characteristics
among
boilers
that
cofire
hazardous
waste
primarily
with
coal
versus
oil
or
gas.
Because
of
these
differences,
it
is
appropriate
to
subcategorize
boilers
by
the
physical
form
of
the
fuel
burned.
We
note
that
the
Agency
has
already
proposed
that
industrial/
commercial/
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
should
be
subcategorized
by
the
physical
form
of
fuels
fired.
29
Twelve
boilers
cofire
hazardous
waste
with
coal.
These
boilers
are
designed
to
handle
high
ash
content
solid
fuels,
including
the
relatively
large
quantities
of
boiler
bottom
ash
and
particulate
matter
that
is
entrained
in
the
combustion
gas.
The
coal
also
contributes
to
emissions
of
metal
HAP.
Approximately
104
boilers
co­
fire
hazardous
waste
with
natural
gas
or
fuel
oil.
These
units
are
not
designed
to
handle
the
high
ash
loadings
that
are
associated
with
coal­
fired
units,
and
the
primary
fuels
for
these
boilers
contribute
little
to
HAP
emissions.
See
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
I:
Description
of
Source
Categories"
for
a
discussion
of
the
design
differences
between
liquid
and
coal
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Because
the
type
of
primary
fuel
burned
dictates
the
design
of
the
boiler
and
emissions
control
systems,
and
can
affect
the
concentration
of
HAP,
it
is
appropriate
to
subcategorize
boilers
by
the
physical
form
of
the
fuel.
2.
Subcategorization
Considerations
Among
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
We
considered
whether
to
subcategorize
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
establish
separate
particulate
matter
standards.
All
12
of
the
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
co­
fire
hazardous
waste
with
coal.
Three
of
the
12
boilers
burn
pulverized
coal
while
the
remaining
nine
are
stoker­
fired
boilers.
Pulverized
coal­
fired
boilers
have
higher
uncontrolled
emissions
than
stoker­
fired
boilers
because
the
coal
is
pulverized
to
a
talcum
powder
consistency
and
burned
in
suspension.
Stokerfired
boilers
burn
lump
coal
partially
or
totally
on
a
grate.
Thus,
much
more
of
the
coal
ash
is
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

30
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

31
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.
entrained
in
the
combustion
gas
for
pulverized
coal­
fired
boilers
than
for
stoker­
fired
boilers.
Although
the
pulverized
coal­
fired
boilers
have
higher
uncontrolled
particulate
matter
emissions
(
i.
e.,
at
the
inlet
to
the
emission
control
device),
controlled
emissions
from
the
pulverized
coal­
fired
boilers
are
not
statistically
different
than
emissions
from
the
stoker­
fired
boilers,
primarily
because
all
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
equipped
with
either
a
baghouse
or
electrostatic
precipitator.
30
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
establish
separate
particulate
matter
standards
for
pulverized
coal­
fired
boilers
versus
stoker­
fired
boilers.
This
is
consistent
with
the
proposal
for
industrial/
institutional/
commercial
boilers
and
process
heaters
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
3.
Subcategorization
Considerations
for
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
combine
liquid
and
gas
fuel
boilers
into
one
subcategory
because
emissions
from
gas
fuel
boilers
are
within
the
range
of
emissions
one
finds
from
liquid
fuel
boilers.
Also,
most
of
the
hazardous
waste
burning
liquid
fuel
boilers,
in
fact,
burn
gas
fossil
fuels
to
supplement
the
liquid
hazardous
waste
fuel.
Even
though
there
are
no
hazardous
waste
gas
burning
boilers
currently
in
operation,
today
we
propose
to
subject
hazardous
waste
gas
burning
boilers
that
may
begin
operating
in
the
future
to
the
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
See
proposed
definition
of
liquid
boiler
in
§
63.2101(
a).
We
also
assessed
whether
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
had
different
dioxin/
furan
emission
characteristics
when
compared
to
other
sources,
i.
e.,
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
devices
or
no
air
pollution
control
device.
Our
statistical
analysis
indicated
that
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
sources
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
are
higher.
31
We
believe
use
of
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
(
and
use
of
no
air
pollution
control
system)
can
result
in
different
dioxin/
furan
emission
characteristics
because
they
have
different
post­
combustion
particle
residence
times
and
temperature
profiles,
which
can
affect
dioxin/
furan
surface
catalyzed
formation
reaction
rates.
As
a
result,
we
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
to
have
different
subcategories
for
these
different
types
of
combustors.
As
discussed
previously
for
incinerators
in
Part
Two,
Section
II.
A,
the
differences
in
dioxin
formation
here
reflect
something
more
akin
to
a
process
difference
resulting
in
different
emission
characteristics,
rather
than
a
difference
in
pollution­
capture
efficiencies
among
pollution
control
devices.
We
thus
are
not
subcategorizing
based
on
whether
a
source
is
equipped
with
a
dioxin/
furan
control
system.
E.
What
Subcategorization
Options
Did
We
Consider
for
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces?
Consistent
with
our
incinerator
subcategorization
analysis
(
see
Section
A
above),
we
also
considered
whether
to
establish
separate
floor
emission
standards
for
dioxin/
furans
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
versus
those
without
boilers.
As
discussed
below,
we
conclude
that
there
is
no
significant
statistical
difference
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

32
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
between
furnaces
equipped
with
boilers
and
those
without
them.
As
a
result
we
do
not
propose
to
have
different
subcategories
for
these
sources.
Ten
of
the
16
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers,
and
all
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers
that
quench
the
combustion
gas
immediately
after
it
exits
the
furnace
or
boiler.
We
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
eight
of
the
ten
furnaces
with
boilers.
Two
furnaces
have
low
dioxin/
furan
emissions
 
approximately
0.1
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
while
the
other
six
furnaces
have
emissions
ranging
from
0.5
to
6.8
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
We
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
five
of
the
six
furnaces
without
boilers.
Dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
four
furnaces
are
below
0.15
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
But,
one
furnace
has
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
1.7
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
It
appears
that
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
may
not
be
governed
by
whether
the
furnace
is
equipped
with
a
waste
heat
recovery
boiler.
We
performed
a
statistical
test
and
confirmed
that
there
is
no
statistically
significant
difference
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
between
furnaces
equipped
with
boilers
and
those
without
boilers.
32
Thus,
we
conclude
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
establish
separate
dioxin/
furan
emission
standards
for
furnaces
with
boilers
and
those
without
boilers.

III.
What
Data
and
Information
Did
EPA
Consider
to
Establish
the
Proposed
Standards?
The
proposed
standards
are
based
on
our
hazardous
waste
combustor
data
base.
The
data
base
contains
general
facility
information,
stack
gas
emissions
data,
combustor
design
information,
composition
and
feed
concentration
data
for
the
hazardous
waste,
fossil
fuel
and
raw
material
information,
combustion
unit
operating
conditions,
and
air
pollution
control
device
operating
information.
We
gathered
the
emissions
data
and
information
from
test
reports
submitted
by
hazardous
waste
combustor
facilities
to
EPA
Regional
Offices
or
State
agencies.
Many
of
the
test
reports
were
prepared
as
part
of
the
compliance
demonstration
process
for
the
current
RCRA
standards,
and
may
include
results
from
trial
burns,
certification
of
compliance
demonstrations,
annual
performance
tests,
mini­
burns,
and
risk
burns.
A.
Data
Base
for
Phase
I
Sources
The
current
data
base
for
Phase
I
sources
contain
test
results
for
over
100
incinerators,
26
cement
kilns,
and
9
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
In
many
cases,
especially
for
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
the
data
base
contain
test
reports
from
multiple
testing
campaigns.
For
example,
our
data
base
includes
results
for
a
cement
kiln
that
conducted
emissions
testing
for
the
years
1992,
1995,
and
2000.
We
first
compiled
a
data
base
for
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
support
the
proposed
MACT
standards
in
1996
(
61
FR
17358,
April
19,
1996).
Based
on
public
comments,
a
revised
Phase
I
data
base
was
published
for
public
comment
(
62
FR
960,
January
7,
1997).
The
data
base
was
again
revised
based
on
public
comments,
and
we
used
this
data
base
to
develop
the
Phase
I
MACT
standards
promulgated
in
1999
(
64
FR
52828,
September
30,
1999).
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

33
However,
we
did
not
consider
emissions
data
from
Ash
Grove
Cement
Company
(
Chanute,
Kansas),
an
owner
and
operator
of
a
new
preheater/
precalciner
kiln,
because
the
test
report
is
a
MACT
comprehensive
performance
test
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
new
source
standards
of
the
September
1999
final
rule.
We
judged
these
data
are
inappropriate
for
consideration
for
the
floor
analyses
for
existing
sources.
Following
promulgation
of
the
interim
standards,
we
initiated
a
data
collection
effort
in
early
2002
to
obtain
additional
test
reports.
The
effort
focused
on
obtaining
test
reports
from
sources
for
which
we
had
no
information,
obtaining
data
from
more
recent
testing,
and
updating
the
list
of
operating
Phase
I
sources.
Sources
once
identified
as
hazardous
waste
combustors,
but
that
have
since
ceased
operations
as
a
hazardous
waste
combustor,
were
removed
from
the
data
base.
This
revised
data
base
was
noticed
for
public
comment
in
July
2002
(
67
FR
44452,
July
2,
2002)
and
updated
based
on
public
comments.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
II:
HWC
Emissions
Data
Base,"
March
2004.
In
comments
on
the
data
base
notice,
industry
stakeholders
question
whether
emissions
data
obtained
for
some
sources
are
appropriate
to
use
to
identify
MACT
floor
for
today's
proposed
replacement
standards.
Stakeholders
suggest
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
use
emissions
data
from
sources
that
tested
after
retrofitting
their
emission
control
systems
to
meet
the
emission
standards
promulgated
in
September
1999
(
and
since
vacated
and
replaced
by
the
February
2002
Interim
Standards).
Stakeholders
refer
to
this
as
MACT­
on­
MACT:
establishing
MACT
floor
based
on
sources
that
already
upgraded
to
meet
the
1999
standards.
Stakeholders
identified
emissions
data
from
only
approximately
5
of
the
Phase
I
sources
(
i.
e.,
three
incinerators
and
two
cement
kilns)
as
being
obtained
after
the
source
upgraded
to
meet
the
1999
standards,
and
we
routinely
identify
in
today's
proposed
MACT
rules
only
one
of
those
sources,
a
cement
kiln,
as
a
best
performing
source.
Notwithstanding
stakeholder
concerns,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
all
of
the
data
collected
in
the
2002
effort.
33
First,
section
112
(
d)
(
3)
states
without
ambiguity
that
floor
standards
for
existing
sources
are
to
reflect
the
average
emission
achieved
by
the
designated
per
cent
of
best
performing
sources
"
for
which
the
Administrator
has
emissions
information"
(
emphasis
added).
Second,
the
motivation
for
a
source's
performance
is
legally
irrelevant
in
developing
MACT
floor
levels.
National
Lime
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3d
at
640.
In
any
case,
it
would
be
problematic
to
identify
sources
that
upgraded
their
facilities
(
and
reduced
their
emissions)
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
1999
standards
versus
for
other
purposes
(
e.
g.,
normal
replacement
schedule).
Moreover,
the
MACT­
on­
MACT
formulation
is
not
correct.
Although
the
Interim
Standards
did
result
in
reduction
of
emissions
from
many
sources,
those
standards
are
not
MACT
standards,
and
do
not
purport
to
be.
See
February
13,
2002,
Interim
Standards
Rulemaking,
67
FR
at
7693.
Finally,
we
note
that,
although
we
were
prepared
to
use
the
same
data
base
for
today's
proposed
rules
as
we
used
for
the
September
1999
rule
to
save
the
time
and
resources
required
to
collect
new
data,
industry
stakeholders
wanted
to
submit
new
emissions
data
for
us
to
consider
in
developing
the
replacement
standards.
Rather
than
allowing
industry
stakeholders
to
submit
potentially
selected
emissions
data,
however,
we
agreed
to
undertake
a
substantial
data
collection
effort
in
2002.
It
is
unfortunate
that
industry
stakeholders
now
suggest
that
some
portion
of
the
new
data
is
not
appropriate
for
establishing
MACT.
Notwithstanding
our
view
that
all
of
the
2002
data
base
should
(
indeed,
must)
be
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

34
Though
the
Phase
I
and
II
data
bases
were
developed
and
titled
separately,
for
purposes
of
today's
proposal
we
are
combining
both
into
one
data
base
termed
the
"
hazardous
waste
combustor
data
base."
considered
in
establishing
MACT
standards,
we
specifically
request
comment
on:
(
1)
whether
emissions
data
should
be
deleted
from
the
data
base
that
were
obtained
from
sources
that
owners
and
operators
assert
were
upgraded
to
meet
the
1999
rule;
and
(
2)
whether,
because
it
may
be
problematic
to
identify
such
data,
we
should
identify
MACT
using
the
original
1999
data
base.
B.
Data
Base
for
Phase
II
Sources
Phase
II
sources
are
comprised
of
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
The
data
base
for
Phase
II
sources
was
initially
compiled
by
EPA
in
1999.
In
developing
this
data
base,
we
collected
the
most
recent
test
report
available
for
each
source
that
included
test
results
under
compliance
test
operating
conditions.
The
most
recent
test
report,
however,
may
have
also
included
data
used
for
other
purposes
(
e.
g.,
risk
burn
to
obtain
data
for
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment),
which
are
also
included
in
the
data
base.
In
nearly
all
instances,
the
dates
of
the
test
reports
collected
were
either
1998
or
1999.
After
the
initial
compilation,
we
published
the
Phase
II
data
base
for
public
comment
in
June
2000
(
65
FR
39581,
June
27,
2000).
Since
the
June
2000
notice,
we
have
not
collected
additional
emissions
data
for
Phase
II
sources;
however,
we
revised
the
data
base
to
address
public
comments
received
in
response
to
the
June
2000
notice.
We
noticed
the
Phase
II
data
base
(
together
with
the
one
for
Phase
I
sources)
for
public
comment
in
July
2002
(
67
FR
44452,
July
2,
2003)
and
revised
the
data
base
based
on
comments
received.
The
current
data
base
for
Phase
II
sources
contains
test
reports
for
over
115
boilers
and
17
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
II:
HWC
Emissions
Data
Base,"
March
2004.
C.
Classification
of
the
Emission
Data
The
hazardous
waste
combustor
data
base34
comprises
emissions
data
from
tests
conducted
for
various
purposes,
including
compliance
testing,
risk
burns,
annual
performance
testing,
and
research
testing.
Therefore,
some
emissions
data
represent
the
highest
emissions
the
source
has
emitted
in
each
of
its
compliance
demonstrations,
some
data
represent
normal
or
typical
operating
conditions
and
emissions,
and
some
data
represent
operating
conditions
and
emissions
during
compliance
testing
in
a
test
campaign
where
there
are
other
compliance
tests
with
higher
emissions.
Hazardous
waste
combustors
generally
emit
their
highest
emissions
during
RCRA
compliance
testing
while
demonstrating
compliance
with
emission
standards.
For
real­
time
compliance
assurance,
sources
are
required
to
establish
limits
on
particular
operating
parameters
that
are
representative
of
operating
levels
achieved
during
compliance
testing.
Thus,
the
emission
levels
achieved
during
these
compliance
tests
are
typically
the
highest
emission
levels
a
source
emits
under
reasonably
anticipable
circumstances.
To
ensure
that
these
operating
limits
do
not
impede
normal
day­
to­
day
operations,
sources
generally
take
measures
to
operate
during
compliance
testing
under
conditions
that
are
at
the
extreme
high
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations.
For
example,
sources
often
feed
ash,
metals,
and
chlorine
during
compliance
testing
at
substantially
higher
than
normal
levels
(
e.
g.,
by
spiking
the
waste
feed)
to
maximize
the
feed
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

35
A
Tier
1
feedrate
limit
is
a
conservative
compliance
option
offered
pursuant
to
RCRA
requirements
which
assumes
all
of
the
metal/
chlorine
that
is
fed
to
the
combustion
unit
is
emitted
(
uncontrolled).
Sources
electing
to
comply
with
Tier
1
limits
are
not
required
to
conduct
emissions
testing
and
are
not
required
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits
based
on
a
compliance
test.
See
§
266.106.

36
NA
means
the
normal
versus
compliance
test
classification
is
not
applicable.
Research
testing
data
is
an
example
of
the
type
of
data
that
would
get
a
NA
rating.
concentration,
and
they
often
detune
the
air
pollution
control
equipment
to
establish
operating
limits
on
the
control
equipment
that
provide
operating
flexibility.
By
designing
the
compliance
test
to
generate
emissions
at
the
extreme
high
end
of
the
normal
range
of
emissions,
sources
can
establish
operating
limits
that
account
for
variability
in
operations
(
e.
g.,
composition
and
feedrate
of
feedstreams,
as
well
as
variability
of
pollution
control
equipment
efficiency)
and
that
do
not
impede
normal
operations.
The
data
base
also
includes
normal
emissions
data
that
are
within
the
range
of
typical
operations.
Sources
will
sometimes
measure
emissions
of
a
pollutant
during
a
compliance
test
even
though
the
test
is
not
designed
to
establish
operating
limits
for
that
pollutant
(
i.
e.,
it
is
not
a
compliance
test
for
the
pollutant).
An
example
is
a
trial
burn
where
a
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
measures
emissions
of
all
RCRA
metals,
but
uses
the
Tier
I
metals
feedrate
limit
to
comply
with
the
mercury
emission
standard.
35
Other
examples
of
emissions
data
that
are
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions
are
annual
performance
tests
that
some
sources
are
required
to
conduct
under
State
regulations,
or
RCRA
risk
burns.
Both
of
these
types
of
tests
are
generally
performed
under
normal
operating
conditions,
and
would
not
necessarily
reflect
day­
to­
day
emission
variability.
However,
such
data
may
be
appropriate
to
use
to
evaluate
long­
term
average
performance.
Other
emissions
tests
may
generate
emissions
in­
between
normal
and
the
highest
compliance
test
emissions.
An
example
is
a
compliance
test
designed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
standard
where:
(
1)
the
air
pollution
control
equipment
is
detuned;
and
(
2)
the
source
measured
lead
and
cadmium
emissions
even
though
it
elected
to
comply
with
RCRA
Tier
1
feedrate
limits
for
those
metals
and,
thus,
does
not
spike
those
metals.
We
would
conclude
that
lead
and
cadmium
emissions
 
together
they
comprise
the
semivolatile
metals
 
are
between
normal
and
the
highest
compliance
test
emissions.
Emissions
are
not
likely
to
be
as
high
as
compliance
test
emissions
because
the
source
did
not
use
the
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
standards
for
the
metals
(
and
so
did
not
spike
the
metals).
However,
emissions
of
the
metals
are
likely
to
be
higher
than
normal
because
the
air
pollution
control
equipment
was
detuned.
To
distinguish
between
normal
and
compliance
test
data,
we
classified
emissions
data
for
each
pollutant
for
each
test
condition
as
compliance
test
(
CT);
normal
(
N);
in
between
(
IB);
or
not
applicable
(
NA).
36
These
classifications
apply
on
a
HAP­
by­
HAP
basis.
For
example,
some
HAP
measured
during
a
test
condition
may
be
classified
as
representing
compliance
test
emissions
for
those
HAP,
while
other
HAP
measured
during
the
test
condition
may
be
classified
as
representing
normal
emissions.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
II:
HWC
Emissions
Data
Base,"
March
2004,
for
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

37
Please
note
that
we
propose
today
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
only
for
boilers
and
process
heaters
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
are
not
reproposing
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
in
Subpart
EEE
currently
in
effect
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
additional
details.
D.
Invitation
to
Comment
on
Data
Base
As
previously
discussed,
we
updated
the
data
base
based
on
comments
received
since
it
was
last
made
publicly
available.
We
believe
the
data
base
used
to
determine
today's
proposed
standards
is
complete
and
accurate.
However,
given
the
complexity
of
the
data
base,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
once
again
solicit
comments
on
the
accuracy
of
the
data.
If
you
find
errors,
please
submit
the
pages
from
the
test
report
that
document
the
missing
or
incorrect
entries
and
the
cover
page
of
the
test
report
as
a
reference.
In
addition,
we
identified
several
sources
that
are
no
longer
burning
hazardous
waste
and
removed
their
emissions
data
and
related
information
from
the
data
base.
We
encourage
owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
combustors
to
review
our
list
of
operating
combustors
to
ensure
its
accuracy.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
II:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
IV.
How
Did
EPA
Select
the
Format
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
proposed
rule
includes
emission
limits
for
dioxin/
furans,
mercury,
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
hydrogen
chloride/
chlorine
gas,
and
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons.
We
also
propose
percent
reduction
standards
for:
(
1)
destruction
and
removal
efficiency37
for
organic
HAP;
and
(
2)
total
chlorine
control
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Finally,
sources
would
be
required
to
establish
operating
parameter
limits
under
prescribed
procedures
to
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
standards.
We
discuss
below
the
rationale
for:
(
1)
selecting
an
emission
limit
format
rather
than
a
percent
reduction
format
in
most
cases;
(
2)
selecting
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
for
the
emission
limit
in
some
cases,
and
an
emissions
concentration
format
in
others;
(
3)
selecting
surrogates
to
control
multiple
HAP;
and
(
4)
using
operating
parameter
limits
to
ensure
compliance
with
emission
standards.
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Generally
Selecting
an
Emission
Limit
Format
Rather
than
a
Percent
Reduction
Format?
Using
emission
limits
as
the
format
for
most
of
the
proposed
standards
provides
flexibility
for
the
regulated
community
by
allowing
a
regulated
source
to
choose
any
control
technology
or
technique
to
meet
the
emission
limits,
rather
than
requiring
each
unit
to
use
a
prescribed
method
that
may
not
be
appropriate
in
each
case.
(
See
CAA
Section
112(
h),
relating
to
authority
to
adopt
work
place
standards).
Although
a
percent
reduction
format
would
allow
flexibility
in
choosing
the
control
technology
to
achieve
the
reduction,
a
percent
reduction
technology
does
not
allow
the
option
of
achieving
the
standard
by
feed
control­­
minimizing
the
feed
of
metals
or
chlorine.
Consequently,
we
propose
percent
reduction
standards
only
in
special
circumstances.
We
are
proposing
a
percent
reduction
standard
for
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
i.
e.,
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
for
organic
HAP,
because
all
sources
currently
comply
with
such
a
standard
under
RCRA
and
RCRA
implementing
rules.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Further,
we
do
not
have
emissions
data
on
trace
levels
of
organic
HAP
that
would
be
needed
to
establish
emission
limits
for
particular
compounds.
We
also
propose
a
total
chlorine
percent
reduction
standard
as
a
compliance
option
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
in­
lieu
of
the
proposed
stack
gas
concentration
limit
because
a
stack
gas
concentration
limit
may
ultimately
result
in
limiting
the
feed
of
chlorine
to
furnaces
with
MACT
emission
control
equipment.
Given
that
these
furnaces
produce
hydrochloric
acid
from
chlorinated
feedstocks,
limiting
the
feed
of
chlorine
is
inappropriate.
See
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A
and
XII
for
more
discussion
on
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Selecting
a
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions
Format
for
Some
Standards,
and
an
Emissions
Concentration
Format
for
Others?
We
are
proposing
numerical
emission
limits
in
two
formats:
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
and
stack
gas
emissions
concentrations.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
of
heat
contributed
by
hazardous
waste.
Emission
concentration
based
standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
of
stack
gas
(
e.
g.,
ug/
dscm).
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions
Format?
In
the
1999
rule,
we
assessed
hazardous
waste
feed
control
levels
for
metals
and
chlorine
by
evaluating
each
source's
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
(
MTEC)
using
the
"
aggregate
MTEC"
approach.
See
64
FR
at
52854.
MTEC
is
defined
as
the
metals
or
chlorine
feedrate
divided
by
the
gas
flow
rate,
and
is
expressed
in

g/
dscm.
We
used
MTECs
to
assess
feed
control
levels
because
it
normalizes
metal
and
chlorine
feedrates
across
sources
of
different
sizes.
Industry
stakeholders
have
claimed
that
use
of
MTECs
to
assess
feed
control
levels
for
energy
recovery
units
(
e.
g.,
cement
kilns)
when
establishing
floor
standards
inappropriately
penalizes
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
at
high
firing
rates
(
i.
e.,
percent
of
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste).
This
is
because
hazardous
waste
fuels
generally
have
higher
levels
of
metals
and
chlorine
than
the
fossil
fuels
they
displace,
thus
metal
and
chlorine
feedrates
and
emissions
may
increase
as
the
hazardous
waste
firing
rate
increases.
Although
we
are
not
using
the
aggregate
MTEC
approach
to
evaluate
feed
control
in
today's
proposal,
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
explained
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A,
does
assess
each
source's
metal
and
chlorine
hazardous
waste
feed
control
levels.
In
order
to
avoid
the
hazardous
waste
firing
rate
bias
discussed
above
for
energy
recovery
units,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
instead
assess
feed
control
for
energy
recovery
units
by
ranking
each
source's
thermal
feed
concentration,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
mass
of
metal
or
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
BTUs
hazardous
waste
fired
to
the
combustion
unit.
This
approach
not
only
normalizes
metal
and
chlorine
feedrates
across
sources
of
different
sizes,
but
also
normalizes
these
feedrates
across
energy
recovery
units
with
different
hazardous
waste
firing
rates.
For
example,
a
kiln
that
feeds
hazardous
waste
with
a
given
metal
concentration
to
fulfill
100%
of
its
energy
demand
would
be
an
equally
ranked
feed
control
source
when
compared
to
an
identical
kiln
that
fulfills
50%
of
its
energy
demand
from
coal
and
50%
from
hazardous
waste
with
an
identical
metal
concentration.
Similarly,
it
is
our
preference
to
express
today's
proposed
emission
standards
for
metals
and
chlorine
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
as
opposed
to
expressing
the
standards
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

38
Three
of
the
13
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
burn
low
heating
value
hazardous
waste
for
treatment.
in
units
of
stack
gas
concentrations.
As
previously
discussed,
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
HAP
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
hazardous
waste
fired
to
combustor.
As
with
thermal
feed
concentration,
thermal
emissions
normalizes
emissions
across
energy
recovery
units
with
different
hazardous
waste
firing
rates.
The
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
addresses
two
concerns.
First,
it
avoids
the
above
discussed
bias
against
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
at
high
firing
rates.
We
prefer
not
to
discourage
energy
recovery
from
hazardous
waste
as
opposed
to
potentially
establishing
standards
that
effectively
restrict
the
hazardous
waste
firing
rate
in
an
energy
recovery
combustor.
(
See,
for
example,
the
requirement
in
CAA
section
112(
d)(
2)
to
take
energy
considerations
into
account
when
promulgating
MACT
standards,
as
well
as
the
objective
in
RCRA
section
1003(
b)(
6)
to
encourage
properly
conducted
recycling
and
reuse
of
hazardous
waste).
Second,
because
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
approach
controls
only
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
feed
(
see
discussion
in
following
section),
the
rule
can
be
simplified
by
not
including
waivers
for
sources
that
cannot
meet
the
standard
because
of
metals
or
chlorine
contributed
by
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams.
To
ensure
that
hazardous
waste
combustors
will
be
able
to
achieve
the
standards
if
they
use
MACT
control
for
metals
and
chlorine
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
but
irrespective
of
metals
and
chlorine
in
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams,
current
MACT
standards
for
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
provide
alternative
standards
that
sources
can
request
under
a
petitioning
procedure.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
9­
10).
These
alternative
standards
would
be
unnecessary
under
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
approach
because,
by
definition,
the
approach
controls
only
hazardous
waste­
derived
metals
and
chlorine.
2.
Which
Standards
Would
Use
the
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions
Format?
We
propose
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine
(
i.
e.,
the
HAPs
found
in
hazardous
waste
fuels)
for
source
categories
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
where
we
have
data
to
calculate
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
limit.
Cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
and
liquid­
fuel
fired
boilers
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels
and
are
thus
candidates
for
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standards.
Incinerators
and
coal
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
not
candidates
for
thermal
emission
standards
because
some
sources
within
these
source
categories
do
not
combust
hazardous
waste
for
energy
recovery,
i.
e.,
they
burn
low
heating
value
hazardous
waste
for
the
purpose
of
treating
the
waste.
38
Consequently,
these
sources
could
not
duplicate
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
standard
based
on
emissions
from
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels,
even
though
their
stack
gas
emission
concentrations
could
be
as
low
or
lower
than
emissions
from
a
best
performing
source
under
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
approach.
We
propose
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
for
all
HAP
for
which
we
can
apportion
emissions
between
the
hazardous
waste
fuel
feed
and
other
feedstreams.
Under
this
approach,
we
apportion
total
stack
emissions
between
hazardous
waste
fuel
and
other
feedstreams
using
the
ratio
of
the
feedrate
contribution
from
hazardous
waste
to
the
total
feedrate
of
the
pollutant.
Thus,
the
particulate
matter,
metals,
and
total
chlorine
standards
are
candidates
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

39
Feedrate
data
from
testing
during
normal,
typical
operations
may
not
be
as
accurate
as
data
from
compliance
testing
because
of
the
sampling
and
analytical
error
associated
with
low
feedrates.
In
contrast,
sources
generally
spike
metals
and
chlorine
during
compliance
testing,
so
that
measurement
error
is
somewhat
masked
by
the
higher
feedrate
values.

40
Two
exceptions
are
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
fuelfired
boilers.
We
propose
to
express
this
standard
in
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
even
though
it
is
based
on
normal
test
data
because
we
do
not
use
feedrate
data
to
apportion
emissions
in
this
case.
Rather,
we
assume
semivolatile
metal
emissions
from
liquid
fuelfired
boilers
are
attributable
solely
to
the
hazardous
waste
given
that
these
sources
co­
fire
hazardous
waste
with
natural
gas
or,
in
a
few
cases,
fuel
oil.
because
we
often
have
data
on
hazardous
waste
and
total
feedrates
of
these
pollutants.
We
believe,
however,
that
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
is
not
appropriate
for
particulate
matter
for
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
because
particulate
matter
emissions
from
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
primarily
entrained
raw
material,
not
ash
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste
fuel.
There
is
therefore
no
correlation
between
particulate
matter
emissions
and
hazardous
waste
thermal
input
rate.
In
addition,
please
note
that
we
could
have
expressed
the
proposed
particulate
matter
standard
for
liquid
boilers
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
since
(
unlike
the
case
of
kilns
just
discussed)
particulate
matter
emissions
are
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
fuel.
However,
for
consistency,
we
elected
to
use
the
same
format
for
all
the
particulate
matter
standards.
We
invite
comment
as
to
whether
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
liquid
boilers
should
be
expressed
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions.
We
do
not
have
adequate
data
to
establish
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions­
based
standards
for
several
cases.
An
example
is
when
we
have
only
normal
feedrate
and
emissions
data
(
e.
g.,
the
mercury
standard
for
cement
kilns).
We
prefer
to
establish
emission
standards
under
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
using
compliance
test
data
because
the
metals
and
chlorine
feedrate
information
from
compliance
tests
that
we
use
to
apportion
emissions
to
calculate
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
are
more
reliable
than
feedrate
data
measured
during
testing
under
normal,
typical
operations.
39
Thus,
as
a
general
rule,
we
prefer
to
express
emission
standards
for
energy
recovery
units
using
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
only
when
we
have
sufficient
compliance
test
feed
data.
40
These
situations
are
discussed
below
in
more
detail
in
Part
Two,
Sections
VIII,
IX,
and
XI
where
we
discuss
the
rationale
for
the
proposed
emission
standards
for
energy
recovery
units.
3.
How
Are
Emissions
From
Other
Feedstreams
Regulated
Under
the
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions
Format?
Under
the
thermal
emissions
format,
only
emissions
of
HAP
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste
are
directly
regulated
by
today's
proposed
standards.
Non­
mercury
metal
HAP
emissions
from
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels
would
be
subject
to
MACT
standards,
even
though
it
may
not
be
feasible
to
directly
control
their
feedrate.
We
are
proposing
standards
for
particulate
matter
as
surrogates
to
control
these
HAP
metals
contributed
by
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuel.
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Selecting
Surrogates
to
Control
Multiple
HAP?
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

41
As
discussed
later,
we
are
also
proposing
particulate
matter
standards
to
generally
serve
as
surrogates
to
control
relevant
metal
HAP
in
non­
hazardous
waste
feed
streams
when
appropriate.

42
See
64
FR
at
52845­
47
(
September
30,
1999).
HWCs
can
emit
a
wide
variety
of
HAP,
depending
on
the
types
and
concentrations
of
pollutants
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
HAP
potentially
present
in
emissions,
we
propose
to
use
several
surrogates
to
control
multiple
HAP.
This
will
reduce
the
burden
of
implementation
and
compliance
on
both
regulators
and
the
regulated
community.
1.
Surrogates
for
Metal
HAP
We
are
proposing
to
control
metal
HAP
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
by
subjecting
sources
to
metal
and
particulate
matter
emission
limitations.
41
We
grouped
metal
HAP
according
to
their
volatility
because
volatility
is
a
primary
consideration
when
selecting
an
emission
control
technology.
42
We
then
considered
the
following
to
identify
metals
that
would
be
"
enumerated"
and
directly
controlled
with
an
emission
limit:
(
1)
the
amount
of
available
data
for
the
metal
HAP;
(
2)
the
potential
for
hazardous
waste
to
contain
substantial
levels
of
a
metal;
and
(
3)
the
toxicity
of
the
metal.
Other,
"
nonenumerated"
metal
HAP
would
be
controlled
using
particulate
matter
as
a
surrogate.
Mercury
is
highly
volatile,
especially
toxic,
and
may
not
be
controllable
by
the
same
air
pollution
control
mechanisms
as
the
other
HAP
metals,
so
we
are
proposing
a
standard
for
mercury
individually.
Two
semivolatile
metals
can
be
prevalent
in
hazardous
waste
and
are
particularly
hazardous:
lead
and
cadmium.
We
group
these
two
metals
together
and
propose
an
emission
standard
for
these
metals,
combined.
The
combined
emissions
of
lead
and
cadmium
cannot
exceed
the
semivolatile
metal
emission
limit.
Three
low
volatile
metals
can
be
prevalent
in
hazardous
waste
and
are
particularly
hazardous:
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium.
We
group
these
three
metals
together
and
propose
an
emission
standard
for
these
metals,
combined.
The
combined
emissions
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium
cannot
exceed
the
low
volatile
metal
emission
limit.
The
particulate
matter
standard
generally
serves
as
a
surrogate
to
control
non­
enumerated
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
as
well
as
a
surrogate
to
control
relevant
metal
HAP
in
nonhazardous
waste
feed
streams.
We
generally
chose
not
to
propose
numerical
metal
HAP
emission
standards
that
would
have
accounted
for
all
metal
HAP
for
two
reasons
(
note
that
such
an
approach
would
be
in­
lieu
of
a
proposed
particulate
matter
standard
because
particulate
matter
is
not
a
listed
HAP).
We
generally
do
not
have
as
much
compliance
test
emissions
information
in
our
database
for
the
nonenumerated
metal
HAP
compared
to
the
enumerated
metal
HAP.
Thus
it
would
be
more
difficult
to
assess
the
control
levels
for
these
additional
metals.
We
also
believe
that
a
particulate
matter
standard,
in
lieu
of
emission
standards
that
directly
regulate
all
the
metals,
simplifies
compliance
activities
in
that
sources
would
not
have
to
monitor
feed
control
levels
of
these
nonenumerated
metals
on
a
continuous
basis.
Note
that
particulate
matter
is
not
an
appropriate
surrogate
where
standards
are
based,
in
part
(
or
in
whole)
on
feedrate
control.
This
is
because,
unlike
the
case
where
HAP
metals
are
controlled
by
air
pollution
control
devices,
HAP
metal
reductions
in
hazardous
waste
feedrate
are
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

43
Please
note
that
we
are
proposing
the
organic
emission
standards­­
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency­­
for
boilers
and
process
heaters
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
only.
Requirements
to
comply
with
these
standards
are
currently
in
effect
under
Subpart
EEE
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
We
are
not
reproposing
or
reopening
consideration
of
those
standards
in
today's
notice.
not
necessarily
correlated
with
particulate
matter
reductions,
i.
e.,
hazardous
waste
feedrate
reductions
could
reduce
HAP
metal
emissions
without
a
correlated
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions.
(
See
National
Lime,
233
F.
3d
at
639
noting
this
possibility.)
Moreover,
particulate
matter
that
is
emitted
generally
contain
greater
percentages
of
HAP
metals
when
the
metal
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
increase.
Thus,
low
particulate
matter
emissions
do
not
necessarily
guarantee
low
metal
HAP
emissions,
especially
in
instances
where
the
hazardous
waste
feeds
are
highly
concentrated
with
metal
HAP.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
proposed
emission
standards
for
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
serve
as
adequate
surrogate
control
for
the
nonenumerated
metal
HAP.
Compliance
with
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standards
does
not
ensure
that
sources
are
using
MACT
back­
end
control
devices
because
they
could
be
achieving
compliance
by
primarily
implementing
hazardous
waste
feed
control
for
the
enumerated
metals.
Thus,
if
a
source
uses
superior
feed
control
only
for
the
enumerated
metals,
the
nonenumerated
metal
emissions
would
not
be
controlled
to
MACT
levels
if
it
were
not
using
a
MACT
particulate
matter
control
device.
The
proposed
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
standards
are
also
inappropriate
surrogates
for
controlling
nonmercury
metal
HAP
in
the
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams
for
kilns
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
for
the
same
reason.
These
sources
may
comply
with
the
proposed
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standards
by
implementing
hazardous
waste
feed
control.
This
would
not
assure
that
the
nonmercury
metal
HAP
emissions
attributable
to
the
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams
are
controlled
to
MACT
levels.
A
particulate
matter
standard
provides
this
assurance.
Note
that
we
are
proposing
that
incinerators
and
liquid
boilers
that
emit
particulate
matter
at
levels
higher
than
the
proposed
standard
but
do
not
emit
significant
levels
of
nonmercury
metal
HAP
can
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
standard.
Under
the
proposed
alternative
standard,
these
sources
would
be
required
to:
(
1)
limit
emissions
of
all
semivolatile
metals,
including
nonenumerated
semivolatile
metals,
to
the
emission
limit
for
semivolatile
metals;
and
(
2)
limit
emissions
of
all
low
volatile
metals,
including
nonenumerated
low
volatile
metals,
to
the
emission
limit
for
low
volatile
metals.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XVIII
for
more
discussion
on
this
alternative.
2.
Surrogates
for
Organic
HAP
For
Phase
II
sources,
we
propose
two
standards
as
surrogates
to
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP:
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
.43
Both
of
these
standards
control
organic
HAP
by
ensuring
combustors
are
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
that
should
result
in
destruction
of
the
organic
HAP.
Note
that
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
requirements
that
regulate
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
under
RCRA
regulations.
We
propose
to
control
dioxin/
furans
by
a
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

separate
standard
because
dioxin/
furan
can
also
be
formed
post­
combustion
in
ductwork,
waste
heat
recovery
boilers,
or
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
(
e.
g.,
electrostatic
precipitators
and
fabric
filters).
Hydrocarbon
emissions
are
a
direct
measure
of
many
organic
compounds,
including
organic
HAP.
Carbon
monoxide
emissions
are
a
more
conservative
indicator
of
hydrocarbon
and
organic
HAP
emissions
because
the
presence
of
carbon
monoxide
at
elevated
levels
is
indicative
of
incomplete
oxidation
of
organic
compounds.
Sources
generally
choose
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
because
carbon
monoxide
continuous
emissions
monitors
are
less
expensive
and
easier
to
maintain
than
hydrocarbon
monitors.
We
also
propose
to
use
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
to
help
ensure
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
operate
under
good
combustion
conditions.
We
propose
to
adopt
the
standard
and
implementation
procedures
that
currently
apply
to
these
sources
under
RCRA
regulations
at
§
266.104.
We
propose,
however,
to
require
a
one­
time
only
compliance
requirement
for
destruction
and
removal
efficiency,
unless
a
source
changes
its
design
or
operation
in
a
manner
that
could
adversely
affect
its
ability
to
meet
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
Further,
previous
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
testing
performed
under
RCRA
could
be
used
to
document
the
one­
time
compliance.
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Requiring
Compliance
with
Operating
Parameter
Limits
to
Ensure
Compliance
with
Emission
Standards?
In
addition
to
meeting
emission
limits,
today's
proposal
would
require
sources
to
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters
for
the
combustor
and
emission
control
devices.
Each
source
would
establish
site­
specific
limits
for
the
parameters
based
on
operations
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
using
prescribed
procedures
for
calculating
the
limits.
The
operating
parameter
limits
would
reasonably
ensure
that
the
combustor
and
emission
control
devices
continue
to
operate
in
a
manner
that
will
achieve
the
same
level
of
control
as
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
We
selected
the
operating
parameters
for
which
sources
would
establish
limits
because:
(
1)
the
parameters
can
substantially
affect
emissions
of
HAP;
(
2)
they
are
feasible
to
monitor
continuously;
3)
they
are
currently
used
to
monitor
performance
under
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste;
and
4)
this
is
the
same
general
compliance
approach
that
is
currently
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustion
sources
pursuant
to
the
RCRA
emission
standard
requirements.

V.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Limitations
for
New
and
Existing
Units?
A.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Limitations
for
New
Units?
All
standards
established
pursuant
to
section
112
of
the
CAA
must
reflect
MACT,
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
the
Administrator,
taking
into
consideration
the
cost
of
achieving
such
emission
reduction,
and
any
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
determines
is
achievable
for
each
category.
The
CAA
specifies
that
the
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
that
is
deemed
achievable
for
new
hazardous
waste
combustors
must
be
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
emissions
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best­
controlled
similar
unit
(
as
noted
earlier,
this
specified
level
of
minimum
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

stringency
is
referred
to
as
the
MACT
floor,
the
term
used
when
the
statutory
provision
was
first
introduced
in
Congress).
However,
EPA
may
not
consider
costs
or
other
impacts
in
determining
the
MACT
floor.
EPA
may
adopt
a
standard
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
floor
(
i.
e.,
a
beyondthe
floor
standard)
if
the
Administrator
considers
the
standard
to
be
achievable
after
considering
cost,
environmental,
and
energy
impacts.
B.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Limitations
for
Existing
Units?
For
existing
sources,
MACT
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best­
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
for
categories
and
subcategories
with
30
or
more
sources.
EPA
may
not
consider
costs
or
other
impacts
in
determining
the
MACT
floor.
The
EPA
may
require
a
control
option
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
floor
(
beyond­
the­
floor)
if
the
Administrator
considers
the
cost,
environmental,
and
energy
impacts
to
be
reasonable.
It
has
been
argued
that
EPA
is
limited
in
the
level
of
performance
it
can
evaluate
in
assessing
which
are
the
12
percent
existing
best
performing
sources
to
standards
codified
in
permits,
or
other
regulatory
limitations.
The
argument
is
based
on
use
of
the
term
"
emission
limitation"
in
section
112
(
d)
(
3),
the
argument
going
that
"
emission
limitation"
is
a
term
defined
in
section
302
(
k)
to
mean
"
a
requirement
established
by
the
State
or
the
Administrator
which
limits
the
quantity,
rate,
or
concentration
of
air
pollutants
.....".
EPA
does
not
accept
this
argument,
and
indeed
doubts
that
such
an
interpretation
of
the
statute
is
even
permissible.
In
brief:
i)
Statutory
text
indicates
that
MACT
floors
for
existing
sources
is
to
based
on
actual
performance.
Section
112
(
d)
(
3)
(
A)
speaks
to
the
actual
performance
of
sources,
and
requires
that
the
floor
for
existing
sources
reflect
actual
performance.
The
key
statutory
phrase
is
not
just
"
emission
limitation"
but
"
emission
limitation
achieved",
a
phrase
referring
to
actual
performance,
not
just
a
limit
simply
set
out
in
a
permit
or
regulation.
The
floor
is
to
be
calculated
using
"
emissions
information",
a
reference
again
to
actual
performance.
The
provision
likewise
states
that
certain
sources
achieving
a
lowest
achievable
emission
rate
(
LAER)
level
of
performance
without
being
subject
to
LAER
(
a
regulatory
limit)
are
not
to
be
considered
in
assessing
best
performers,
redundant
language
if
only
regulatory
limits
could
be
considered.
In
fact,
it
is
clear
from
context
when
Congress
used
the
term
"
emission
limitation"
to
refer
to
regulatory
limits,
and
when
it
uses
the
term
to
refer
to
a
level
of
performance
actually
achieved.
Compare
CAA
section
111
(
b)
(
1)
(
B)
(
EPA
is
to
consider
"
emissions
limitations
and
percent
reductions
achieved
in
practice"
when
considering
whether
to
revise
new
source
performance
standards)
with
section
110
(
a)
(
2)
(
A)
(
State
Implementation
Plans
must
contain
"
enforceable
emission
limitations").
ii)
The
argument
leads
to
absurd
and
illegal
results.
The
argument
that
existing
source
MACT
floors
can
only
be
based
on
regulatory
limits
leads
to
results
that
are
illegal,
absurd,
or
both.
Congress
enacted
section
112
to
assure
technology­
based
control
of
HAP
which
had
heretofore
gone
unregulated
due
to
the
vagaries
and
glacial
pace
of
implementing
the
previous
risk­
based
regime
for
HAP.
1
Legislative
History
at
790,
860;
2
Legislative
History
at
3174­
78,
3340­
42.
The
result,
at
the
time
of
the
1990
amendments
is
that
there
were
widespread
regulatory
limits
for
only
one
of
the
190
listed
HAPs
(
lead,
for
which
there
was
a
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard)
plus
NESHAPs
for
a
half
dozen
other
HAPs.
Thus,
"
emission
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

limitations",
in
the
sense
used
in
the
argument,
did
not
exist
for
most
HAPs.
This
would
lead
necessarily
to
the
result
of
no
existing
source
floors
because
no
"
emission
limitations"
exist.
This
result
is
illegal.
National
Lime
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3d
625,
634
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000).
Where
regulatory
limits
are
higher
than
actual
performance
levels,
existing
source
floors
likewise
would
be
higher
than
performance
levels,
a
result
both
absurd
and
illegal.
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
167
F.
3d
658,
662­
63
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999).
In
fact,
at
the
time
of
the
1999
for
this
source
category
(
hazardous
waste
combustion),
RCRA
regulatory
limits
were
higher
than
the
level
of
performance
achieved
even
by
the
very
worst
performing
source
in
the
category
(
for
some
HAPs,
by
orders
of
magnitude).
Yet
under
the
argument,
the
floor
for
existing
sources
would
have
to
be
higher
than
even
this
worst
performing
single
source.
iii)
Legislative
History
shows
that
Congress
intended
the
existing
source
floor
to
reflect
actual
best
performance.
The
legislative
history
to
the
MACT
floor
provision
for
existing
sources
likewise
makes
clear
that
the
standard
was
to
reflect
actual
performance,
not
regulatory
limits.
2
Legislative
History
pp.
2887,
2898;
3353;
1
Legislative
History
p.
870.
The
legislative
history
to
the
parallel
provision
for
municipal
waste
combusters
in
section
129
(
a)
(
2)
(
which
floor
requirement
reads
identically
to
section
112
(
d)
(
3))
is
equally
clear,
stating
that
the
floor
for
such
sources
is
to
reflect
emission
limitations
which
either
have
been
achieved
in
practice
or
are
reflected
in
permit
limitations,
whichever
is
more
stringent.
See
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
167
F.
3d
at
662
(
noting
this
legislative
history.)
iv)
The
argument
has
already
been
rejected
in
litigation.
The
D.
C.
Circuit,
in
the
three
cases
dealing
with
MACT
floors,
has
held
in
all
three
cases
that
the
floor
standard
must
reflect
actual
performance.
Sierra
Club,
167
F.
3d
at
162­
63;
National
Lime,
233
F.
3d
at
632;
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition,
255
F.
3d
at
865­
66.
For
these
reasons,
we
reject
the
argument
that
existing
source
floors
are
compelled
to
reflect
only
regulatory
limits.
Such
limits
may
be
a
permissible
means
of
establishing
existing
source
floors,
but
only
if
regulatory
limits
"
are
a
reasonable
means
of
estimating
the
performance
of
the
top
12
percent
of
[
sources]
in
each
[
category
or
subcategory]."
Sierra
Club,
167
F.
3d
at
661.
Somewhat
ironically,
there
is
a
regulatory
limit
which
is
relevant
in
establishing
floors
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
interim
standards
fix
a
level
of
performance
for
all
of
these
sources.
Thus,
any
floor
standard
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
this
standard
(
see
National
Lime
233
F.
3d
at
640
(
reason
for
which
a
level
of
performance
is
being
achieved
is
irrelevant
in
ascertaining
MACT
floors)).
Based
on
actual
performance,
however,
floors
may
be
more
stringent.

VI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
and
New
Units?
We
followed
five
basic
steps
to
calculate
the
proposed
MACT
floors.
First,
we
determined
which
MACT
methodology
approach
is
most
appropriate
to
apply
to
the
given
pollutant
for
each
source
category.
Second,
we
selected
which
of
the
available
emissions
data
best
represent
each
source's
performance.
Third,
we
evaluated
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
issue
separate
emissions
standards
for
various
subcategories.
Fourth,
we
identified
the
best
performing
sources
based
on
the
chosen
methodology
and
data.
Finally,
we
calculated
floor
levels
for
new
and
existing
sources.
The
following
sections
include
a
description
of
each
of
these
steps.
Please
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

44
The
particulate
matter
standard
is
used
as
a
surrogate
to
control
nonmercury
metal
HAP
in
the
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams
and
to
control
the
nonenumerated
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
As
explained
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A.
2.
b.,
control
of
ash
feed
may
not
be
an
effective
technique
to
control
metal
HAP.
Thus,
we
do
not
use
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
to
identify
floor
levels
for
particulate
matter
since
ash
feed
control
may
not
be
a
reliable
indicator
of
performance.

45
Although
system
removal
efficiency
measures
primarily
the
performance
of
the
back­
end
emission
control
device,
it
also
measures
any
other
internal
control
mechanisms,
such
as
partitioning
of
metals
to
the
product
in
a
cement
or
lightweight
aggregate
kiln.
note
that
we
are
also
proposing
to
invoke
CAA
Section
112(
d)(
4)
to
establish
risk­
based
standards
on
a
site­
specific
basis
for
total
chlorine
for
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
except
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces).
Under
the
proposed
approach,
sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
either
risk­
based
standards
or
Section
112(
d)
MACT
standards.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIII
for
more
details.
A.
What
MACT
Methodology
Approaches
Are
Used
to
Identify
the
Best
Performers
for
the
Proposed
Floors,
and
When
Are
They
Applied?
A
MACT
methodology
approach
is
a
set
of
procedures
used
to
define
and
identify
the
best
performing
sources
consistent
with
CAA
section
112(
d)(
3).
We
have
developed
and
used
the
following
three
different
MACT
methodologies
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
for
the
full
suite
of
proposed
floor
standards
for
new
and
existing
sources:
(
1)
System
Removal
Efficiency
(
SRE)/
Feed
approach;
(
2)
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approach;
and
(
3)
Emissions­
Based
approach.
These
three
methodologies,
together
with
their
rationales
and
when
they
are
used,
are
described
in
the
following
sections.
Note
that
each
methodology
described
below
assesses
best
performing
sources
for
each
pollutant
or
pollutant
group
independently,
often
resulting
in
different
best
performers
for
each
pollutant.
For
a
more
detailed
description
of
these
methodologies
and
when
they
are
applied,
see
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
1.
What
Is
SRE/
Feed
Approach,
and
When
Are
We
Proposing
to
Apply
It?
The
SRE/
Feed
MACT
approach
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
best
combined
front­
end
hazardous
waste
feed
control
and
back­
end
air
pollution
control
efficiency
as
defined
by
our
ranking
procedure.
The
approach
is
applicable
to
HAP
whose
emissions
can
be
controlled
by
controlling
the
hazardous
waste
feed
of
the
HAP:
metals
and
chlorine.
44
These
two
parameters­­
feedrate
of
metals
and
chlorine
in
hazardous
waste,
and
performance
of
the
emission
control
device
measured
by
system
removal
efficiency45
determine
emissions
of
metals
and
chlorine
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Back­
end
air
pollution
control
is
evaluated
by
assessing
each
source's
pollutant
system
removal
efficiency,
which
is
a
measure
of
the
percentage
of
HAP
that
is
emitted
compared
to
the
amount
fed
to
the
unit.
In
identifying
system
removal
efficiency
as
a
measure
of
best
performing,
the
Agency
is
rejecting
the
notion
that
"
best
performing"
must
mean
a
source
with
the
lowest
absolute
rate
of
emission
of
a
HAP.
A
source
emitting
300
pounds
of
a
HAP,
but
removing
that
HAP
at
a
rate
of
99.9%
from
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

46
See
discussion
in
the
proposed
lime
production
MACT
explaining
why
neither
raw
material
or
fossil
fuel
substitution
are
available
means
of
controlling
the
feedrate
of
HAP.
See
67
FR
at
78059­
61
(
Dec.
20,
2002).
The
rationale
for
lime
kilns
also
applies
to
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Briefly,
in
the
context
of
floor
control:
(
1)
a
kiln's
principle
raw
materials
(
limestone
for
cement
kilns
and
clay
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns)
are
not
available
to
other
kilns;
and
(
2)
we
are
not
aware
of
raw
materials,
or
sources
of
coal
or
oil,
that
have
characteristic
and
consistent
(
low)
concentrations
of
HAP.
In
the
context
of
beyond­
the­
floor
control,
additional
issues
include:
(
1)
the
cost
of
transporting
raw
materials
with
lower
levels
of
HAP
(
if
it
were
feasible
to
identify
them)
would
be
prohibitive;
and
(
2)
although
switching
from
coal
or
oil
to
natural
gas
would
reduce
the
feedrate
of
HAP,
the
limitations
of
the
natural
gas
distribution
infrastructure
are
such
that
natural
gas
is
not
readily
available
to
many
sources.

47
In
the
1999
rule,
we
developed
the
term
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
to
compare
metals
and
chlorine
feed
control
levels
across
sources
of
different
sizes.
See
64
FR
at
52854.
Maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
is
defined
as
the
metals
or
chlorine
feedrate
divided
by
the
gas
flowrate,
and
is
expressed
in
terms
of
ug/
dscm.
See
Part
Two,
Section
IV.
B.
1
for
more
discussion
on
how
we
normalize
feedrates
and
emissions
across
sources.
its
emissions,
can
logically
be
considered
a
better
performing
source
than
one
emitting
100
pounds
of
the
same
HAP
but
removing
it
at
an
efficiency
of
only
50
percent.
Use
of
feedrate
and
system
removal
efficiency
as
measures
of
performance
is
appropriate
because
these
parameters
incorporate
the
effects
of
the
myriad
factors
that
can
indirectly
affect
emissions,
such
as
level
of
maintenance
of
the
combustor
or
emission
control
equipment,
and
operator
training,
as
well
as
design
and
operating
parameters
that
directly
affect
performance
of
the
emission
control
device
(
e.
g.,
air
to
cloth
ratio
and
bag
type
for
a
fabric
filter;
use
of
a
power
controller
on
an
electrostatic
precipitator).
For
example,
an
incinerator
with
a
well­
designed
and
operated
fabric
filter
would
have
a
higher
performance
rating
measured
by
system
removal
efficiency
than
an
identical
incinerator
equipped
with
the
same
fabric
filter
which
is,
in
addition,
poorly
maintained
because
of
inadequate
operator
training.
Also,
although
feedrate
of
metals
and
chlorine
in
nonhazardous
waste
feedstreams
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels
fed
to
a
cement
kiln
can
affect
HAP
emissions
substantially,
those
emissions
can
be
feasibly
controlled
only
by
back­
end
control
(
measured
here
by
system
removal
efficiency).
46
This
is
because
neither
fuel
switching
nor
raw
material
switching
is
practicable
for
production
facilities
such
as
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
facilities.
Thus,
feedrate
of
metals
and
chlorine
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste
­
the
only
controllable
feed
parameter
for
these
sources
­
is
an
appropriate
metric.
For
incinerators
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
feed
control
is
evaluated
by
assessing
each
source's
hazardous
waste
pollutant
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration.
47
Feed
control
for
energy
recovery
units
(
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers)
are
evaluated
by
assessing
each
source's
hazardous
waste
pollutant
thermal
feed
concentration
when
possible
(
i.
e.,
when
EPA
has
sufficient
data
to
make
the
calculation).
We
rank
each
source's
pollutant
hazardous
waste
feed
control
level
against
all
the
other
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

48
This
occurred
for
the
low
volatile
metal
standard
for
cement
kilns
and
the
mercury
standard
for
solid­
fuel
fired
boilers.
source's
feed
control
level,
assigning
a
relative
rank
of
1
to
the
source
with
the
lowest,
i.
e.,
best,
feed
control
level
and
assigning
the
highest
ranking
score
to
the
source
with
the
highest,
i.
e.,
worst,
feed
control
level.
We
do
the
same
with
each
source's
system
removal
efficiency.
We
rank
each
source's
pollutant
system
removal
efficiency
against
all
the
other
sources
system
removal
efficiencies,
assigning
a
relative
rank
of
1
to
the
source
with
the
highest,
i.
e.,
best,
system
removal
efficiency
and
assigning
the
highest
ranking
score
to
the
source
with
the
lowest,
i.
e.,
worst,
system
removal
efficiency.
We
then
add
each
source's
feed
control
ranking
score
and
system
removal
efficiency
ranking
score
to
yield
an
SRE/
Feed
aggregated
score.
Each
source's
aggregated
score
is
arrayed
and
ranked
from
lowest
to
highest,
i.
e.,
best
to
worst,
and,
for
existing
sources,
the
best
performers
are
the
sources
at
the
12th
percentile
aggregate
score
and
below.
Floor
levels
are
then
calculated
by
using
the
emissions
from
these
best
performing
sources.
The
SRE/
Feed­
based
standards
are
expressed
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
when
possible
for
energy
recovery
units.
Please
note
that
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
can
occasionally
identify
a
floor
level
for
new
sources
that
is
higher
than
the
floor
level
for
existing
sources,
as
discussed
below
in
Sections
VII
to
XII.
This
is
because
the
source
with
the
best
SRE/
Feed
aggregate
score,
and
thus,
the
single
best
performing
source
under
this
approach,
does
not
always
achieve
the
lowest
emissions
among
the
best
performing
sources
after
accounting
for
emissions
variability.
In
two
cases
only,
the
emissions
for
the
best
performing
SRE/
Feed
source,
after
accounting
for
emissions
variability,
are
higher
than
the
average
of
the
best
performing
five
(
or
12%)
of
sources­­
the
floor
for
existing
sources­­
after
considering
emissions
variability.
48
For
example,
the
single
best
performing
SRE/
Feed
source
may
have
both
higher
emissions
and
run
variability
than
other
best
performing
sources.
This
source's
emissions
are
averaged
with
the
other
best
performers
to
identify
the
floor
level,
and
its
run
variability
is
dampened
when
we
calculate
the
floor
for
existing
sources
by
pooling
run
variability
across
the
best
performing
sources.
When
the
single
best
performer's
emissions
are
evaluating
individually,
however,
a
relatively
high
run
variability
is
not
dampened.
In
those
few
situations
where
the
best
performing
SRE/
Feed
source
has
higher
emissions,
after
accounting
for
emissions
variability
(
i.
e.,
the
potential
floor
for
new
sources),
than
the
floor
for
existing
sources,
we
default
to
the
floor
for
existing
sources
to
identify
the
floor
for
new
sources.
We
request
comment
on
whether
it
would
be
more
appropriate
to
identify
the
floor
for
new
sources
under
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
by
selecting
the
source
with
the
lowest
emissions
amongst
the
best
performing
existing
sources,
after
considering
run
variability,
rather
than
the
lowest
SRE/
Feed
aggregate
score.
The
SRE/
Feed
methodology
is
generally
applied
only
to
HAP
where
we
can
accurately
assess
each
source's
relative
hazardous
waste
feed
control
and
back­
end
air
pollution
control:
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine.
Dioxin/
furans
are
not
considered
to
be
feed
control
HAP
because
they
generally
are
not
fed
into
the
combustor;
rather,
they
are
formed
in
the
combustor
and
post
combustion.
Also,
whereas
particulate
matter
(
for
all
source
categories)
and
total
chlorine
(
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces)
could
be
considered
to
be
feed­
controlled
and
back­
end
controlled
pollutants,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

appropriate
to
assess
feed
control
as
a
control
mechanism
for
these
situations
for
reasons
discussed
below
in
Section
2
(
largely
dealing
with
the
inability
to
control
HAP
in
raw
material
feed
or
in
fossil
fuel).
As
a
result,
we
did
not
apply
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
to
these
pollutants.
Finally,
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
is
also
not
applied
when
we
do
not
have
sufficient
compliance
test
data
to
accurately
assess
each
source's
relative
back­
end
control
efficiency.
This
occurs
in
a
limited
number
of
circumstances
when
the
majority
of
the
emissions
data
reflect
normal
operations.
The
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
boilers
are
examples
of
when
we
do
not
believe
we
possess
sufficient
data
to
accurately
assess
each
source's
back
end
control
efficiency
because
we
are
concerned
that
the
normal
feed
data
are
too
sensitive
to
sampling
and
measurement
error
to
provide
a
reliable
system
removal
efficiency
that
would
be
used
reliably
in
the
ranking
procedure.
Our
preference
is
to
use
system
removal
efficiencies
that
are
based
on
compliance
testing
because
sources
typically
spike
the
pollutant
feeds
during
these
compliance
tests
to
known
elevated
levels,
resulting
in
calculated
system
removal
efficiencies
that
are
more
reliable.
2.
What
Are
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approaches,
and
When
Are
They
Applied?
The
air
pollution
control
technology
approach
is
applied
in
two
situations
where
we
consider
it
inappropriate
to
directly
assess
hazardous
waste
feed
control
­
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
all
sources
categories
and
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
apply
slightly
different
methodologies
to
each
of
these
situations,
as
discussed
below.
a.
What
Methodology
Was
Used
to
Identify
the
Best
Performing
Sources
for
the
Particulate
Matter
Floors?
The
best
performing
sources
for
the
proposed
particulate
matter
floor
levels
are
determined
using
a
methodology
that
is
conceptually
similar
to
that
used
in
the
Industrial
Boiler
MACT
proposal.
See
68
FR
at
1660.
We
call
this
methodology
the
"
air
pollution
control
technology"
approach
because
it
defines
best
performers
as
those
that
use
the
best
type
of
back­
end
air
pollution
control
technology.
This
methodology
first
assesses
all
the
back­
end
control
technologies
used
by
all
the
sources
within
the
source
category,
and
ranks
the
general
effectiveness
of
these
control
technologies
from
best
to
worst
using
engineering
information
and
principles.
For
example,
for
particulate
matter
control,
high
efficiency
particulate
air
filters
may
be
ranked
as
the
best
air
pollution
control
device,
followed
by
baghouses,
electrostatic
precipitators,
and
high
energy
wet
scrubbers.
In
this
example,
all
sources
equipped
with
a
high
efficiency
particulate
air
(
i.
e.,
HEPA)
filter
would
get
the
best
ranking
(
e.
g.,
"
1"),
and
all
sources
equipped
with
high
energy
wet
scrubbers
would
get
the
worst
ranking
(
e.
g.,
4).
The
sources
are
arrayed
and
ranked
from
best
to
worst
based
on
their
control
technology
rankings.
For
existing
sources,
MACT
control
is
defined
as
the
control
technology
or
technologies
used
by
the
best
12
percent
of
these
sources.
For
example,
using
the
previous
particulate
matter
control
rankings,
if
more
than
12
percent
of
the
sources
within
the
source
category
were
using
high
efficiency
particulate
air
filters,
then
MACT
control
would
be
defined
to
be
high
efficiency
particulate
air
filters.
If
10
percent
of
all
the
sources
were
equipped
with
high
efficiency
particulate
air
filters,
and
4
percent
were
equipped
with
baghouses,
then
MACT
control
would
be
defined
as
both
high
efficiency
particulate
air
filters
and
baghouses.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

49
This
methodology
does
not,
however,
expand
the
MACT
pool
to
include
sources
with
emission
levels
greater
than
those
of
the
best
12
per
cent
of
performers
using
MACT
control
(
the
approach
the
Court
in
CKRC
held
was
inadequately
justified
as
representing
the
12
percent
of
best
performing
sources).

50
Please
note
that,
although
we
do
not
explicitly
consider
ash
feedrate
when
establishing
the
particulate
matter
floor,
ash
feedrate
is
an
appropriate
and
necessary
compliance
assurance
parameter
for
incinerators
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
ash
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
contribute
substantially
(
or
entirely)
to
particulate
emissions.
After
the
MACT
control
technology
or
technologies
are
determined,
the
MACT
floor
levels
are
calculated
using
emissions
data
from
those
sources
using
MACT
control.
See
Part
Two,
Section
IV.
D.
3
for
more
discussion
on
the
ranking
procedure
that
is
used
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
under
this
approach.
Also
see
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
more
information.
This
methodology
consequently
focuses
on
performance
of
the
best
pollution
control
device,
but
does
not
assess
further
control
that
might
result
from
lower
HAP
feedrates.
49
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
using
particulate
matter
emissions
from
those
using
MACT
back­
end
control
without
considering
hazardous
waste
ash
feedrate
control.
For
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
particulate
emissions
are
largely
contributed
by
non­
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
(
i.
e.,
entrained
raw
material
for
kilns,
and
entrained
coal
ash
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers).
Thus,
hazardous
waste
feed
control
is
an
inappropriate
factor
to
use
when
assessing
particulate
matter
control
efficiency.
Although
particulate
emissions
for
incinerators
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
more
directly
related
to
these
devices'
hazardous
waste
ash
feedrate,
controlling
the
hazardous
waste
ash
feedrate
does
not
ensure
that
the
feedrate
of
nonenumerated
metal
HAP
is
controlled.
For
example,
an
incinerator
or
liquid­
fuel
boiler
source
could
control
ash
feedrate
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash
other
than
metal
HAP,
such
as
silica.
Thus,
metal
HAP
emissions
would
not
be
controlled.
For
these
reasons,
using
the
air
pollution
control
technology
approach
to
establish
particulate
matter
floors
without
explicitly
considering
ash
feedrate
is
appropriate.
50
b.
What
Methodology
Is
Used
to
Identify
the
Best
Performing
Sources
for
the
Total
Chlorine
Floor
for
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces?
We
apply
the
air
pollution
control
technology
approach
to
total
chlorine
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
differently.
For
this
floor
calculation,
we
are
proposing
to
use
the
same
methodology
that
the
Agency
used
for
the
hydrochloric
acid
production
MACT
final
rule
for
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
See
68
FR
at
19076.
This
methodology
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
best
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiency.
Each
source's
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiency
is
arrayed
and
ranked
from
highest
to
lowest,
and
the
best
existing
performers
are
the
sources
at
the
12th
percentile
ranking
and
below.
We
calculate
the
system
removal
efficiency
floor
level
using
the
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiencies
achieved
by
these
best
performing
sources.
Consistent
with
the
non
hazardous
waste
hydrochloric
acid
production
MACT
final
rule,
we
also
propose
to
allow
sources
to
comply
with
a
total
chlorine
stack
gas
concentration
limit
that
is
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

51
A
source
could
operate
with
a
"
less
than
MACT"
system
removal
efficiency
provided
that
it
controls
its
hazardous
waste
chlorine
feed
levels
such
that
its
emissions
are
lower
than
the
emission
standard.
calculated
by
multiplying
the
highest
hazardous
waste
chlorine
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
in
the
data
base
by
1
minus
the
MACT
system
removal
efficiency.
This
ensures
that
a
source
complying
with
the
alternative
concentration­
based
standard
would
not
emit
higher
levels
of
total
chlorine
than
a
source
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers
that
achieve
MACT
system
removal
efficiency.
We
believe
this
alternative
standard
is
appropriate
because
it
gives
sources
the
option
of
complying
with
the
floor
by
implementing
hazardous
waste
feed
control.
51
We
believe
this
methodology
is
appropriate
even
though
it
does
not
directly
assess
hazardous
waste
total
chlorine
feed
control
because
these
sources
are
in
the
business
of
feeding
highly
chlorinated
hazardous
wastes
so
that
they
can
recover
the
chlorine
for
use
in
their
production
process.
Requiring
these
sources
to
minimize
hazardous
waste
chlorine
feed
would
be
directly
regulating
their
raw
material
and
would
directly
affect
their
ability
to
produce
their
product.
Again,
in
this
situation,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
use
a
methodology
approach
that
solely
focuses
on
back­
end
control,
since
back­
end
control
assures
removal
of
the
target
pollutant
without
inappropriately
requiring
a
source
to
control
feedstreams
in
a
manner
that
affects
its
ability
to
produce
its
intended
product.
3.
What
Is
the
Emissions­
Based
Approach,
and
When
Is
It
Applied?
The
emissions­
based
approach
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
lowest
emissions
in
our
database.
We
array
and
rank
each
source's
pollutant
emission
levels
from
lowest
to
highest.
The
best
existing
performers
are
the
sources
at
the
12th
percentile
ranking
and
below.
We
calculate
floor
levels
using
the
emission
levels
from
these
best
performing
sources.
We
express
the
emissions­
based
standards
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
when
possible
for
energy
recovery
units,
and
use
the
approach
whenever
the
SRE/
Feed
or
air
pollution
control
technology
approaches
are
not
used.
Specifically,
we
use
the
emissions­
based
approach
for
the
dioxin/
furan
floors
for
all
source
categories,
and
for
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
floors
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
The
SRE/
Feed
and
air
pollution
technology­
based
approaches
cannot
be
used
for
the
dioxin/
furan
floors
because
dioxin/
furans
are
generated
in
the
combustor
or
post­
combustion
within
the
air
pollution
control
device.
Since
dioxin/
furans
are
generally
not
fed
to
the
units,
the
SRE/
Feed
methodology
would
not
properly
assess
dioxin/
furan
emission
control
performance.
In
theory,
a
technology­
based
approach
could
be
applied
to
the
dioxin/
furan
floors.
However,
such
a
technology
approach
would,
for
the
most
part,
identify
the
same
best
performers
as
the
emissions­
based
approach
because
there
is
only
one
primary
control
technology
being
used
by
all
the
sources
­
temperature
control
at
the
inlet
to
the
dry
air
pollution
control
device.
The
SRE/
Feed
approach
cannot
be
used
for
the
mercury
and
semivolatile
metal
floors
for
the
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
because
we
do
not
have
sufficient
compliance
test
data
to
accurately
assess
each
source's
back­
end
control
efficiency.
The
technology­
based
approach
is
also
not
appropriate
because
sources
within
this
source
category
control
these
HAP
both
by
feed
control
and
by
back­
end
control.
As
a
result,
a
methodology
that
considers
only
one
of
the
two
primary
control
techniques
may
not
be
appropriate.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

52
One­
time
testing
events,
however,
are
a
necessity
because
Continuous
Emission
Monitors
still
do
not
exist
for
most
of
the
HAPs
emitted
by
these
sources.
4.
Why
Doesn't
EPA
Simply
Apply
the
Emissions­
Based
Approach
to
All
Source
Categories
and
HAP?
Under
the
most
simplistic
interpretation
of
CAA
112(
d),
we
would
apply
the
emissionsbased
approach
to
all
source
categories
and
HAP
in
calculating
floors
for
existing
sources.
We
considered
proposing
this
option.
As
described
later
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G,
it
was
one
of
three
options
for
which
we
conducted
a
complete
economics
analysis.
We
discuss
below,
however,
why
we
believe
the
air
pollution
control
technology
and
SRE/
Feed
approaches
more
reasonably
ascertains
the
performance
of
the
average
of
the
best
12
percent
of
existing
sources.

a.
Why
Do
We
Prefer
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
Over
the
Emissions­
Based
Approach?
We
believe
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
is
a
reasonable
and
appropriate
MACT
methodology
for
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
source
categories
because
it
better
estimates
the
performance
of
the
average
of
the
12
percent
best
performing
sources,
and
(
as
a
necessary
corollary)
assures
that
the
floor
standards
would
be
achievable
by
such
sources.
As
previously
discussed,
we
apply
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
to
HAP
that
are
actively
controlled
(
via
floor
controls)
by
both
hazardous
waste
feed
control
and
back­
end
air
pollution
control.
There
are
only
two
ways
to
control
emissions
of
these
HAP
from
these
sources
­
limit
the
feedrate
of
metal
and
chlorine
and
remove
them
prior
to
venting
the
exhaust
gas
out
the
stack.
These
two
control
mechanisms
are
used
simultaneously
by
all
sources
in
this
category
at
varying
levels.
We
do
not
believe
the
lowest
emission
levels
in
our
data
base
in
fact
represent
the
full
range
of
emissions
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
performing
sources.
Indeed,
it
would
be
unlikely
if
this
were
the
case,
since
these
data
are
necessarily
`
snapshots'
of
emissions
from
the
source,
obtained
in
one­
time
testing
events.
52
Notwithstanding
that
such
testing
seeks
to
encompass
much
of
the
variability
in
system
performance,
no
single
test
can
be
expected
to
do
so.
Thus,
inherent
variability
such
as
feedrate
fluctuation
over
time
due
to
production
process
changes
and
market
shifts,
uncertainties
associated
with
correlations
between
operating
parameter
levels
and
emissions,
precision
and
accuracy
differences
in
different
testing
crews
and
analytical
laboratories,
and
changes
in
emission
of
materials
(
SO
2
being
an
example)
that
may
cause
test
method
interferences.
See
generally
64
FR
at
52857and
52587­
59.
An
emissions­
based
approach
for
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
solid
fuelfired
boilers
that
assesses
performance
based
on
stack
gas
concentrations
(
as
opposed
to
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions)
may
not
appropriately
estimate
the
performance
of
the
average
of
the
12
percent
best
performing
sources
given
that
those
best
performers
may
have
low
emissions
in
part
because
their
raw
material
and/
or
fossil
fuels
contained
low
levels
of
HAP
during
the
emissions
test.
We
do
not
believe
feed
control
of
HAP
in
raw
material
and
fossil
fuel
should
be
assessed
as
a
MACT
floor
control
primarily
because
it
could
result
in
floor
levels
that
are
not
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources,
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources.
See
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A.
1.
Moreover,
although
the
emissions­
based
approach
is
not
facially
inconsistent
with
Section
112
of
the
Act,
there
are
serious
questions
as
to
whether
its
applicability
here
leads
to
limits
that
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

53
Simultaneous
achievability
percentages
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
solid
fuelfired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
must
be
interpreted
differently
given
that
there
are
significantly
fewer
than
30
sources
within
these
source
categories.
As
a
result,
we
believe
that
the
emission
standards
should
be
simultaneously
achievable
by
at
least
two
or
three
sources
for
these
source
categories
given
that
CAA
112(
d)
defines
best
performing
sources
as
the
average
of
the
best
five
sources.

54
Note,
however,
that
many
of
the
best
performing
sources
for
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
are
the
same
as
those
for
emissions­
based
approach,
primarily
because
there
is
a
good
correlation
between
the
SRE/
Feed
aggregated
ranking
score
and
emissions
in
that
the
emission
levels
generally
increase
as
the
as
the
aggregate
ranking
score
increases.
could
be
achieved
even
by
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
(
under
the
emissions­
based
approach).
The
alternative
emissions­
based
floor
Options
1
and
2
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
G
result
in
floor
levels
across
all
HAP
that
are
achievable
simultaneously
by
fewer
than
6%
of
the
sources
for
the
cement
kiln,
incinerator,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
source
categories.
53
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs,"
March,
2004,
Chapter
XX,
for
a
summary
of
the
simultaneous
achievability
analysis.
A
reason
the
floors
which
would
result
from
this
methodology
are
so
low
is
that
there
already
have
been
at
least
one
and,
for
many
of
the
sources,
two
rounds
of
regulatory
reduction
of
emissions
from
these
sources
(
under
the
RCRA
rules,
and
then
under
the
Interim
Standards
MACT
rules
for
incinerators
and
kilns).
The
emissions­
based
approach
thus
yields
results
more
akin
to
new
source
standards,
confirmation
being
that
the
levels
are
not
even
achievable
as
a
whole
by
the
average
of
the
12
percent
best
performing
sources.
The
simultaneous
achievability
of
today's
proposed
floors,
for
which
we
use
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
for
certain
HAP
preferentially
over
the
emissions­
based
approach,
is
substantially
better
(
but
not
dramatically
more
than
6%)
for
cement
kilns
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
than
the
achievability
under
the
emissions­
based
approach.
There
are
other
reasons
why
the
emissions­
based
approach
results
in
such
low
simultaneous
achievability
percentages.
If
the
emissions­
based
approach
is
applied
to
feedcontrolled
HAP,
the
best
performers
are
defined
as
those
sources
that
are
either:
(
1)
the
lowest
feeders;
(
2)
the
best
back­
end
controlled
units;
or
(
3)
the
best
combination
of
front­
end
control
or
back­
end
control.
The
emissions­
based
approach
selects
the
lowest
emitters
from
the
previous
three
categories
and
does
not
necessarily
account
for
the
full
range
of
emissions
that
are
achieved
in
practice
by
well
designed
and
operated
feed
control
units,
well
designed
and
operated
back­
end
controlled
units,
or
well
designed
and
operated
combination
of
both
front­
end
and
back­
end
controlled
units.
As
explained
below,
the
SRE/
Feed
methodology
better
accounts
for
the
range
of
emissions
from
these
well
designed
and
operated
sources.
54
For
example,
assume
we
have
100
sources
in
a
hypothetical
source
category,
and
source
A
is
the
5th
best
feed
controlled
source
and
the
30th
best
back­
end
controlled
source.
Source
B,
on
the
other
hand,
is
the
30th
best
feed
controlled
source
and
the
5th
best
back­
end
controlled
source.
The
SRE/
Feed
ranking
procedure
would
score
these
two
sources
equally,
even
though
their
emissions
may
be
different.
Let's
also
assume
that
these
two
sources
are
among
the
best
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

55
Moreover,
the
superior
low
metal
and
chlorine
feedrates
that
on­
site
incinerators
and
boilers
are
"
achieving"
may
simply
reflect
the
composition
of
the
waste
generated
by
the
manufacturing
operation.
performers
for
the
SRE/
Feed
approach.
We
would
not
expect
their
emission
levels
to
be
dramatically
different
under
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
because
source
A
is
a
superior
front­
end
controlled
source
with
a
relatively
poorer
back­
end
control
device,
and
source
B
is
a
superior
back­
end
controlled
source
with
relatively
poorer
feed
control.
Even
though
sources
A
and
B
do
not
have
the
same
emissions,
they
are
both
considered
to
be
well
designed
and
operated
sources
because
they
both
use
a
superior
combination
of
front­
end
and
back­
end
control.
The
difference
in
emissions
merely
reflects
the
range
of
emissions
from
well
designed
and
operated
sources.
If
the
emissions­
based
approach
was
applied
in
the
source
A
and
B
example,
the
source
with
the
higher
emissions
would
have
a
worse
emission
ranking,
and
thus
may
not
be
identified
as
a
best
performer.
Thus,
even
though
we
would
consider
this
higher
emitting
source
under
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
to
be
a
well­
designed
and
operated
source,
it
would
not
be
capable
of
achieving
the
calculated
floor
level.
We
believe
this
outcome
may
be
problematic,
for
example,
because
sources
that
are
already
operating
with
a
well­
designed
and
operated
back­
end
control
unit
should
not
have
to
upgrade
its
back­
end
control
technology
simply
because
it
is
not
achieving
a
floor
level
driven,
in
part,
by
other
sources
within
the
source
category
that
are
implementing
lower
feed
control
rates
that
are
impractical
for
it
to
achieve.
55
It
may
be
questionable
to
require
these
well
controlled
back­
end
units
to
implement
better
feed
control
to
achieve
this
emissionbased
floor
level
because:
(
1)
they
may
not
be
capable
of
implementing
feed
control
without
sending/
diverting
the
waste
elsewhere
­
yet
these
units
are
providing
a
needed
and
required
service
in
treating
hazardous
waste;
and
(
2)
it
could
be
argued
that
hazardous
waste
containing
high
levels
of
metals
and
chlorine
should
in
fact
be
treated
in
the
well­
designed
and
operated
back­
end
controlled
units
(
see
RCRA
sections
3004
(
d)
to
(
m),
requiring
advanced
treatment
of
hazardous
waste
before
the
waste
can
be
land
disposed).
Similarly,
sources
that
are
already
achieving
superior
feedrate
control
should
not
necessarily
have
to
upgrade
their
feedrate
control
further
simply
because
they
are
not
achieving
a
floor
level
driven,
in
part,
by
sources
with
superior
back­
end
control.
Improving
already
superior
feedrate
control
may
be
problematic
simply
because
they
may
not
be
capable
of
implementing
additional
feed
control
(
e.
g.,
source
reduction)
at
their
facility,
or
having
generators
implement
further
feedrate
control.
EPA
believes
that
hazardous
waste
feed
control
is
an
important
element
of
what
constitutes
"
best
performing"
sources
from
this
source
category,
and
does
not
wish
to
structure
the
rule
to
discourage
the
practice
by
developing
standards
which
do
not
directly
take
this
means
of
control
into
account.
See
CAA
section
112
(
d)
(
2)
(
A)
(
feed
control
is
an
explicit
means
of
achieving
MACT);
and
see
also
the
pollution
prevention
and
waste
minimization
goals
of
both
the
CAA
(
sections112
(
d)
(
2)
and
101
(
c)
and
RCRA
(
section
1003
(
b)).
The
SRE/
Feed
approach
thus
better
preserves
the
opportunity
for
sources
to
achieve
the
floor
levels
if
they
are
using
either
superior
front­
end
control
or
back­
end
control
(
or
superior
combination
of
both).
At
the
same
time,
it
addresses
both
means
by
which
sources
in
this
category
can
control
their
HAP
emissions:
hazardous
waste
feed
control
and
back­
end
air
pollution
capture
through
control
technology.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

56
Although
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
does
not
directly
address
this
issue
within
the
methodology,
the
simultaneous
achievability
of
the
SRE/
Feed­
based
floors
is
substantially
better
(
but
not
dramatically
more
than
6%)
for
cement
kilns
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
than
the
achievability
under
the
emissions­
based
approach.

57
Note
that
we
considered
using
a
floor
methodology
that
simultaneously
assesses
all
the
pollutant
emissions
from
each
source.
This
methodology
would
define
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
best
aggregate
emissions
across
all
(
or
a
subset
of
all)
the
HAP
and
would
perhaps
more
directly
achieve
the
goal
of
obtaining
a
full
suite
of
emission
standards
that
are
The
example
in
the
previous
paragraph
of
the
source
using
superior
feed
control
is
clearly
applicable
to
incinerators
and
boilers
that
combust
hazardous
waste.
These
are
somewhat
unique
source
categories
in
that
they
are
comprised
of
many
different
industrial
sectors
that
may
not
be
capable
of
achieving/
duplicating
the
same
metal
and
chlorine
feedrate
control
levels
of
other
sources
within
their
respective
source
category
given
that
hazardous
waste
feed
control
levels
are
directly
influenced
by
amount
of
HAP
that
are
generated
in
their
specific
production
process.
Similarly,
other
sources
that
comprise
commercial
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
i.
e.,
kilns
and
commercial
incinerators)
are
subject
to
the
feed
control
levels
that
are
governed
primarily
by
third
parties
(
i.
e.,
the
generators
or
fuel
blenders).
The
emissions­
based
approach
identifies
the
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
lowest
emissions
and
does
not
consider
differences
in
emission
characteristics
across
all
the
industrial
sectors
that
combust
hazardous
waste.
We
contemplated
whether
we
should
assess
if
subcategorization
is
appropriate
based
on
the
various
industrial
sectors
that
combust
hazardous
waste.
We
believe,
however,
that
such
an
assessment
would
be
difficult
given
the
vast
number
of
industrial
sectors
that
generate
hazardous
waste
which
is
treated
by
combustion.
The
emissions­
based
approach
could
be
identifying
a
suite
of
floor
levels
across
HAP
that
would
require
sources
to
operate
at
feedrate
control
levels
in
the
aggregate
that
are
in
theory
achieved
by
few,
if
any,
well­
operated
and
designed
feed
controlled
sources.
For
example,
the
best
performing
sources
for
the
emissions­
based
approach
for
the
incinerator
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
floors
are
entirely
different.
This
may
occur
because
sources
have
different
relative
feed
control
levels
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine
(
e.
g.,
a
source
could
have
superior
semivolatile
metal
feed
control
but
only
moderate
low
volatile
metal
feed
control).
Finally,
the
emissions­
based
approach
may
result
in
low
simultaneous
achievability
percentages
because
a
back­
end
control
technology
for
one
pollutant
may
not
control
the
emissions
of
another
pollutant
as
efficiently.
For
example,
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
may
control
total
chlorine
emissions
very
well,
but
are
not
as
efficient
at
limiting
particulate
matter
emissions
when
compared
to
a
baghouse.
Thus,
best
performers
under
the
emissions­
based
floor
approach
for
total
chlorine
could
be
driven
by
sources
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems,
and
the
particulate
matter
floor
could
be
driven
by
sources
equipped
with
baghouses,
resulting
in
a
combined
set
of
floors
that
are
conceivably
achieved
by
few
sources,
a
result
confirmed,
as
noted
above,
in
that
less
than
6
%
of
existing
sources
would
be
achieving
floor
standards
developed
using
the
emission­
based
approach.
56,57
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

achievable
by
at
least
6%
of
the
sources.
We
rejected
this
approach
in
the
1999
rule,
since
it
could
potentially
result
in
least­
common
denominator
source
levels.
See
64
FR
at
52856.
However,
at
least
for
incinerators
and
kilns,
there
is
less
potential
concern
with
such
a
result
because
the
Interim
Standards
have
already
reduced
sources'
emissions
of
all
HAP
considerably
and
the
Interim
Standards
cap
the
level
of
floors
for
these
sources.
Nonetheless
we
may
not
have
enough
complete
emissions
information
for
all
HAP
for
many
source
categories
to
adequately
assess
enough
source's
true
"
aggregate
emissions."
See
Section
VI.
G.
We
thus
believe
that
using
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
preferentially
over
the
emissions­
based
approach
and
technology
based
approach
is
appropriate
because
use
of
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
results
in
floor
levels
that
better
reflect
the
range
of
emissions
from
well­
designed
and
operated
sources
and
also
results
in
floor
levels
across
all
HAP
that
are
achievable
simultaneously
by
at
least
6
percent
of
the
sources
within
each
source
category.
b.
Why
Do
We
Prefer
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approach
Over
the
Emissions­
Based
Approach?
As
previously
discussed,
we
apply
the
air
pollution
control
technology
approach
in
two
situations
where
we
consider
it
inappropriate
to
directly
assess
hazardous
waste
feed
control
using
an
SRE/
Feed
type
approach:
the
particulate
matter
standard
for
all
source
categories;
and,
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
discuss
below
why
the
emissions­
based
approach
is
not
our
preferred
methodology
for
these
standards.
For
particulate
matter,
the
emissions­
based
approach
identifies
the
lowest
emitters
as
best
performers,
irrespective
of
the
types
of
controls
that
were
used.
This
would
not
necessarily
reflect
emissions
that
are
in
fact
capable
of
being
achieved
by
sources
using
MACT
back­
end
control
technology
as
defined
by
the
air
pollution
control
technology
approach
because,
as
discussed
above,
our
data
are
`
snapshots'
of
emissions
from
each
source,
obtained
in
one­
time
testing
events.
As
a
result,
the
particulate
matter
floors
that
are
based
on
the
emissions­
based
approach
would
not
necessarily
account
for
inherent
variability
such
as
ash
feedrate
fluctuation
over
time
due
to
production
process
changes
and
market
shifts,
uncertainties
associated
with
correlations
between
operating
parameter
levels
and
emissions,
precision
and
accuracy
differences
in
different
testing
crews
and
analytical
laboratories,
and
changes
in
emission
of
materials
(
SO
2
being
an
example)
that
may
cause
test
method
interferences.
The
air
pollution
control
technology
better
accounts
for
this
inherent
variability
because
it
assesses
the
emissions
ranges
from
those
sources
that
utilize
the
defined
back­
end
MACT
control
devices,
as
opposed
to
merely
selecting
the
lowest
emitters
irrespective
of
the
type
of
control
it
uses.
Also,
using
the
emissions­
based
approach
for
incinerators
and
liquid
boilers
(
for
the
particulate
matter
standard)
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
(
for
the
total
chlorine
standard)
is
not
our
preferred
approach
because
it
assesses
in
part,
hazardous
waste
ash
and
chlorine
feed
control.
As
discussed
above,
the
emissions­
based
approach
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
lowest
emissions,
and
thus
inherently
accounts
for
and
assesses
hazardous
waste
ash
and
chlorine
feed
control
in
that
sources
with
lower
ash
feedrates
and
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

58
The
best
performers
identified
by
the
air
pollution
technology
approach
are
less
likely
to
be
driven
by
low
ash
feeding
facilities
for
the
particulate
matter
standard
because
all
the
sources
equipped
with
MACT­
defined
back­
end
control
devices
typically
feed
high
levels
of
ash,
thus
we
the
believe
particulate
matter
emission
levels
from
these
sources
are
more
a
function
of
the
air
pollution
control
device
control
efficiency
rather
than
the
ash
feed
levels.
chlorine
feedrates
may
have
lower
emissions.
58
This
is
not
our
preferred
way
of
establishing
floors
for
these
HAP
for
the
reasons
discussed
above
in
Section
2.
B.
How
Did
EPA
Select
the
Data
to
Represent
Each
Source
When
Determining
Floor
Levels?
After
we
determine
which
MACT
methodology
is
appropriate
for
a
given
pollutant
and
source
category,
we
select
which
of
the
available
emissions
data
to
use
for
each
source
to:
(
1)
determine
if
subcategorization
is
warranted;
(
2)
identify
the
best
performing
sources;
and
3)
calculate
the
floor
levels.
Our
emissions
data
base
is
complex
because
it
includes,
in
part,
compliance
test
data,
emissions
data
that
is
representative
of
the
normal
operating
range
of
the
source,
and,
for
the
Phase
I
sources,
multiple
emission
test
data
that
have
been
collected
over
a
number
of
years.
See
Part
Two,
Section
III
for
more
discussion
on
data
base
issues.
We
follow
a
general
"
data
hierarchy"
to
determine
which
of
these
data
types
to
use
to
represent
each
source's
performance
(
with
the
performance
being
reassessed
for
each
HAP).
First,
we
prefer
to
explicitly
use
compliance
test
data
rather
than
data
representative
of
normal
operations
because
compliance
test
data
best
reflect
the
upper
range
of
emissions
from
each
source
and
thus
best
accounts
for
day­
to­
day
emissions
variability.
Use
of
compliance
test
data
allows
us
to
express
emission
floors
as
"
short­
term
limits"
(
e.
g.,
hourly
or
twelve
hour
rolling
averages),
which
is
consistent
with
the
current
interim
MACT
standard
format
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Short­
term
limits
are
also
consistent
with
the
RCRA
emission
standards
currently
applicable
to
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Finally,
we
prefer
to
use
compliance
test
data
because
the
majority
of
the
available
data
are
compliance
test
data.
Absent
sufficient
compliance
test
data
for
sources
within
the
source
category
to
calculate
floor
levels,
we
default
to
explicitly
using
data
that
are
representative
of
the
source's
operating
range
under
conditions
not
designed
to
assess
performance
variability.
Since
these
so­
called
normal
data
do
not
typically
reflect
the
upper
range
of
emissions
from
each
source,
we
believe
it
is
necessary
to
account
for
emissions
variability
(
in
part)
by
expressing
floors
that
are
based
on
normal
data
as
long­
term,
annual
average
emission
limits
(
since
the
snap­
shot
data,
by
definition,
do
not
reflect
short­
term
variability).
We
considered
using
all
available
emissions
data
to
calculate
the
floors,
irrespective
of
whether
they
were
normal
or
compliance
test
data.
We
believe,
however,
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
mix
such
dissimilar
data
when
calculating
floor
levels
because
it
would
bring
into
question
how
to
account
for
day­
to­
day
emissions
variability
when
setting
the
format
of
the
standard.
For
example,
if
a
floor
were
calculated
using
50%
percent
normal
data
and
50%
compliance
data,
should
the
standard
be
expressed
as
a
long­
term
limit
or
short­
term
limit?
This
is
critical
because
the
averaging
period
associated
with
the
numerical
emission
limitation
affects
the
stringency
of
the
standard.
It
is
also
unclear
how
mixing
dissimilar
data
would
affect
the
statistical
variability
factor
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

59
Operating
parameter
limits
are
established
based
on
compliance
test
operations
to
ensure
emissions
achieved
during
normal
operations
do
not
exceed
the
emissions
that
were
demonstrated
in
the
compliance
test.
we
apply
to
each
floor
to
assure
that
floor
levels
are
achievable
by
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources.
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
E,
we
apply
the
statistical
variability
factor
to
the
floor
levels
to
assure
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
would
be
able
to
replicate
the
emission
test
results
that
were
used
to
calculate
the
floor
levels.
Mixing
dissimilar
data
not
only
complicates
the
analyses,
but
also
could
result
in
inconsistent
evaluation
of
data
(
hence
inconsistent
results),
primarily
because
the
ratio
of
normal
data
to
compliance
data
differs
across
HAP
within
each
source
and
across
all
sources.
We
therefore
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
assess
"
like
data"
explicitly
to
assure
results
are
consistent
across
HAP
and
source
categories.
We
prefer
to
use
the
most
recent
compliance
test
data
to
represent
each
source
in
situations
where
we
have
data
from
multiple
test
campaigns
that
were
collected
at
different
times.
For
example,
we
typically
have
multiple
test
campaign
emission
information
for
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
because:
(
1)
we
conducted
a
comprehensive
data
collection
effort
for
these
sources
to
update
the
data
base
that
was
used
to
support
the
1999
final
rule;
and
(
2)
these
sources,
prior
to
receiving
their
RCRA
permit,
are
required
to
conduct
emissions
tests
every
three
years.
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
only
use
the
most
recent
compliance
test
data
for
a
source
because
those
data
best
reflect
current
operations
and
emission
levels.
Older
compliance
test
data
may
not
be
representative
of
current
emissions
because:
(
1)
permitted
feed
and
air
pollution
control
device
operating
levels
may
have
been
changed/
upgraded;
(
2)
combustion
unit
and
associated
air
pollution
control
equipment
design
may
have
been
changed/
upgraded;
and
(
3)
standard
operating
practices
that
relate
to
maintenance
and
upkeep
may
have
been
changed/
upgraded.
As
a
result,
we
believe
that
a
source's
most
recent
compliance
data
best
reflect
a
source's
upper
range
of
emissions.
We
considered
using
all
of
the
sources
historical
compliance
emissions
data
to
perhaps
better
account
for
day­
to­
day
emissions
variability.
We
believe,
however,
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
consider
older
compliance
emission
test
data
to
account
for
day­
to­
day
emission
variability
because:
(
1)
the
older
compliance
data
may
reflect
varying
emissions
merely
because
the
source
was
previously
operating
with
poorer
control
levels,
which
is
not
an
appropriate
factor
to
consider
when
assessing
day­
to­
day
emission
variability;
and
(
2)
the
most
recent
compliance
test
data
adequately
accounts
for
day­
to­
day
variability
because
the
operating
levels
demonstrated
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test
generally
represent
the
maximum
upper
range
of
operations
and
emissions.
59
We
do
not
apply
the
concept
of
using
the
most
recent
emissions
test
information
to
normal
emissions
data
(
as
previously
discussed,
we
use
normal
emission
data
to
calculate
floor
levels
only
in
situations
where
we
do
not
have
sufficient
compliance
test
data).
We
instead
use
all
normal
emissions
data
that
are
available
because
we
are
concerned
that
a
source's
most
recent
normal
emissions
may
not
be
representative
of
its
average
emissions.
The
most
recent
normal
emissions
data
could
reflect
emissions
at
the
upper
range
of
normal
operations
or
the
lower
end
of
normal
operations.
If
we
were
to
use
only
the
most
recent
normal
emissions
information,
we
may
identify
as
best
performers
those
sources
that
were
operating
below
their
average
levels.
This
would
be
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

60
USEPA,
"
Technical
Implementation
Document
for
EPA's
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
Regulations"
EPA530­
R­
92­
011,
March
1992,
NTIS
#
PB92­
154
947.

61
See
68
FR
1660
(
January
13,
2003).

62
We
note
that
a
floor
level
considering
sootblowing
may
be
higher
than
a
floor
level
based
on
discounting
sootblowing
runs.

63
The
comparative
risk
assessment
for
this
proposed
rule
did
not
evaluate
the
impact
of
sootblowing
on
average
emissions.
To
ensure
that
RCRA
permits
are
protective
of
human
inappropriate
because
the
floor
level
may
be
unachievable
by
the
best
performing
sources.
Finally,
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
and
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
we
eliminated
emission
test
runs
from
the
MACT
analysis
when
we
had
information
that
the
source
conducted
sootblowing
during
that
emission
test
run.
Boilers
that
burn
fuels
with
high
ash
content
are
designed
to
blow
the
soot
off
the
tubes
periodically
to
maintain
proper
heat
transfer.
The
soot
can
contain
metal
HAP,
and
emissions
of
these
HAP
can
increase
during
sootblowing.
Although
the
current
RCRA
particulate
matter
and
metals
emissions
standards
for
these
sources
at
§
§
266.105
and
266.106
do
not
require
sootblowing
during
compliance
testing,
we
have
provided
guidance
recommending
that
sources
blow
soot
during
one
of
the
three
runs
of
a
compliance
test
condition
and
calculate
average
emissions
considering
the
frequency
and
duration
of
sootblowing.
60
We
conclude
that
these
sootblowing
run
data
should
not
be
considered
when
establishing
MACT
floor,
however,
for
several
reasons.
We
do
not
know
if
all
sources
that
blow
soot
followed
the
guidance
to
blow
soot
during
a
run
of
the
test
condition.
If
they
did
not,
they
could
be
identified
as
a
best
performer
but
may
not
be
able
to
achieve
the
floor
level
when
blowing
soot.
In
addition,
several
boilers
that
blew
soot
during
a
run
of
the
test
condition
did
not
use
our
recommended
approach
to
calculate
time­
weighted
average
emissions
considering
the
frequency
and
duration
of
sootblowing.
For
these
sources,
we
cannot
calculate
time­
weighted
average
emissions.
We
also
note
that,
for
sources
with
emission
control
equipment,
emissions
during
sootblowing
runs
are
not
significantly
higher
than
when
not
blowing
soot.
This
is
because
soot
particles
are
relatively
large
and
easily
controlled.
For
sources
with
no
emission
control
equipment,
sootblowing
increased
particulate
matter
emissions
for
some
sources,
but
not
others.
In
addition,
we
could
not
use
the
sootblowing
run
to
help
address
emissions
variability
by
evaluating
run
variability
because
the
(
in
some
cases)
higher
emissions
during
sootblowing
are
unrelated
to
the
factors
affecting
run
variability
that
we
are
evaluating
(
e.
g.,
method
precision
and
other
largely
uncontrollable
factors
that
affect
run­
torun
emissions
during
a
test
condition).
Finally,
we
note
that
the
Agency
did
not
propose
to
require
sootblowing
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
for
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters.
61
Although
for
these
reasons
we
conclude
that
it
is
appropriate
not
to
consider
sootblowing
run
data
to
establish
the
MACT
floor,
we
request
comment
on
alternative
views.
62
Because
we
do
not
consider
sootblowing
when
establishing
floor
levels,
sootblowing
would
not
be
required
during
performance
testing
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards
for
particulate
matter
and
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals.
63
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

health
and
the
environment,
regulatory
officials
may
determine
that
the
effect
of
sootblowing
on
average
emissions
(
i.
e.,
considering
the
frequency
and
duration
of
sootblowing)
should
be
considered
in
some
situations,
such
as
a
source
with
uncontrolled
or
poorly
controlled
particulate
emissions
and
with
relatively
high
particulate
matter
or
toxic
metal
emissions.
C.
How
Did
We
Evaluate
Whether
It
Is
Appropriate
to
Issue
Separate
Emissions
Standards
for
Various
Subcategories?
The
third
step
we
use
to
calculate
MACT
floor
levels
evaluates
subcategorization
options.
CAA
Section
112(
d)(
1)
allows
us
to
distinguish
among
classes,
types,
and
sizes
of
sources
within
a
category
when
establishing
floor
levels.
Subcategorization
typically
reflects
"
differences
in
manufacturing
process,
emission
characteristics,
or
technical
feasibility."
See
67
FR
78058.
We
use
both
engineering
principles
and
a
statistical
analysis
to
assess
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
subcategorize
and
issue
separate
emission
standards.
We
first
use
engineering
principles
to
determine
potential
subcategory
options.
These
subcategory
options
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Part
Two
Section
II
for
each
source
category.
As
discussed
in
greater
detail
below,
we
then
determine
if
there
is
a
statistical
difference
in
the
emission
characteristics
between
these
potential
subcategory
options.
Finally,
we
conduct
a
technical
analysis
to
determine
if
the
statistical
analysis
results
are
consistent
with
sound
engineering
judgement.
"
Analysis
of
Variance"
(
ANOVA)
is
the
statistical
test
used
to
cross­
check
these
engineering
judgements.
ANOVA,
a
conventional
statistical
method,
evaluates
whether
there
are
differences
in
the
mean
of
HAP
emissions
levels
from
two
or
more
different
potential
subcategories
(
i.
e.,
do
the
different
subcategories
of
HAP
data
come
from
distinctly
different
populations).
Subcategories
are
considered
significantly
different
using
a
95%
confidence
level.
ANOVA
is
used
in
combination
with
engineering
principles
to
sequentially
identify
significant
differences
between
various
different
combinations
of
potential
subcategories.
See
U.
S.
EPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
detailed
steps
and
results
of
the
ANOVA
evaluation
process.
D.
How
Did
We
Rank
Each
Source's
Performance
Levels
to
Identify
the
Best
Performing
Sources
for
the
Three
MACT
Methodologies?
The
fourth
step
used
in
determining
the
MACT
floor
levels
involves
ranking
each
source's
performance
level
to
identify
the
best
performers.
Below
we
discuss
the
general
ranking
procedure
used
for
each
of
the
three
MACT
methodologies
and
the
statistical
methodology
used
to
perform
the
ranking
process.
1.
Emissions­
Based
Methodology
Ranking
Procedure
As
previously
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A,
the
emissions­
based
approach
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
lowest
emissions
in
our
database.
Each
source's
emission
test
runs
are
first
converted
to
an
upper
99%
confidence
level
in
order
to
rank
performance
not
only
on
the
average
emission
levels
each
source
achieves,
but
also
on
the
emissions
variability
each
source
demonstrates
during
the
emissions
tests.
We
believe
this
is
appropriate
because
a
source's
ability
to
consistently
control
its
emissions
below
the
MACT
floor
levels
is
important
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
in
fact
a
well
designed
and
operated
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

64
For
example,
a
source
with
average
emissions
of
100
and
calculated
variability
of
of
10
would
be
ranked
as
a
better
performing
source
when
compared
to
a
source
with
average
emissions
of
100
and
a
calculated
variability
of
20.
source.
64
We
then
array
and
rank
each
source
by
its
99%
upper
confidence
emission
levels
from
best
to
worst
(
i.
e.,
lowest
to
highest).
For
existing
source
floors,
we
identify
the
best
performers
as
either
sources
at
the
12th
percentile
ranking
and
below
or
the
lowest
5
ranked
sources
values
if
we
have
data
from
less
than
30
sources.
The
best
performing
source
for
the
new
source
floor
is
simply
the
source
with
the
single
lowest
ranked
99%
upper
confidence
emission
level.
2.
SRE/
Feed
Ranking
Procedure
As
previously
discussed,
the
SRE/
Feed
methodology
approach
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
best
combined
front­
end
hazardous
waste
feed
control
and
back­
end
air
pollution
control
efficiency
as
defined
by
our
ranking
procedure.
The
first
step
involves
ranking
each
source's
feed
control
level.
As
with
the
emissions­
based
approach,
we
first
convert
each
source's
feed
control
run
levels
(
i.
e.,
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration
level
or
thermal
feed
concentrations)
to
an
upper
99%
confidence
level.
We
then
array
each
source's
99%
upper
confidence
feed
control
levels
from
best
to
worst
(
i.
e.,
lowest
to
highest).
Next
we
assign
a
feed
control
ranking
score
to
each
source.
The
source
with
the
lowest
feed
control
value
gets
a
ranking
of
1,
and
the
source
with
highest
feed
control
value
receives
the
highest
numerical
ranking.
The
second
step
ranks
each
source's
system
removal
efficiency,
which
is
a
measure
of
the
percent
of
metal
or
chlorine
that
is
emitted
as
compared
to
the
amount
fed
to
the
combustion
unit.
Again,
we
first
convert
each
source's
system
removal
efficiency
run
values
to
an
upper
99%
confidence
level
value.
We
then
array
each
source's
99%
upper
confidence
levels
from
best
to
worst
(
i.
e.,
highest
to
lowest).
Next
we
assign
a
system
removal
efficiency
ranking
score
to
each
source.
The
source
with
the
best
system
removal
efficiency
gets
a
ranking
of
1,
and
the
source
with
the
worst
system
removal
efficiency
receives
the
highest
numerical
ranking.
As
with
the
emissions
ranking
procedure
discussed
above,
our
feed
control
and
system
removal
efficiency
ranking
procedure
measures
performance
not
only
on
the
average
feed
control
and
system
removal
efficiency
level
each
source
achieves,
but
also
on
the
feed
and
system
removal
efficiency
variability
each
source
demonstrates
during
the
emissions
tests.
This
is
appropriate
because
a
source's
ability
to
consistently
regulate
its
control
mechanisms
to
achieve
MACT
emissions
is
important
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
in
fact
a
well
designed
and
operated
source.
Third,
we
add
each
source's
feed
control
ranking
score
and
system
removal
efficiency
ranking
score
together
in
order
to
calculate
an
aggregated
SRE/
Feed
score.
We
then
array
and
rank
each
source's
aggregated
score
from
best
to
worst
(
i.
e.,
lowest
to
highest).
For
existing
source
floors,
we
identify
the
best
performers
as
sources
at
the
12th
percentile
aggregate
ranking
and
below
or
sources
with
the
lowest
5
aggregated
scores
if
we
have
data
from
less
than
30
sources.
The
best
performing
source
for
the
new
source
floor
is
simply
the
source
with
the
single
lowest
aggregated
score.
3.
Technology
Approach
Ranking
Procedure
for
the
Particulate
Matter
Standard
As
previously
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A.
2.
a,
the
best
performing
sources
for
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

65
Note
that
this
methodolgy
does
not
base
the
floor
on
the
highest
emitting
source
amongst
these
best
performers
(
as
did
the
"
expanded
MACT
pool"
did
for
1999
rule).
Rather,
the
floor
is
determined
by
calculating
the
average
performance
of
all
best
performing
sources.
the
particulate
matter
proposed
floor
levels
are
determined
from
a
pool
of
sources
that
use
the
MACT­
defining
back­
end
control
technology.
We
assess
only
the
emissions
from
those
sources
equipped
with
the
MACT­
defining
control
technology
(
or
technologies),
and,
as
with
the
previously
discussed
methodologies,
we
convert
each
source's
emission
run
values
to
an
upper
99%
confidence
level
value.
Emissions
information
from
each
source
is
then
grouped
based
on
the
type
of
MACT
control
each
source
uses.
The
first
group
contains
emissions
information
from
sources
equipped
with
the
best
ranked
MACT
control
device;
the
second
group
includes
emissions
information
from
sources
equipped
with
the
second
best
ranked
MACT
control
technology
(
if
there
is
more
than
MACT
control
technology),
and
so
on.
We
then
array
and
rank
each
source's
99%
upper
confidence
emission
levels
from
best
to
worst
(
i.
e.,
lowest
to
highest)
within
each
of
these
groups.
If
there
is
only
one
defined
MACT
control
technology,
the
best
performing
sources
are
those
sources
with
the
lowest
99%
upper
confidence
emission
levels
amongst
the
sources
using
this
MACT
control
technology.
The
lowest
emitting
sources
are
added
to
a
list
of
best
performers
up
until
the
number
of
sources
that
are
included
in
this
list
is
representative
of
12
percent
of
sources
within
the
source
category
(
for
the
existing
source
floor
determination).
If
there
is
more
than
one
defined
MACT
control
technology,
the
list
of
best
performers
first
considers
sources
with
the
lowest
99%
upper
confidence
emission
levels
that
are
equipped
with
the
best
ranked
control
device
up
until
the
number
of
sources
that
are
included
in
this
list
is
representative
of
12
percent
of
sources
within
the
sources
category.
If
additional
sources
need
to
be
added
to
this
list
to
appropriately
represent
12%
of
the
sources
within
the
source
category,
then
sources
with
the
lowest
emissions
that
are
equipped
with
the
second
best
MACT
control
device
are
added
until
the
appropriate
number
of
best
performing
sources
are
obtained.
65
For
the
new
source
floor,
the
best
performer
is
simply
the
single
source
equipped
with
the
best
ranked
MACT
control
device
with
the
lowest
99%
upper
confidence
emission
level.
4.
Technology
Approach
Ranking
Procedure
for
the
Total
Chlorine
Floor
for
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
As
previously
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A.
2.
b,
the
technology
approach
used
to
determine
the
total
chlorine
floor
levels
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
defines
best
performers
as
those
sources
with
the
best
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiency.
The
ranking
procedure
used
for
this
methodology
is
identical
to
that
used
in
the
emissions­
based
approach
with
the
exception
that
system
removal
efficiencies
are
ranked
instead
of
emissions.
Each
source's
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiency
run
values
are
first
converted
to
an
upper
99%
confidence
level.
We
then
array
and
rank
each
source's
99%
upper
confidence
system
removal
efficiencies
from
best
to
worst
(
i.
e.,
highest
to
lowest).
For
existing
source
floors,
we
define
best
performers
as
either:
(
1)
sources
at
the
12th
percentile
ranking
and
below;
or
(
2)
sources
with
the
lowest
5
rankings
if
we
have
data
from
less
than
30
sources.
The
best
performing
source
for
the
new
source
floor
is
simply
the
source
with
the
single
highest
99%
upper
confidence
system
removal
efficiency.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

5.
Description
of
the
Statistical
Procedures
Used
to
Identify
the
99%
Confidence
Levels
As
previously
discussed,
each
source's
performance
level
are
first
converted
to
an
upper
99%
confidence
level
in
order
to
rank
performance
not
only
on
the
average
performance
level
each
source
achieves,
but
also
on
the
emissions
variability
each
source
demonstrates
during
the
emissions
tests.
We
believe
this
is
appropriate
because
a
source's
ability
to
consistently
control
its
emissions
below
the
MACT
floor
levels
is
important
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
in
fact
a
well
designed
and
operated
source.
Sources
are
ranked
based
on
their
projected
"
upper
99%
confidence
limit"
(
or
lower
99%
confidence
limit
for
system
removal
efficiency).
For
emissions
and
feedrates,
upper
99%
confidence
limits
are
determined
using
a
"
prediction
limit"
calculation
procedure.
The
prediction
limit
is
an
estimate
of
the
level
which
will
capture
99
out
of
100
future
test
condition
averages
(
where
each
average
comprise
three
individual
test
runs).
HAP
emissions
data
within
each
source
are
determined
to
be
normally
distributed.
The
prediction
limit
is
calculated
for
each
source
based
on
the
average,
standard
deviation,
and
number
of
individual
test
runs.
For
system
removal
efficiencies,
the
lower
99%
confidence
limit
is
determined
using
the
"
two
parameter
Beta
distribution".
The
beta
distribution
is
used
for
modeling
proportions,
i.
e.,
system
removal
efficiencies,
is
highly
robust,
and
appropriately
bounded
by
zero
and
1.
Beta
distribution
modeling
parameters
are
determined
based
on
the
"
method
of
moments"
using
the
average
and
standard
deviation
of
the
individual
source
data.
The
lower
99%
estimate
comes
directly
from
the
Beta
distribution
model.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
further
discussion.
E.
How
Did
EPA
Calculate
Floor
Levels
That
Are
Achievable
for
the
Average
of
the
Best
Performing
Sources?
The
emissions
data
we
used
to
establish
MACT
floor
were
obtained
by
manual
sampling
of
stack
gas.
Thus,
as
noted
earlier,
they
are
snap­
shots
of
emissions
levels
and
do
not
measure
the
day­
to­
day
variability
of
emissions.
To
ensure
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
can
routinely
achieve
the
floor
during
future
performance
testing
under
the
MACT
standards,
we
must
account
for
emissions
variability.
As
also
noted
above,
we
account
for
long­
term
emissions
variability
by:
(
1)
using
compliance
test
emissions
data,
when
available,
to
establish
floors;
(
2)
when
other
than
compliance
test
data
must
be
used
to
establish
the
floor,
basing
compliance
on
an
annual
average.
In
addition,
we
add
a
statistically­
derived
variability
factor
to
the
floor
to
account
for
run­
to­
run
variability.
This
variability
factor
ensures
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
can
achieve
the
floor
level
in
99
of
100
future
tests
if
the
best
performing
sources
replicate
the
operating
conditions
and
other
factors
that
affect
the
emissions
we
use
to
represent
the
performance
of
those
sources.
1.
How
Does
Using
Compliance
Test
Data
Account
for
Variability?
We
use
RCRA
compliance
test
emissions
data,
when
available,
to
establish
the
floors
because
compliance
test
data
largely
account
for
emissions
variability.
Under
RCRA
compliance
testing,
sources
must
establish
operating
limits
based
on
operating
conditions
demonstrated
during
the
test.
Each
source
designs
the
compliance
test
such
that
the
operating
limits
it
establishes
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

66
EPA
did
not
statistically
assess
run­
to­
run
variability
in
the
1999
rule
(
although
we
noted
that
it
existed;
see
64
FR
at
52857.
The
reason
is
that
by
using
the
expanded
MACT
pool
approach
to
account
for
variability
(
using
surrogate
sources
from
outside
the
best
performing
to
assess
the
best
performing
sources'
variability)
we
felt
we
had
accounted
for
all
such
run­
to­
run
variability.
Id.
Since
we
are
not
proposing
to
expand
the
MACT
pool
here,
it
is
necessary
to
account
for
run­
to­
run
variability
by
some
other
means.
account
for
the
variability
of
operating
parameter
levels
it
expects
to
encounter
during
its
normal
operations
(
e.
g.,
feedrate
of
metals
and
chlorine;
air
pollution
control
device
operating
parameters,
production
rate).
Thus,
operating
conditions
during
these
tests
generally
reflect
the
upper
range
of
emissions
from
these
sources.
Using
a
source's
compliance
test
emissions
to
establish
the
floor
accounts
largely
for
long­
term
emissions
variability.
However,
this
does
not
necessarily
account
for
factors
that
affect
variability.
As
previously
discussed,
our
snap­
shot
data
base
emissions
information
does
not
necessarily
account
for
inherent
variability
such
as
feedrate
fluctuation
over
time
due
to
production
process
changes
and
market
shifts,
uncertainties
associated
with
correlations
between
operating
parameter
levels
and
emissions,
precision
and
accuracy
differences
that
may
result
from
using
different
stack
sampling
crews
and
analytical
laboratories,
and
changes
in
emission
of
materials
(
SO
2
being
an
example)
that
may
cause
test
method
interferences.
Use
of
compliance
test
data
also
does
not
account
for
run­
to­
run
variability.
We
thus
use
a
statistically­
derived
variability
factor
to
account
for
the
variability
in
emissions
that
would
result
if
the
best
performing
sources
were
to
replicate
their
compliance
tests,
as
discussed
below.
66
In
addition,
use
of
compliance
test
data
may
not
account
for
long­
term
variability
of
particulate
matter
emissions
from
sources
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter.
Accordingly,
we
also
use
a
statistically­
derived
variability
factor
to
account
for
this
variability,
as
discussed
below.
2.
How
Does
Using
Long­
Term
Averaging
Account
for
Emissions
Variability
When
Using
Other
than
Compliance
Test
Data?
RCRA
compliance
test
emissions
data
are
not
available
for
some
metals
(
mercury
in
particular)
for
some
source
categories.
In
these
cases,
we
use
other
emissions
test
data
to
establish
the
floor.
These
other
test
data
are
snap
shots
of
emissions
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions.
To
largely
account
for
emissions
variability
when
using
emissions
data
assumed
to
represent
the
average
of
normal
emissions,
we
propose
to
express
the
floor
as
a
long­
term,
yearly,
average.
Sources
would
comply
with
the
floor
by
establishing
limits
on
metal
feedrate
and
air
pollution
control
device
operating
parameters.
Compliance
with
the
metal
feedrate
limits
would
be
based
on
an
annual
average
feedrate,
while
compliance
with
the
air
pollution
control
device
operating
limits
would
be
based
on
short­
term
limits
(
e.
g.,
hourly
rolling
average).
We
propose
short­
term
averages
for
air
pollution
control
device
operating
parameters
because
the
parameters
may
not
correlate
with
emissions
linearly;
emissions
resulting
when
an
air
pollution
control
device
parameter
is
above
the
limit
thus
may
not
be
offset
by
emissions
resulting
when
the
air
pollution
control
device
parameter
is
below
the
limit.
See
1999
rule,
64
FR
at
52920.
As
discussed
above,
we
also
use
a
statistically
derived
variability
factor
to
account
for
the
variability
in
emissions
that
would
result
if
the
best
performing
sources
were
to
replicate
the
emissions
tests
we
use
to
establish
the
floor,
as
discussed
below.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

We
use
the
normal
emissions
data
to
represent
the
average
emissions
from
a
source
even
though
we
do
not
know
where
the
emissions
may
fall
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions;
the
emissions
may
be
at
the
high
end,
low
end,
or
close
to
the
average
emissions.
It
may
be
reasonable
to
assume
the
emissions
represent
average
emissions,
given
that
we
have
emissions
data
from
several
sources,
and
that
emissions
for
these
sources
in
the
aggregate
could
be
expected
to
fall
anywhere
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions.
Note
that,
as
previously
discussed,
we
have
not
applied
the
concept
of
using
the
most
recent
emissions
test
information
to
normal
emissions
data
because
we
are
concerned
a
source's
most
recent
normal
emissions
may
not
be
representative
of
a
source's
true
average
emissions.
These
emissions
could
reflect
emissions
at
the
upper
range
of
normal
operations,
or
instead,
could
reflect
emissions
at
the
lower
end
of
normal
operations.
If
we
were
to
use
only
the
most
recent
normal
emissions
information,
the
MACT
standard
setting
process
may
identify
best
performers
as
those
sources
that
operate
below
their
normal
levels.
This
may
be
inappropriate
because
the
floor
level
may
be
unachievable
even
by
the
best
performing
sources.
We
invite
comment
as
to
whether
floors
that
are
based
on
normal
data
are
in
fact
achievable
by
the
best
performing
sources,
and
whether
there
is
perhaps
a
more
appropriate
method
to
identify
floors
that
are
based
on
normal
data.
3.
What
Statistical
Procedures
did
EPA
Use
to
Calculate
Floor
Levels?
In
order
to
calculate
a
floor
that
would
be
achievable
by
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources,
we
considered
the
variability
in
emissions
across
runs
of
the
test
conditions
of
the
best
performing
sources.
We
also
use
statistical
procedures
to
account
for
long­
term
variability
in
particulate
matter
emissions
for
sources
equipped
with
fabric
filters.
We
discuss
these
procedures
and
the
rationale
for
using
them
below.
a.
Run­
to­
Run
Variability.
The
MACT
floor
level
is
determined
by
modeling
a
normally
distributed
population
that
has
an
average
and
variability
that
are
equal
to
that
of
the
"
average"
of
the
best
performing
MACT
pool
sources.
The
MACT
floor
is
calculated
using
a
modified
prediction
limit
procedure.
The
prediction
limit
is
designed
to
capture
99
out
of
100
future
threerun
averages
from
the
"
average"
of
the
best
performing
MACT
sources.
Specifically,
the
modified
prediction
limit
for
calculating
the
MACT
floor
is
the
sum
of
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
and
the
"
pooled"
variability
of
the
best
performing
sources.
The
pooled
variability
term
accounts
for
the
expected
variability
in
future
measurements
due
to
variations
resulting
from
system
operation
and
measurement
activities.
The
pooled
variability
term
is
based
in
part
on
the
observed
variance
of
individual
runs
within
test
conditions
from
the
best
performing
MACT
pool
sources.
The
pooled
variability
term
assumes
that
variability
from
the
individual
best
performing
sources
are
independent
(
not
related),
and
thus
are
additive
(
and
not
averaged).
The
pooled
variability
term
is
a
function
of
the
variances
of
the
individual
MACT
pool
sources,
the
number
of
MACT
pool
sources,
the
desired
99%
confidence
level,
and
the
number
of
future
test
runs
for
demonstrating
compliance
(
assumed
to
be
3).
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
discussion
of
the
detailed
steps
and
prediction
limit
formula
used
to
calculate
the
MACT
floors.
b.
Particulate
Matter
Variability
for
Fabric
Filters.
Compliance
test
emissions
of
particulate
matter
from
sources
that
are
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter
may
not
account
for
long­
term
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

67
We
note
that
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emissions,
however,
can
be
maximized
during
compliance
testing
for
sources
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter.
Metals
may
be
spiked
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
to
levels
that
account
for
long­
term
feedrate
variability.
Although
the
particulate
matter
emission
concentration
would
not
be
expected
to
increase
during
a
metals
compliance
test
for
a
source
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter,
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
emissions
concentrations
would
increase.
This
is
because
the
concentration
of
metals
in
the
emitted
particulate
matter
would
increase.

68
We
note
that
this
situation
is
unique
for
fabric
filters.
Sources
equipped
with
other
control
devices­­
electrostatic
precipitators,
ionizing
wet
scrubbers,
and
wet
scrubbers­­
can
readily
change
the
device's
operating
conditions
(
e.
g.,
power
input
to
an
electrostatic
precipitator;
pressure
drop
across
a
wet
scrubber)
during
compliance
testing
to
"
detune"
collection
efficiency
and
increase
emissions.
In
addition,
these
other
control
devices
provide
"
percent
reduction"
control
of
pollutants
whereby
as
inlet
loading
increases,
emission
concentrations
also
increase.
Thus,
increasing
the
inlet
loading
(
e.
g.,
by
spiking
the
ash
feedrate
to
an
incinerator)
even
without
detuning
the
control
device
would
also
increase
emissions
of
particulate
matter
for
devices
other
than
a
fabric
filter.
variability
because
it
is
difficult
to
maximize
emissions
during
the
compliance
test.
67
Fabric
filters
control
particulate
matter
emissions
generally
to
the
same
concentration
irrespective
of
the
particulate
matter
loading
at
the
inlet
to
the
fabric
filter.
Because
there
are
no
operating
parameters
that
can
be
readily
changed
to
increase
emissions,
it
is
difficult
to
maximize
emissions
of
particulate
matter
from
a
fabric
filter
during
compliance
testing.
68
To
address
long­
term
variability
in
particulate
matter
emissions
for
fabric
filters
we
developed
a
universal
variability
factor
(
UVF).
The
UVF
represents
the
standard
deviation
of
the
pooled
runs
from
multiple
compliance
tests
for
a
source,
and
is
imputed
as
a
function
of
the
source's
emission
concentration.
We
use
the
UVF
to
account
for
both
long­
term
and
run­
to­
run
variability
to
calculate
the
floor
using
the
procedures
discussed
above
in
lieu
of
the
pooled
variability
term
for
the
most­
recent
test
condition
run
variability.
To
develop
the
data
base
to
calculate
the
UVF,
we
considered
each
best
performing
source
that
is
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter
and
for
which
we
have
two
or
more
compliance
tests
for
particulate
matter.
We
considered
all
compliance
test
particulate
matter
emissions
data
for
these
sources,
including
those
test
conditions
we
previously
labeled
as
"
IB"
(
representing
in­
between),
indicating
that
emissions
levels
are
lower
than
for
another
test
condition
of
the
compliance
test
campaign.
We
include
historical
test
campaign
data
where
available
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Considering
historical
compliance
test
data
and
compliance
test
data
labeled
IB
is
appropriate
because
any
differences
in
emission
levels
(
over
time
or
among
compliance
test
results
for
a
test
campaign)
should
be
indicative
of
emissions
variability
given
that
fabric
filters
generally
produce
constant
emission
concentrations
and
are
difficult
to
detune
to
increase
emissions
for
compliance
testing.
Finally,
we
combined
test
conditions
for
multiple
onsite
sources
where
both
the
combustor
and
fabric
filter
have
similar
design
and
operating
characteristics.
Combining
the
test
conditions
for
such
sources
as
if
they
represent
emissions
from
a
single
source
better
accounts
for
emissions
variability.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

69
The
procedure
we
use
to
identify
the
universal
variability
factor
for
particulate
matter
emissions
for
sources
equipped
with
fabric
filters
is
discussed
in
detail
in
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
Please
note
that
we
consider
alternative
approaches
to
identify
the
universal
variability
factor
as
discussed
in
the
technical
support
document,
and
request
comment
on
those
alternatives.
To
calculate
the
UVF,
we
calculated
the
pooled
standard
deviation
of
the
runs
for
each
source
for
which
we
have
data
for
two
or
more
compliance
tests
and
plotted
this
standard
deviation
versus
particulate
matter
emission
concentration
for
all
such
sources.
It
is
reasonable
to
aggregate
the
data
for
sources
across
all
source
categories
given
that
there
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
the
standard
deviation/
emissions
relationship
would
vary
from
source
category
to
source
category.
We
then
identified
the
best­
fit
curve
for
the
data.
The
best
fit
curve
is
a
power
function
that
achieved
a
R2
of
0.83,
indicating
a
good
power
function
correlation
between
standard
deviation
and
emission
concentration.
69
We
use
the
best­
fit
curve
to
impute
a
standard
deviation
for
each
best
performing
source
(
that
is
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter)
as
a
function
of
the
source's
particulate
matter
emissions.
We
use
the
source's
average
compliance
test
emissions
(
i.
e.,
including
historical
compliance
test
emissions
that
we
label
in
the
data
base
as
"
WC"
and
"
IB")
to
represent
average
emissions.
F.
Why
Did
EPA
Default
to
the
Interim
Standards
When
Establishing
Floors?
When
we
calculate
floor
levels
for
several
standards
for
the
Phase
I
sources,
the
floor
levels
would
be
higher
than
the
currently
applicable
interim
standards
at
§
§
63.1203,
63.1204,
and
63.1205.
As
explained
earlier,
we
conclude
that
today's
proposed
floor
levels
can
be
no
higher
than
the
interim
standards
because
all
sources,
not
just
the
best
performing
sources,
are
achieving
the
interim
standards.
The
most
recent
emissions
data
in
our
data
base
are
from
compliance
testing
in
2001
and
do
not
represent
emissions
tests
from
sources
used
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
interim
standards,
thus
the
data
we
used
to
calculate
the
proposed
floor
levels
generally
does
not
reflect
the
control
upgrades
necessary
for
compliance
with
the
interim
standards.
The
fact
that
we
are
"
capping"
the
floor
at
the
interim
standard
level
does
not
mean
our
proposed
methodology
is
less
conservative
than
the
methodology
used
in
the
1999
rule.
Our
calculated
floor
levels
can
be
higher
than
the
interim
standards
for
several
reasons.
As
a
result
of
our
data
collection
effort,
we
have
compiled
more
emissions
information
from
some
source
categories
that
result
in
higher
calculated
floor
levels
(
e.
g.,
dioxin/
furans
for
lightweight
aggegate
kilns).
Some
of
the
instances
where
we
"
capped"
the
floor
at
the
interim
standard
level
occurred
when
the
interim
standard
was
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
promulgated
in
1999
(
e.
g.,
semivolatile
metals
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns).
Finally,
some
standards
are
"
capped"
because
we
used
different
types
of
data
to
calculate
the
proposed
floors
(
e.
g.,
the
1999
rule
generally
considered
normal
mercury
data
to
establish
the
mercury
floor
for
incinerators,
whereas
today's
proposed
approach
used
compliance
test
data
to
calculate
the
mercury
floor).
G.
What
Other
Options
Did
EPA
Consider?
We
considered
four
other
alternative
approaches
to
establish
the
full
suite
of
floor
levels
for
each
source
category.
The
first
two
alternative
options
use
different
combinations
of
the
three
main
methodology
options
to
determine
the
proposed
floors.
Note
that
we
also
conducted
a
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

complete
economics
and
benefits
analysis
for
these
first
two
alternative
options.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs,"
March,
2004
for
more
information.
The
third
option
identifies
best
performing
sources
by
considering
emissions
of
metals
and
particulate
matter
simultaneously,
instead
of
pollutant
by
pollutant.
Finally,
the
fourth
option
is
an
approach
recommended
by
the
Environmental
Treatment
Council.
After
review
of
comments
we
may
use
one
or
more
of
these
approaches
in
toto
or
part
to
establish
final
standards.
We
explain
below
how
these
approaches
work
and
the
rationale
for
considering
them.
1.
What
is
Alternative
Option
1,
and
What
is
the
Rationale?
Under
alternative
option
1,
we
do
not
use
the
SRE/
Feed
methodology
to
calculate
any
floors.
We
use
the
emissions­
based
approach
to
establish
all
the
floors,
other
than
the
exceptions
that
are
explained
below.
We
express
emission
standards
for
energy
recovery
units
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
when
appropriate.
All
other
emission
standards
under
this
approach
are
expressed
as
stack
gas
emission
concentrations.
The
two
exceptions
under
this
option
uses
the
technology­
based
approach
for
the
particulate
matter
standard
(
for
all
source
categories)
and
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
as
was
done
for
today's
proposed
standards.
We
evaluated
this
option
because
it
is
simpler
and
more
straightforward
to
use
than
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
best
performing
sources
simply
are
those
with
the
lowest
emissions
in
our
data
base,
irrespective
of
the
level
of
feed
control
or
back­
end
control
a
source
achieves.
The
advantages
of
using
the
air
pollution
control
technology
approach
and
expressing
emission
standards
using
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
for
energy
recovery
units
are
retained.
Although
we
have
doubts
that
standards
based
on
these
limits
are
achievable
even
by
the
best
performing
sources
(
as
noted
earlier)
and
that
this
approach
could
be
based
on
unrepresentatively
low
hazardous
waste
feedrates,
we
invite
comment
as
to
whether
this
approach
is
appropriate.
We
present
the
results
of
using
alternative
option
1
to
identify
floor
levels
for
existing
sources
in
Table
3
below.
See
U.
S.
EPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004
for
more
information.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
3.
Floor
Levels
for
Existing
Sources
under
Alternative
Option
1
Incinerators
Cement
Kilns
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers1
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers1
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces1
Dioxin/
Furans
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
0.28
for
dry
APCD
and
WHB
sources;
6
0.20
or
0.40+
400

F
at
APCD
inlet
for
others
7
0.20
or
0.40
+
400

F
at
APCD
inlet
7
0.20
or
400

F
at
kiln
outlet
7
CO
or
THC
standard
as
a
surrogate
3.0
for
dry
APCD
sources;
CO
or
THC
standard
as
surrogate
for
others
CO
or
THC
standard
as
a
surrogate
Mercury
130
ug/
dscm
7
31
ug/
dscm
2
19
ug/
dscm
2
10
ug/
dscm
3.7E­
6
lb/
MMBtu
2,5
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Particulate
Matter
0.015
gr/
dscf
7
0.028
gr/
dscf
0.025
gr/
dscf
7
0.063
gr/
dscf
0.032
gr/
dscf
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Semivolatile
Metals
(
lead
+
cadmium)
19
ug/
dscm
1.3E­
4
lB/
MMBtu
5
3.1E­
4
lb/
MMBtu5
and
250
ug/
dscm3
170
ug/
dscm
1.1E­
5
lb/
MMBtu
2,5
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Low
Volatile
Metals
(
arsenic
+
beryllium
+

chromium)
14
ug/
dscm
1.1E­
5
lbs/
MMBtu
5
9.5E­
5
lb/
MMBtu5
and
110
ug/
dscm3
210
ug/
dscm
7.7E­
5
lbMMBtu
4,5
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Total
Chlorine
(
hydrogen
chloride
+
chlorine
gas)
0.93
ppmv
41
ppmv
600
ppmv
7
440
ppmv
5.7E­
3
lb/
MMBtu
5
14
ppmv
or
99.9927%

system
removal
efficiency
Notes:

1
Particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
total
chlorine
standards
apply
to
major
sources
only
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.

2
Standard
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.

3
Sources
must
comply
with
both
the
thermal
emissions
and
emission
concentration
standards.

4
Low
volatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
for
chromium
only.
Arsenic
and
beryllium
are
not
included
in
the
low
volatile
metal
total
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.

5
Standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.

6
APCD
denotes
"
air
pollution
control
device",
WHB
denotes
"
waste
heat
boiler".

7
Floor
level
represents
the
"
capped
interim
standard
level",
which
means
the
floor
level
determined
by
the
associated
methodology
was
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
level.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

2.
What
is
Alternative
Option
2,
and
What
is
the
Rationale?
Under
alternative
option
2,
we
use
the
emissions­
based
approach
to
establish
all
floors
and
there
are
no
exceptions.
All
floor
levels
are
expressed
in
units
of
stack
gas
concentrations
(
we
do
not
express
any
floors
for
energy
recovery
units
in
terms
of
thermal
emissions).
The
best
performing
sources
for
all
floors
are
those
with
the
lowest
emissions,
on
a
stack
gas
concentration
basis.
We
are
not
proposing
this
alternative
option
because
it
has
the
disadvantages
that
the
more
complicated
provisions
of
Option
1
(
and
to
some
extent
Option
2)
address:
(
1)
by
not
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
for
metals
and
total
chlorine,
it
does
not
ensure
that
sources
could
use
either
feedrate
control
or
back­
end
control
to
achieve
the
floor;
(
2)
the
approach
may
be
inappropriately
biased
against
sources
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuel
at
high
firing
rates
because
it
does
not
express
the
standards
in
units
of
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions;
(
3)
it
inappropriately
considers
feed
control
for
particulate
matter
and
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
by
not
using
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Device
Approach
for
those
floors;
and
(
4)
it
may
not
appropriately
estimate
the
performance
of
the
average
of
the
12
percent
best
performing
sources
given
that
those
best
performers
may
have
low
emissions
in
part
because
their
raw
material
and/
or
fossil
fuels
contained
low
levels
of
HAP
during
the
emissions
test
(
and
because
we
do
not
believe
feed
control
of
HAP
in
raw
material
and
fossil
fuel
should
be
assessed
as
a
MACT
floor
control
because
it
could
result
in
floor
levels
that
are
not
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources,
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources).
We
invite
comment
as
to
whether
this
alternative
approach
is
appropriate,
noting
the
doubts
we
have
voiced
above.
We
present
the
results
of
using
this
alternative
option
2
to
identify
floor
levels
for
existing
sources
in
Table
4
below.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
more
information.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
4.
Floor
Levels
for
Existing
Sources
under
Alternative
Option
2
Incinerators
Cement
Kilns
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers1
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers1
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces1
Dioxin/
Furans
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
0.28
for
dry
APCD
and
WHB
sources;
5
0.20
or
0.40+
400

F
at
APCD
inlet
for
others
6
0.20
or
0.40
+
400

F
at
APCD
inlet
6
0.20
or
400

F
at
kiln
outlet
6
CO
or
THC
standard
as
a
surrogate
3.0
for
dry
APCD
sources;
CO
or
THC
standard
as
surrogate
for
others
CO
or
THC
standard
as
a
surrogate
Mercury
130
ug/
dscm
6
31
ug/
dscm
2
19
ug/
dscm
2
10
ug/
dscm
0.47
ug/
dscm
2
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Particulate
Matter
0.0040
gr/
dscf
0.016
gr/
dscf
0.025
gr/
dscf
6
0.065
gr/
dscf
0.0028
gr/
dscf
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Semivolatile
Metals
(
lead
+
cadmium)
19
ug/
dscm
68
ug/
dscm
130
ug/
dscm
170
ug/
dscm
8.7
ug/
dscm
2
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Low
Volatile
Metals
(
arsenic
+
beryllium
+

chromium)
14
ug/
dscm
8.9
ug/
dscm
82
ug/
dscm
210
ug/
dscm
28
ug/
dscm
4
Total
chlorine
standard
as
surrogate
Total
Chlorine
(
hydrogen
chloride
+
chlorine
gas)
0.93
ppmv
41
ppmv
600
ppmv
6
440
ppmv
2.4
ppmv
2.0
ppmv
Notes:

1
Particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
low
volatile
metal,
and
total
chlorine
standards
apply
to
major
sources
only
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.

2
Standard
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.

3
Sources
must
comply
with
both
the
thermal
emissions
and
emission
concentration
standards.

4
Low
volatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
for
chromium
only.
Arsenic
and
beryllium
are
not
included
in
the
low
volatile
metal
total
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.

5
APCD
denotes
"
air
pollution
control
device",
WHB
denotes
"
waste
heat
boiler".

6
Floor
level
represents
the
"
capped
interim
standard
level",
which
means
the
floor
level
determined
by
the
associated
methodology
was
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
level.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

3.
What
is
Alternative
Option
3,
and
What
is
the
Rationale?
Under
alternative
option
3,
we
evaluated
an
approach
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
for
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals
that
considers
how
well
a
source
is
controlling
these
pollutants
simultaneously.
Simultaneous
control
of
these
pollutants
is
an
appropriate
consideration
because
these
pollutants
are
controlled
by
the
same
emission
control
device,
the
particulate
matter
control
device
(
e.
g.,
a
wet
scrubber,
electrostatic
precipitator,
or
fabric
filter).
We
call
this
alternative
approach
the
Simultaneous
Achievability
for
Particulates
(
SAP)
Approach.
See
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
We
evaluated
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
emissions
for
energy
recovery
sources­­
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler­­
under
two
emissions­
based
SAP
alternatives:
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
and
stack
gas
concentrations.
The
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
option
assesses
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
thermal
emissions
for
energy
recovery
units,
while
assessing
particulate
matter
using
the
emissions­
based
stack
gas
concentration
approach.
The
emissions­
based
stack­
gas
concentration
approach
assesses
stack
gas
concentrations
(
as
opposed
to
thermal
emissions)
for
all
HAP.
Note
that
we
did
not
evaluate
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
under
this
SAP
approach
because
we
propose
to
use
the
total
chlorine
standard
as
a
surrogate
to
control
emissions
of
particulate
matter
and
metals
for
these
sources.
Under
the
SAP
approach,
we
rank
emissions
for
each
pollutant
across
the
sources
for
which
we
have
emissions
data
for
that
pollutant.
For
ranking,
we
use
the
upper
99%
confidence
interval
for
the
average
of
the
runs
of
the
test
condition
for
a
source.
For
example,
if
we
have
semivolatile
metal
emissions
data
for
15
sources,
the
lowest
semivolatile
metal
emissions
level
is
ranked
one
and
the
highest
is
ranked
15.
To
identify
the
best
performing
sources
for
all
three
pollutants
simultaneously,
we
calculate
an
aggregate
rank
score
for
each
source.
For
example,
if
source
A
has
a
rank
of
5
for
particulate
matter,
a
rank
of
10
for
semivolatile
metals,
a
rank
of
15
for
low
volatile
metals,
the
aggregate
rank
score
for
that
source
is
10,
the
average
rank
across
the
pollutants.
If
we
do
not
have
emissions
data
for
a
pollutant
for
a
source,
there
is
no
rank
score
for
that
pollutant,
and
that
pollutant
is
not
considered
in
the
aggregate
rank
score
for
the
source.
To
identify
the
best
performing
sources
in
the
aggregate,
we
rank
the
aggregate
rank
scores
for
the
sources
from
lowest
to
highest.
If
we
have
emissions
data
for
all
three
pollutants
for
all
sources,
the
5
(
or
12%
if
we
have
data
for
more
than
30
sources)
sources
with
the
lowest
aggregate
rank
scores
are
the
best
performing
sources.
If
we
have
incomplete
data
sets
for
some
sources
for
a
source
category,
the
best
performing
sources
for
a
pollutant
(
i.
e.,
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metals,
or
low
volatile
metals)
are
the
sources
with
the
lowest
aggregate
rank
scores
and
for
which
we
have
emissions
data.
We
present
the
alternative
MACT
floors
for
existing
sources
under
the
SAP
approach
in
Table
5
below.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

70
Update
on
MACT
Floor
Evaluations
Revised
Data
Base,
Environmental
Technology
Council,
February
2003.
Table
5.
Floor
Levels
for
Existing
Sources
Under
the
SAP
Approach
Source
Category
Emissions­
Based
Approach
Particulate
Matter
Floor
(
gr/
dscf)
Semivolatile
Metals
Floor
Low
Volatile
Metals
Floor
Incinerators
Stack
Gas
Conc.
0.0040
53
ug/
dscm
50
ug/
dscm
Cement
Kilns
Thermal
Emissions
0.027
190
lb/
trillion
Btu
20
lb/
trillion
Btu
Stack
Gas
Conc.
0.015
103
ug/
dscm
14
ug/
dscm
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Thermal
Emissions
0.019
300
lb/
trillion
Btu
95
lb/
trillion
Btu
Stack
Gas
Conc.
0.019
120
ug/
dscm
89
ug/
dscm
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
Stack
Gas
Conc.
0.090
180
ug/
dscm
230
ug/
dscm
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
Thermal
Emissions
0.0039
81
lb/
trillion
Btu
180
lb/
trillion
Btu
Stack
Gas
Conc.
0.0039
26
ug/
dscm
210
ug/
dscm
We
request
comment
on
this
alternative
approach
for
identifying
MACT
floors.
If
we
use
this
approach
in
the
final
rule
to
identify
MACT
floors,
we
would
promulgate
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
particulate
matter
of
0.030
gr/
dscf
for
existing
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
for
the
same
reasons
we
are
proposing
today
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard.
See
Part
Two,
Section
X.
C
for
a
discussion
of
today's
proposed
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
See
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
this
SAP
analysis.
4.
What
is
Alternative
Option
4,
and
What
is
the
Rationale?
The
Environmental
Technology
Council
(
ETC)
recommends
an
approach
to
calculate
floor
levels
for
metals
and
chlorine
that
uses
a
low
feedrate
screen
and
addresses
emissions
variability
differently
than
the
options
we
evaluated.
70
We
may
use
this
approach
in
total
or
in
part
to
support
a
final
rule,
and
therefore
request
comment
on
the
approach.
Under
ETC's
approach,
test
conditions
are
screened
from
further
consideration
if
metals
or
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

71
This
approach
therefore
identifies
a
de
minimis
feed
control
level
for
each
source
category
and
does
not
evaluate
emissions
from
these
de
minimus
feeders
in
the
MACT
analysis
because
these
de
minimis
feed
control
levels
may
not
be
feasible
for
other
sources
to
duplicate.
The
screen
is
performed
individually
by
pollutant
so
that
if
semivolatile
metals
were
fed
at
rates
that
challenged
the
emissions
control
system
but
low
volatile
metals
were
not,
only
the
low
volatile
metal
emissions
data
for
that
test
condition
would
be
screened
from
further
analysis.

72
This
low
feed
screen
is
not
applied
to
cement
kilns
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
for
the
particulate
matter
standard
because
ash
feedrate
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dominant
factor
that
influences
particulate
matter
emissions
(
rather,
particulate
matter
emissions
are
more
a
function
of
the
back­
end
control
device
efficiency).
chlorine
were
not
fed
at
levels
that
challenge
the
emissions
control
system.
71
Feedrates
of
metals
and
chlorine
in
hazardous
waste
are
normalized
to
account
for
size
of
the
combustor
by
converting
feedrates
to
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentrations.
A
low
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
filter
is
used
to
screen
out
emissions
from
low
feed
test
conditions,
where
the
filter
is
the
lower
99%
confidence
limit
of
the
mean
of
the
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentrations
for
all
test
conditions
for
all
sources
within
a
source
category.
ETC's
approach
also
excludes
specialty
units,
defined
as
sources
that
burn
munitions
and
radiological
waste
(
i.
e.,
Department
of
Defense
and
Department
of
Energy
sources).
ETC
believes
that
these
sources
burn
wastes
with
atypical
concentrations
of
ash
and
metals
that
may
inappropriately
skew
the
calculation
of
floor
levels.
Under
this
approach,
we
would
either
subcategorize
and
issue
separate
emission
standards
for
these
specialty
units,
or
omit
these
speciality
units
from
the
MACT
analysis
and
require
the
specialty
units
to
comply
with
the
floor
levels
that
are
determined
from
emissions
of
the
non­
specialty
units.
After
applying
the
low
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
filter
and
excluding
specialty
units,
this
approach
identifies
the
best
performing
sources
by
ranking
emissions
from
lowest
to
highest.
72
Run
variability
is
not
considered
at
this
point.
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
where
we
may
have
historical
compliance
test
emissions
from
several
test
campaigns
for
a
source,
test
conditions
from
the
campaign
with
the
lowest
compliance
test
emissions
are
used
to
identify
the
best
performers.
The
average
of
the
emissions
from
the
best
performing
sources
are
used
to
calculate
the
floor,
and
an
emissions
variability
factor
is
added.
For
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
where
we
may
have
historical
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
several
test
campaigns
for
a
source,
three
approaches
are
considered
to
select
representative
emissions
for
each
best
performing
source:
(
1)
the
highest
compliance
test
emissions
from
any
test
campaign;
(
2)
the
average
of
the
highest
compliance
test
emissions
from
all
test
campaigns;
and
(
3)
the
highest
emissions
during
the
most
recent
compliance
test
campaign.
By
identifying
the
best
performers
based
on
compliance
test
emissions
from
the
test
campaign
with
the
lowest
emissions
and
calculating
the
floor
using
compliance
test
emissions
under
these
alternative
approaches,
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

73
This
approach
for
partially
accounting
for
emissions
variability
is
effective
only
for
those
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
for
which
we
have
emissions
data
for
more
than
one
test
campaign.

74
We
do
not
use
this
step
in
our
statistical
analysis
because
we
identify
one
test
condition
only
as
being
representative
of
the
emissions
for
each
source.
Alternatively,
ETC's
approach
includes
an
option
where
the
average
of
the
historical
compliance
test
conditions
is
considered
for
Phase
I
sources.
Under
this
option,
ETC's
approach
considers
the
average
run­
torun
variability
for
those
historical
compliance
test.

75
Note
that
we
modified
part
of
ETC's
suggested
methodology
in
some
instances,
which
has
resulted
in
our
calculated
floor
levels
to
differ
from
ETC's
calculated
floor
levels.
These
modifications
are
discussed
in
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
emissions
variability
is
addressed
in
part.
73
Emissions
variability
is
accounted
for
by
adding
an
emissions
variability
factor
to
the
average
emissions
for
the
best
performing
sources.
The
variability
factor
is
a
measure
of
the
average
run­
to­
run
variability
for
the
test
conditions
for
the
best
performing
sources.
The
variability
factor
is
determined
as
the
upper
confidence
limit
(
calculated
at
the
99%
confidence
interval)
around
the
mean
of
the
runs
for
each
test
condition
for
each
best
performer.
(
For
sources
with
more
than
one
compliance
test
condition,
the
variability
factor
for
each
source
is
first
determined
as
the
average
of
the
variabilities
associated
with
each
compliance
test
condition).
74
The
upper
confidence
limits
are
averaged
across
the
best
performing
sources,
and
the
average
confidence
limit
is
added
to
the
average
emissions
from
the
best
performers
to
identify
the
floor.
We
invite
comment
as
to
whether
this
alternative
approach
is
appropriate.
We
calculated
alternative
floor
levels
for
new
and
existing
sources
with
minor
adjustments.
75
We
present
the
results
of
applying
that
approach
in
Table
6
below.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004
for
more
information
on
how
we
applied
this
approach
to
our
data
base.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
6.
Floor
Levels
for
Existing
Sources
under
the
Modified
ETC
Approach
Data
Base
Incinerators
Cement
Kilns
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
Solid
Fuel­

Fired
Boilers
Liquid
Fuel­

Fired
Boilers
All
Excluding
speciality
units
Mercury
(
ug/
dscm)
Avg
of
historical
CT
data
130
(
308)
1
130
(
308)
1
48
37
14
4.8
Most
recent
CT
data
130
(
308)
1
130
(
308)
1
40
31
Highest
of
historical
CT
data
130
(
308)
1
130
(
308)
1
68
45
Particulate
Matter
(
gr/
dscf)
Avg
of
historical
CT
data
0.0043
0.0043
0.025
0.017
0.11
0.0090
Most
recent
CT
data
0.0043
0.0043
0.025
0.017
Highest
of
historical
CT
data
0.0043
0.0043
0.030
(
0.032)
1
0.017
Semivolatile
Metals
(
ug/
dscm)
Avg
of
historical
CT
data
53
32
230
250
(
901)
1
230
8.2
Most
recent
CT
data
53
32
160
250
(
746)
1
Highest
of
historical
CT
data
53
32
300
250
(
1208)
1
Low
Volatile
Metals
(
ug/
dscm)
Avg
of
historical
CT
data
39
46
51
110
(
119)
1
320
52
Most
recent
CT
data
39
36
42
110
(
129)
1
Highest
of
historical
CT
data
39
56
561
110
(
133)
1
Total
Chlorine
(
ppmv)
Avg
of
historical
CT
data
1.4
1.8
85
600
(
1655)
1
410
3.2
Most
recent
CT
data
1.4
1.8
86
600
(
1811)
1
Highest
of
historical
CT
data
1.4
1.8
89
600
(
1823)
1
Notes:
"
CT"
means
Compliance
Test.

1
Floor
would
be
capped
by
the
Interim
Standards.
Number
in
parentheses
represents
the
calculated
floor
level,
the
number
preceding
is
the
"
capped"

interim
standard
level.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

76
We
note
that
an
SRE
option,
in
some
form,
could
be
added
to
any
of
the
emissionbased
approaches
previously
discussed.

77
Note
that
we
only
considered
SREs
associated
with
emission
values
designated
as
compliance
test
(
CT)
in
the
database.
See
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004,
for
more
information..

78
Although
the
alkalinity
in
cement
kiln
raw
materials
helps
control
total
chlorine
emissions,
we
are
concerned
that
the
system
removal
efficiencies
achieved
may
not
be
readily
reproducible.
5.
What
Is
Alternative
Option
5,
and
What
Is
the
Rationale.
Alternative
Option
5
would
use
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
for
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chlorine
floor
levels.
This
is
similar
to
the
approach
we
propose
to
establish
the
total
chlorine
standard
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A.
2.
b.
Floor
levels
would
be
expressed
as
an
SRE
or
an
emission
concentration
where
the
emission
concentration
is
based
on
the
emissions
achieved
by
the
best
performing
SRE
sources.
76
A
source
could
elect
to
comply
with
either
floor.
An
emissions
floor
as
an
alternative
to
the
SRE
floor
is
appropriate
because
a
source
may
be
achieving
emission
levels
lower
than
those
achieved
by
the
best
performing
SRE
sources
even
though
it
may
not
be
achieving
MACT
floor
SRE.
For
example,
a
source
may
be
achieving
low
emissions
without
achieving
MACT
SRE
by
using
superior
feedrate
control.
The
SRE
floor
is
an
SRE
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
SRE
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
the
conditions
used
to
establish
the
SRE.
77
The
emissions
floor
is
a
stack
gas
concentration,
or
thermal
emission
concentration
for
source
categories
that
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels,
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
SRE
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
the
conditions
used
to
establish
the
SRE
and
emission
level.
We
note
that
this
approach
is
not
applicable
for
situations
where
sources
in
a
source
category
do
not
use
back­
end
control
to
control
metals
or
total
chlorine.
For
example,
cement
kilns
do
not
use
back­
end
control
to
control
mercury
or
total
chlorine.
78
This
approach
is
also
not
applicable
for
situations
where
our
data
base
is
comprised
of
normal
emissions
data.
As
discussed
previously,
SREs
calculated
from
normal
test
conditions
may
be
unreliable
because
a
small
error
in
the
feedrate
calculation
at
low
feedrates
can
have
a
substantial
impact
on
the
calculated
SRE.
In
situations
where
this
SRE­
based
approach
is
not
applicable,
we
would
use
an
alternative
approach
to
identify
MACT
floor,
such
as
the
Emissions
approach.
Floor
levels
for
existing
sources
under
this
approach
are
presented
in
Table
7.
We
also
investigated
a
variation
of
this
approach
where
sources
with
atypically
high
feedrates
for
metals
or
chlorine
are
excluded
from
the
calculation
of
the
alternative
emission
level.
This
variation
may
be
appropriate
to
ensure
that
sources
with
high
feedrates
do
not
drive
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

79
Since
sources
with
atypically
high
feedrates
may
still
have
low
emissions,
sources
with
hazardous
waste
feed
control
levels
above
the
threshold
are
flagged,
but
not
immediately
removed
from
the
data
set.
Sources'
SREs
are
ranked
from
best
to
worst,
initially
choosing
the
best
ranked
5
or
12
%
of
sources
as
the
interim
the
MACT
pool.
The
remaining
sources
are
temporarily
set
aside,
and
the
sources
comprising
the
interim
MACT
pool
are
ranked
again
from
lowest
to
highest
emissions.
Sources
from
the
interim
MACT
pool
that
have
been
flagged
due
to
having
feedrates
above
the
upper
99th
percentile
are
systematically
(
from
highest
to
lowest
emissions)
removed
from
the
MACT
pool
and
replaced
with
sources
with
the
next
highest
ranked
SREs
if
the
emissions
from
the
next
best
source
initially
excluded
from
the
interim
MACT
pool
has
lower
emissions.
The
sources
comprising
the
revised
interim
MACT
pool
now
become
the
final
MACT
pool.
Emissions
from
those
sources
are
again
used
to
calculate
the
MACT
floor,
with
the
resulting
MACT
floor
again
expressed
as
an
emission
standard.
alternative
emission
concentration­
based
floor
inappropriately
high
even
though
the
source
may
be
a
best
performing
SRE
source.
Under
this
variation,
note
that
sources
with
high
feedrates
are
used,
however,
to
identify
the
best
performing
SRE
sources
and
MACT
SRE.
This
is
because
sources
with
the
highest
feedrates
may
employ
the
best
performing
back­
end
control
systems
to
meet
current
standards
or
otherwise
control
emissions.
As
a
measure
of
atypically
high
feedrates,
we
use
the
99th
upper
percentile
feedrate
around
the
mean
of
feedrate
data
in
the
data
set
available
for
the
analysis.
To
ensure
that
we
continue
to
use
5
sources
or
12
percent
of
sources
to
calculate
the
emission
concentration­
based
floor
under
this
variation,
we
replace
a
best
performing
SRE
source
that
is
screened
out
of
the
concentration­
based
floor
analysis
because
of
high
feedrates
with
the
source
with
the
next
best
SRE.
79
Floor
levels
for
existing
sources
under
this
feedrate­
screened
variation
are
presented
in
Table
8.
We
invite
comment
on
these
alternative
floor
approaches.
For
more
information
on
how
the
approach
would
work,
see
USEPA
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
7.
Floor
Levels
for
Existing
Sources
under
Alternative
Option
5
Source
Category
Mercury
Semivolatile
Metals
Low
Volatile
Metals
Total
Chlorine
SRE1
Emissions
SRE1
Emission
Concentration
SRE1
Emission
Concentration
SRE1
Emission
Concentration
Stack
Gas2
Thermal
3
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Incinerators
27
20,0009
n/
a8
99.89
74
n/
a8
99.969
33
n/
a8
99.990
3.1
n/
a8
Cement
Kilns
n/
a
4,5
99.966
71
140
99.989
11
22
n/
a
4,5
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
n/
a
4,6
99.78
330
310
99.89
100
95
n/
a
4,6
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
11
n/
a8
99.78
180
n/
a8
97.9
230
n/
a8
n/
a
4,5
Liquid
Fuel­

Fired
Boilers
n/
a
4
n/
a
4
90.47
277
457
99.70
25
55
1
SRE
is
system
removal
efficiency
expressed
as
a
percent.

2
Stack
gas
concentration
is
expressed
in
ug/
dscm
for
all
except
total
chlorine,
which
is
expressed
as
ppmv.

3
Thermal
emission
is
expressed
in
lb/
trillion
Btu,
except
total
chlorine
which
is
expressed
in
lb/
billion
Btu.

4
Unable
to
determine
SRE
due
to
normal
feedrate
data.

5
No
SRE
due
to
no
reliable
back­
end
control.

6
Only
one
source
has
back­
end
control.

7
LVM
Standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
for
Chromium,
only.

8
Thermal
emissions
not
appropriate
for
source
categories
with
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels.

9
We
believe
this
methodology
yields
inappropriate
MACT
mercury
floors
for
incinerators
because
we
have
only
11
compliance
test
conditions,
and
the
best
performers
spiked
uncharacteristically
high
levels
of
mercury
during
the
their
compliance
test.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Table
8.
Floor
Levels
for
Existing
Sources
under
Alternative
Option
5
with
High
Feedrate
Screen
Source
Category
Mercury
Semivolatile
Metals
Low
Volatile
Metals
Total
Chlorine
SRE1
Emissions
SRE1
Emission
Concentration
SRE1
Emission
Concentration
SRE1
Emission
Concentration
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Stack
Gas2
Thermal3
Incinerators
27
7,500
9
n/
a8
99.89
64
n/
a8
99.969
29
n/
a8
99.990
1.3
n/
a8
Cement
Kilns
n/
a
4,5
99.966
65
130
99.989
11
18
n/
a
4,5
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
n/
a
4,6
99.78
330
310
99.89
100
95
n/
a
4,6
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers
11
n/
a8
99.78
180
n/
a8
97.9
230
n/
a8
n/
a
4,5
Liquid
Fuel­

Fired
Boilers
n/
a
4
n/
a
4
90.47
277
1107
99.70
23
55
1
SRE
is
system
removal
efficiency
expressed
as
a
percent.

2
Stack
gas
concentration
is
expressed
in
ug/
dscm
for
all
except
total
chlorine,
which
is
expressed
as
ppmv.

3
Thermal
emission
is
expressed
in
lb/
trillion
Btu,
except
total
chlorine
which
is
expressed
in
lb/
billion
Btu.

4
Unable
to
determine
SRE
due
to
normal
feedrate
data.

5
No
SRE
due
to
no
reliable
back­
end
control.

6
Only
one
source
has
back­
end
control.

7
LVM
Standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
for
Chromium,
only.

8
Thermal
emissions
not
appropriate
for
source
categories
with
sources
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
fuels.

9
We
believe
this
methodology
yields
inappropriate
MACT
mercury
floors
for
incinerators
because
we
have
only
11
compliance
test
conditions,
and
the
best
performers
spiked
uncharacteristically
high
levels
of
mercury
during
the
their
compliance
test.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

VII.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Incinerators?
The
proposed
standards
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.
See
proposed
§
63.1203A.

PROPOSED
STANDARDS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
INCINERATORS
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
or
Surrogate
Emission
Standard1
Existing
Sources
New
Sources
Dioxin
and
furan
­
sources
equipped
with
waste
heat
boilers
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system2
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm
0.11
ng
TEQ/
dscm
Dioxin
and
furan
­
sources
not
equipped
with
waste
heat
boilers
or
dry
air
pollution
control
system2
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm;
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
temperature
at
inlet
to
the
initial
particulate
matter
control
device

400
°
F
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
Mercury
130
ug/
dscm
8.0
ug/
dscm
Particulate
matter
34
mg/
dscm
(
0.015
gr/
dscf)
1.6
mg/
dscm
(
0.00070
gr/
dscf)

Semivolatile
metals
59
ug/
dscm
6.5
ug/
dscm
Low
volatile
metals
84
ug/
dscm
8.9
ug/
dscm
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas3
1.5
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
0.18
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
Hydrocarbons4,5
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)

Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
For
existing
and
new
sources,
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
POHC.

1
All
emission
standards
are
corrected
to
7%
oxygen
dry
basis.
2
A
wet
air
pollution
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard.
A
dry
air
pollution
systems
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

80
A
source
with
a
wet
air
pollution
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard,
while
a
source
with
a
dry
air
pollution
system
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system.
In
addition,
we
note
that
a
spray
dryer
is
not
considered
to
be
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
subcategorization.
3
Combined
standard,
reported
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent.
4
Sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
5
Hourly
rolling
average.
Hydrocarbons
reported
as
propane.

A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
The
proposed
standards
for
dioxin/
furan
for
sources
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
and/
or
waste
heat
boilers
are
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
existing
sources
and
0.11
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
new
sources.
For
incinerators
using
either
wet
air
pollution
control
or
no
air
pollution
control
devices,
the
proposed
standards
for
dioxin/
furan
are
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
while
limiting
the
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
to
less
than
400
°
F
for
existing
sources
and
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
new
sources.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
for
existing
incinerators
are
currently
limited
by
§
63.1203(
a)(
1)
to
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm;
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
particulate
matter
control
device
is
limited
to
400
°
F
or
less.
(
For
purposes
of
compliance,
operation
of
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
presumed
to
meet
the
400
°
F
or
lower
requirement.)
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796,
February
13,
2002).
Since
promulgation
of
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
have
obtained
additional
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data.
We
now
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
over
55
sources.
The
emissions
in
our
data
base
range
from
less
than
0.001
to
34
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
II,
we
assessed
whether
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
and/
or
waste
heat
boilers
have
statistically
different
emissions
than
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment.
80
Our
statistical
analysis
indicates
dioxin/
furan
emissions
between
these
types
of
incinerators
are
significantly
different.
(
As
we
explained
there,
these
differences
relate
to
differences
in
dioxin/
furan
formation
mechanisms,
not
pollution
control
device
efficiency.)
Therefore,
we
believe
subcategorization
is
warranted
for
this
emission
standard
and
we
are
proposing
separate
floor
levels.
To
identify
the
floor
level
for
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
waste
heat
boilers,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
Emissions
Approach
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
The
calculated
floor
is
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
The
calculated
floor
level
of
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm
is
based
on
five
best
performing
sources
that
achieved
this
floor
level
either
by
the
use
of
temperature
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

81
One
source
uses
an
activated
carbon
injection
system,
and
the
other
uses
a
carbon
bed.

82
We
request
comment,
however,
on
whether
this
judgment
is
correct.
If
an
incinerator
is
operated
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
device
inlet
temperature
greater
than
400
°
F,
then
it
may
be
appropriate
to
instead
require
sources
to
comply
with
the
more
stringent
of
the
two
standards,
that
is,
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.

83
Use
of
"
good
combustion
practices"
does
not
necessarily
preclude
significant
dioxin/
furan
formation.
Our
data
base
suggests,
however,
that
incinerators
using
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
achieve
dioxin/
furan
emissions
less
than
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
See
USEPA,
"
Draft
control
at
the
inlet
to
dry
air
pollution
control
device
or
by
the
use
of
activated
carbon
injection.
The
single
best
performer
is
equipped
with
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
and
a
waste
heat
boiler,
and
uses
activated
carbon
injection,
good
combustion,
and
temperature
control
to
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
The
remaining
four
best
performers
are
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
systems
but
do
not
have
waste
heat
recovery
boilers.
Two
of
these
sources
use
activated
carbon,
good
combustion,
and
temperature
control
to
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
81
The
other
two
without
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
use
a
combination
of
good
combustion
and
temperature
control
to
control
emissions.
We
then
judged
the
relative
stringency
of
the
calculated
floor
level
to
the
interim
standard
to
determine
if
the
proposed
floor
level
needed
to
be
"
capped"
by
the
current
interim
standard
to
ensure
the
proposed
floor
level
is
not
less
stringent
than
an
existing
federal
emission
standard.
A
comparison
of
the
calculated
floor
level
of
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm
to
the
interim
standard
 
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
particulate
matter
control
device
is
limited
to
less
than
400
°
F
 
indicates
that
a
floor
level
of
0.28
ng
TEQ/
dscm
is
more
stringent
than
the
current
interim
standard.
This
judgment
is
based
on
our
belief
that
the
majority
of
these
incinerators
are
currently
complying
with
the
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
temperature
limitation
portion
of
the
interim
standard.
82
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
71%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
dioxin/
furan
emissions
by
0.28
grams
per
year.
We
also
considered
whether
to
further
subcategorize
based
on
whether
the
incinerator
is
equipped
with
a
waste
heat
recovery
boiler
or
dry
air
pollution
control
device.
Our
analysis
determined
that
the
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
incinerators
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
are
not
statistically
different
from
those
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
systems.
We
propose,
therefore,
that
further
subcategorization
is
not
necessary
given
that
incinerators
using
either
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
or
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
can
readily
achieve
the
calculated
floor
level
using
control
technologies
demonstrated
by
the
best
performing
sources.
For
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment,
but
are
not
equipped
with
a
heat
recovery
boiler,
we
contemplated
identifying
an
emission
limit
but
instead
rely
on
surrogates
for
control
of
organic
HAP,
namely
good
combustion
practices,
to
be
demonstrated
by
complying
with
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emissions
standard
and
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
83
We
believe
that
it
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

84
Even
though
all
sources
have
recently
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
interim
standards,
the
dioxin/
furan
data
in
our
data
base
preceded
the
compliance
demonstration.

85
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
would
be
inappropriate
to
establish
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
for
sources
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
systems
because
the
floor
emission
level
would
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources.
Dioxin/
furan
formation
mechanisms
are
complex.
Sources
with
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
devices
may
have
difficulty
complying
with
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
limit
that
is
based
on
the
lowest
emitting
dioxin/
furan
sources
within
this
subcategory
because
there
is
not
a
demonstrated
floor
control
technology
that
these
sources
can
use
to
"
dial
in"
to
achieve
a
given
emission
level.
Moreover,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
could
result
from
operation
under
poor
combustion
conditions
and
formation
on
particulate
matter
surfaces
in
duct
work,
on
heat
recovery
boiler
tubes,
and
on
particulates
entrained
in
the
combustion
gas
stream.
As
a
result,
we
would
instead
identify
floor
control
for
these
sources
to
be
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
by
complying
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standards.
Though
MACT
floor
for
these
units
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices,
there
is
a
regulatory
limit
which
is
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level.
Hazardous
waste
incinerators
are
complying
with
an
interim
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
 
an
emission
limit
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or,
alternatively,
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
particulate
matter
control
device
is
limited
to
400
°
F
or
less
 
that
fixes
a
level
of
performance
for
the
source
category.
Given
that
all
sources
are
meeting
this
interim
standard
and
that
the
interim
standard
is
judged
as
more
stringent
than
a
MACT
floor
of
"
good
combustion
practices,"
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
current
regulatory
limit.
84
Therefore,
the
proposed
floor
level
for
incinerators
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment
that
are
not
equipped
with
a
heat
recovery
boiler
is
either
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
provided
that
the
combustion
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
initial
particulate
matter
control
device
is
limited
to
400
°
F
or
less.
This
emission
level
is
currently
being
achieved
by
all
sources
because
the
interim
standard
is
an
enforceable
standard
currently
in
effect.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
based
on
the
use
of
control
technology
which
removes
dioxin/
furan,
namely
use
of
an
activated
carbon
injection
system
or
a
carbon
bed
system
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Activated
carbon
is
currently
used
at
three
incinerators
to
control
dioxin/
furan.
We
evaluated
a
beyond
the
floor
level
of
0.10
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
all
incinerators,
which
represents
a
65­
75%
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
the
floor
level.
We
selected
this
level
because
it
represents
a
level
that
is
considered
routinely
achievable
with
activated
carbon.
85
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

For
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
waste
heat
boilers,
the
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
these
sources
to
meet
the
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
2.2
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
floor
level
controls
of
0.5
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
carbon
beds
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
1,500
tons
per
year
in
addition
to
using
an
additional
3
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
hazardous
waste
treatment/
disposal
and
energy
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
4.4
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
and
carbon
bed
systems.
For
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment
that
are
not
equipped
with
a
heat
recovery
boiler,
the
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
these
sources
to
meet
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
would
be
approximately
$
3.9
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.35
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
700
tons
per
year.
The
option
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
2
million
kW­
hours
per
year
and
70
million
gallons
of
water
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
11
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
and
carbon
bed
systems.
0
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
for
new
incinerators
are
currently
limited
by
§
63.1203(
b)(
1)
to
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796,
February
13,
2002).
For
incinerators
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
waste
heat
boilers,
the
calculated
floor
level
is
0.11
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
using
the
Emissions
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
out
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
For
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment
that
are
not
equipped
with
a
heat
recovery
boiler,
as
previously
discussed
for
existing
sources,
we
believe
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
establish
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
floor
these
sources.
We
would
instead
identify
floor
control
for
these
sources
to
be
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
by
complying
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standards.
Though
MACT
floor
for
these
units
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices,
there
is
a
regulatory
limit
which
is
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level.
New
hazardous
waste
incinerators
are
subject
to
an
interim
emission
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Given
that
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

interim
standard
is
judged
more
stringent
than
a
MACT
floor
of
"
good
combustion
practices,"
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
current
regulatory
limit.
Therefore,
the
proposed
floor
level
for
incinerators
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment
that
are
not
equipped
with
a
heat
recovery
boiler
is
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
current
interim
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
as
the
floor
level
for
new
sources.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
based
on
the
use
of
a
carbon
bed
system
to
achieve
additional
removal
of
dioxin/
furan.
Given
the
relatively
low
dioxin/
furan
levels
at
the
floor,
we
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
a
carbon
bed
will
provide
an
additional
50%
dioxin/
furan
control.
We
applied
this
removal
efficiency
to
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
levels
to
identify
the
beyond­
the­
floor
levels.
For
a
new
incinerator
with
average
gas
flowrate
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
a
waste
heat
boiler,
the
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
to
meet
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.06
ng
TEQ/
dscm
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.22
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
floor
level
controls
of
0.013
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
17
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
bed
systems.
For
a
source
with
either
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
or
no
air
pollution
control
equipment
that
is
not
equipped
with
a
heat
recovery
boiler,
the
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
incinerator
with
an
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.10
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
be
approximately
$
0.22
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.024
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Considering
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
in
addition
to
costs
of
approximately
$
9.3
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
a
carbon
bed
system.
B.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
that
limit
emissions
of
mercury
to
130
ug/
dscm
and
8
ug/
dscm,
respectively.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Mercury
emissions
for
existing
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
130
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1203(
a)(
2).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
We
have
both
normal
emissions
data
and
compliance
test
and
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
over
50
sources.
For
several
sources,
we
have
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
test
campaign.
The
mercury
stack
emissions
in
our
data
base
range
from
less
than
1
to
35,000
ug/
dscm,
which
are
expressed
as
mass
of
mercury
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
To
identify
the
floor
level,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
610
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
Even
though
all
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

sources
have
recently
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
interim
standard
of
130
ug/
dscm,
all
the
mercury
emissions
data
in
our
data
base
precede
initial
compliance
with
these
interim
standards.
As
a
result,
the
calculated
floor
level
of
610
ug/
dscm
is
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard,
which
is
a
regulatory
limit
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
incinerators,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
level
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
130
ug/
dscm.
This
emission
level
is
currently
being
achieved
by
all
sources.
We
invite
comment
on
an
alternative
approach
to
identify
the
floor
level
using
available
normal
emissions
data
instead
of
the
compliance
test
data.
For
reasons
we
discussed
above
in
Part
Two,
our
floor­
setting
methodology
favors
compliance
test
data
over
normal
emissions
data.
However,
there
are
available
more
mercury
emissions
data
characterized
as
normal
 
over
40
test
conditions
 
than
the
eleven
compliance
test
results.
Given
that
the
data
base
includes
considerably
more
normal
emissions
than
compliance
test
data,
we
invite
comment
on
whether
the
floor
analysis
should
be
based
on
the
normal
emissions
data
instead
of
the
compliance
test
data.
The
floor
level
using
the
normal
data
is
7.8
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
an
approach,
we
would
require
sources
to
comply
with
the
limit
on
an
annual
basis
because
the
floor
analysis
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
Under
this
approach,
compliance
would
not
be
based
on
the
use
of
a
total
mercury
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
because
these
monitors
have
not
been
adequately
demonstrated
as
a
reliable
compliance
assurance
tool
at
all
types
of
incinerator
sources.
Instead,
a
source
would
maintain
compliance
with
the
mercury
standard
by
establishing
and
complying
with
limits
on
operating
parameters
(
e.
g.,
limit
on
maximum
total
mercury
feedrate
in
all
feedstreams)
on
an
annual
basis.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
activated
carbon
injection;
and
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyondthe
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Activated
carbon
injection
is
currently
being
used
at
three
incinerators
and
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
mercury
and
has
achieved
efficiencies
ranging
from
80%
to
greater
than
90%
depending
on
various
factors
such
as
injection
rate,
mercury
speciation
in
the
flue
gas,
flue
gas
temperature,
and
carbon
type.
Given
the
limited
experience
at
hazardous
waste
combustion
systems,
we
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
activated
carbon
will
provide
70%
mercury
control.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
39
ug/
dscm.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
7.1
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.39
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
1,800
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
5.8
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
hazardous
waste
treatment/
disposal
and
energy
impacts
are
accounted
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

86
Ideally,
a
methodology
to
estimate
costs
of
feed
control
should
consider
lost
revenues
associated
with
hazardous
wastes
not
fired
and
costs
to
implement
feed
control
of
metals
and
chlorine.
We
attempted
to
conduct
such
an
analysis;
however,
we
concluded
that
there
are
too
many
uncertainties
to
do
this
analysis.
Instead,
we
developed
an
alternative
approach
to
cost
feed
control
of
metals
and
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
based
on
the
assumption
that
a
source
would
not
implement
a
feed
control
strategy
if
the
costs
exceed
the
costs
to
retrofit
an
existing
air
pollution
control
device.
Thus,
our
cost
estimates
of
feed
control
represent
an
upper
bound
estimate
on
likely
costs
to
control
metals
or
chlorine
in
hazardous
waste.
See
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs,"
March
2004.
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
18
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
100
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
that
represents
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
(
beyond
feedrate
control
that
may
be
necessary
to
achieve
the
floor
level)
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
86
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.8
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.11
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
17
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
mercury
emissions
standard
of
130
ug/
dscm
for
existing
incinerators.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Mercury
emissions
from
new
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
45
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1203(
b)(
2).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
mercury
would
be
8
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
considering
compliance
test
data
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
As
we
did
for
existing
sources,
we
also
invite
comment
on
basing
the
floor
analysis
on
the
normal
emissions
data
using
the
Emissions
Approach.
The
floor
level
using
the
normal
data
is
0.70
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
an
approach,
we
would
require
sources
to
comply
with
the
limit
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
use
of
a
carbon
bed;
and
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Carbon
Bed
System.
We
evaluated
a
carbon
bed
system
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Given
the
relatively
low
floor
level,
we
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
a
carbon
bed
system
would
provide
50%
mercury
control.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
incinerator
with
average
gas
flow
rate
to
meet
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
4
ug/
dscm,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.22
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
of
approximately
2.1
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
200
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
a
carbon
bed
system.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
a
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
A
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
6.4
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
would
result
in
a
small
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
likewise
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
and
emission
reductions.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
mercury
standard
of
8
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
that
limit
emissions
of
particulate
matter
to
0.015
and
0.00070
gr/
dscf,
respectively.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Particulate
matter
emissions
for
existing
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
0.015
gr/
dscf
(
34
mg/
dscm)
by
§
63.1203(
a)(
7).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
particulate
matter
standard
is
a
surrogate
control
for
the
hazardous
air
pollutant
metals
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
nickel,
and
selenium.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
most
incinerators.
For
some
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Our
data
base
of
particulate
matter
stack
emission
concentrations
range
from
0.0002
to
0.078
gr/
dscf.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor
for
incinerators,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
0.020
gr/
dscf
(
46
mg/
dscm),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
The
calculated
floor
level
of
0.020
gr/
dscf
is
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
of
0.015
gr/
dscf,
which
is
a
regulatory
limit
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
incinerators,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
level
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
0.015
gr/
dscf.
This
emission
level
is
currently
being
achieved
by
all
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

sources.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
particulate
matter
control
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
17
mg/
dscm
(
0.0075
gr/
dscf).
For
an
existing
incinerator
that
needs
a
significant
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions,
we
assumed
and
costed
a
new
baghouse
to
achieve
the
beyond­
thefloor
level.
If
little
or
modest
emissions
reductions
were
needed,
then
improved
control
was
costed
as
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
modifications
of
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
equipment.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.9
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
of
48
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
48
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
2.7
million
kWhours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
81,000
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Particulate
matter
emissions
from
new
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
0.015
gr/
dscf
(
34
mg/
dscm)
by
§
63.1203(
b)(
7).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
particulate
matter
would
be
1.6
mg/
dscm
(
0.00070
gr/
dscf),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
emissions
control
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
1.2
mg/
dscm
(
0.0005
gr/
dscf).
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
incinerator
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
80,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
of
approximately
0.15
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
this
option
would
require
a
new
source
to
use
an
additional
0.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
For
these
reasons
and
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
0.53
million
per
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
incinerators.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
particulate
matter
standard
of
1.6
mg/
dscm
for
new
sources.
D.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
that
limit
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
(
cadmium
and
lead)
to
59
ug/
dscm
and
6.5
ug/
dscm,
respectively.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Semivolatile
metals
emissions
from
existing
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
240
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1203(
a)(
3).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
Incinerators
control
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
with
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
nearly
30
incinerators.
Semivolatile
metal
stack
emissions
range
from
approximately
4
to
29,000
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
semivolatile
metals
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
Lead
was
usually
the
most
significant
contributor
to
semivolatile
emissions
during
compliance
test
conditions.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
59
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
52%
of
sources.
The
floor
level
would
reduce
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
0.43
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
and
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
30
ug/
dscm,
which
is
a
50%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
based
on
additional
reductions
of
particulate
matter
emissions
by
operating
and
maintaining
existing
control
equipment
to
have
improved
collection
efficiency.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.0
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
190
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
50
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
3.4
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
hazardous
waste
treatment
and
energy
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
31
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyondthe
floor
level
of
47
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
that
represents
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.7
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
of
90
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
approximately
$
39
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
incinerators
at
59
ug/
dscm.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Semivolatile
metals
emissions
from
new
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
120
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1203(
b)(
3).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
semivolatile
metals
would
be
6.5
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
and
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
We
evaluated
a
standard
of
3.3
ug/
dscm,
which
is
a
50%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
incinerator
with
an
average
gas
flow
rate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
80,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
2
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
this
option
would
require
a
new
source
to
use
an
additional
0.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
$
94
million
per
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
sources.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
a
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
semivolatile
metals
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
A
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
5.2
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
would
result
in
little
additional
semivolatile
metals
reductions.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
judge
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
and
expected
emission
reductions.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Therefore,
we
propose
a
semivolatile
metals
standard
of
6.5
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
E.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
that
limit
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium)
to
84
ug/
dscm
and
8.9
ug/
dscm,
respectively.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Low
volatile
metals
emissions
from
existing
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
97
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1203(
a)(
4).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
Incinerators
control
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
with
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
nearly
30
incinerators.
Low
volatile
metal
stack
emissions
range
from
approximately
1
to
4,300
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
low
volatile
metals
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
84
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
85%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
low
volatile
metals
emissions
by
56
pounds
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
low
volatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
and
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
42
ug/
dscm,
which
is
a
50%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
based
on
additional
reductions
of
particulate
matter
emissions
by
operating
and
maintaining
existing
control
equipment
to
have
improved
collection
efficiency.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.88
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
365
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
100
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
0.7
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
4.8
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
67
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
that
represents
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.25
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.11
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
2.2
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
incinerators
at
84
ug/
dscm.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Low
volatile
metal
emissions
from
new
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
97
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1203(
b)(
4).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
low
volatile
metals
would
be
8.9
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
low
volatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
and
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
We
evaluated
a
standard
of
4.5
ug/
dscm,
which
is
a
50%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
incinerator
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
80,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
2.3
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
$
69
million
per
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyondthe
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
sources.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
associated
with
a
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
low
volatile
metals
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
A
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
7.1
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
would
result
in
little
additional
low
volatile
metals
reductions.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
judge
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
cost­
effective
or
otherwise
appropriate.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
low
volatile
metals
standard
of
8.9
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

F.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
that
limit
total
chlorine
emissions
(
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
combined,
reported
as
a
chloride
equivalent)
to
1.5
and
0.18
ppmv,
respectively.
However,
we
are
also
proposing
to
establish
alternative
risk­
based
standards,
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4),
which
could
be
elected
by
the
source
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine.
The
emission
limits
would
be
based
on
national
exposure
standards
that
ensure
protection
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIII
for
additional
details.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Total
chlorine
from
existing
incinerators
are
limited
to
77
ppmv
by
§
63.1203(
a)(
6).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
Incinerators
control
emissions
of
total
chlorine
emissions
with
air
pollution
control
equipment
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
most
incinerators.
Total
chlorine
emissions
range
from
less
than
1
ppmv
to
460
ppmv.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
1.5
ppmv,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
best
performing
feed
control
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
11%
of
sources
and
reductions
to
the
floor
level
would
reduce
total
chlorine
emissions
by
286
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
total
chlorine:
(
1)
improved
control
with
wet
scrubbing;
and
(
2)
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Use
of
Wet
Scrubbing.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.8
ppmv
based
on
improved
wet
scrubbers
that
would
include
increasing
the
liquid
to
gas
ratio,
increasing
the
liquor
pH,
and
replacing
the
existing
packing
material
with
new
more
efficient
packing
material.
We
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
an
improved
wet
scrubber
will
provide
50%
total
chlorine
control
beyond
the
controls
needed
to
achieve
the
floor
level
given
the
low
total
chlorine
levels
at
the
floor.
Applying
this
wet
scrubbing
removal
efficiency
to
the
total
chlorine
floor
level
of
1.5
ppmv
leads
to
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
0.8
ppmv.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.7
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
6
tons
per
year.
We
also
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
between
improved
wet
scrubbers
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
waste
water
generated
by
270
million
gallons
per
year.
The
option
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
3.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year
and
270
million
gallons
of
water
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
0.29
million
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
wet
scrubbing.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Feed
Control
of
Chlorine
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.2
ppmv,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
that
represents
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
chlorine
in
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
appreciable
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.69
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
2.5
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
0.28
million
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
incinerators
at
1.5
ppmv.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Total
chlorine
emissions
from
incinerators
are
currently
limited
to
21
ppmv
by
§
63.1203(
b)(
6).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
total
chlorine
would
be
0.18
ppmv,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
similar
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
total
chlorine
for
new
sources:
(
1)
use
of
improved
wet
scrubbers;
and
(
2)
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Use
of
Wet
Scrubbing.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.1
ppmv
using
wet
scrubbers
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
total
chlorine
emissions.
We
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
an
improved
wet
scrubber
will
provide
50%
total
chlorine
reductions
beyond
the
controls
needed
to
achieve
the
floor
level
given
the
low
total
chlorine
levels
at
the
floor.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
incinerator
with
an
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.2
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
of
approximately
35
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
this
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
wastewater
generated
by
50
million
gallons
per
year
and
would
require
a
new
source
to
use
an
additional
0.5
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
$
12
million
per
ton
of
chlorine
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
wet
scrubbing
control
for
new
sources.
Feed
Control
of
Chlorine
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
associated
with
a
reduction
in
chlorine
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
chlorine
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

87
Currently,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
preheater/
precalciner
kiln
that
vents
its
alkali
bypass
gases
through
a
separate
stack.
0.14
ppmv,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
judge
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
cost­
effective
or
otherwise
appropriate.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
chlorine
standard
of
0.18
ppmv
for
new
sources.
G.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Carbon
Monoxide?
Hydrocarbon
and
carbon
monoxide
standards
are
surrogates
to
control
emissions
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
for
existing
and
new
incinerators.
The
standards
limit
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
concentrations
to
10
ppmv
or
100
ppmv.
See
§
§
63.1203(
a)(
5)
and
(
b)(
5).
Existing
and
new
incinerators
can
elect
to
comply
with
either
the
hydrocarbon
limit
or
the
carbon
monoxide
limit
on
a
continuous
basis.
Sources
that
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
limit
on
a
continuous
basis
must
also
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
However,
continuous
hydrocarbon
monitoring
following
the
performance
test
is
not
required.
The
rationale
for
these
decisions
are
discussed
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
64
FR
at
52900).
We
view
the
standards
for
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
as
unaffected
by
the
Court's
vacature
of
the
challenged
regulations
in
its
decision
of
July
24,
2001.
We
therefore
are
not
proposing
these
standards
for
incinerators,
but
rather
are
mentioning
them
here
for
the
reader's
convenience.
H.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
The
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard
is
a
surrogate
to
control
emissions
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
other
than
dioxin/
furans.
The
standard
for
existing
and
new
incinerators
requires
99.99%
DRE
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent,
except
that
99.9999%
DRE
is
required
if
specified
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
are
burned.
See
§
§
63.1203(
c).
The
rationale
for
these
decisions
are
discussed
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
64
FR
at
52902).
We
view
the
standards
for
DRE
as
unaffected
by
the
Court's
vacature
of
the
challenged
regulations
in
its
decision
of
July
24,
2001.
We
therefore
are
not
proposing
these
standards
for
incinerators,
but
rather
are
mentioning
them
here
for
the
reader's
convenience.

VIII.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Cement
Kilns?
In
this
section,
the
basis
for
the
proposed
emission
standards
is
discussed.
See
proposed
§
63.1204A.
The
proposed
emission
limits
apply
to
the
kiln
stack
gases,
in­
line
kiln
raw
mill
stack
gases
if
combustion
gases
pass
through
the
in­
line
raw
mill,
and
kiln
alkali
bypass
stack
gases
if
discharged
through
a
separate
stack.
87
The
proposed
standards
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
summarized
in
the
table
below:
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

PROPOSED
STANDARDS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
CEMENT
KILNS
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
or
Surrogate
Emission
Standard1
Existing
Sources
New
Sources
Dioxin
and
furan
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm;
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.

Mercury2
64
ug/
dscm
35
ug/
dscm
Particulate
Matter
65
mg/
dscm
(
0.028
gr/
dscf)
13
mg/
dscm
(
0.0058
gr/
dscf)

Semivolatile
metals3
4.0
x
10­
4
lb/
MMBtu
6.2
x
10­
5
lb/
MMBtu
Low
volatile
metals3
1.4
x
10­
5
lb/
MMBtu
1.4
x
10­
5
lb/
MMBtu
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas4
110
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
78
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
Hydrocarbons:
kilns
without
bypass5,
6
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)
5
Greenfield
kilns:
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
and
50
ppmv7
hydrocarbons).
All
others:
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)
5
Hydrocarbons:
kilns
with
bypass;
main
stack6,
8
No
main
stack
standard
50
ppmv7
Hydrocarbons:
kilns
with
bypass;
bypass
duct
and
stack5,
6,
8
10
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)
10
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)

Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
For
existing
and
new
sources,
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
POHC.

1
All
emission
standards
are
corrected
to
7%
oxygen,
dry
basis.
If
there
is
a
separate
alkali
bypass
stack,
then
both
the
alkali
bypass
and
main
stack
emissions
must
be
less
than
the
emission
standard.
2
Mercury
standard
is
an
annual
limit.
3
Standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
stack
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
4
Combined
standard,
reported
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent.
5
Sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

88
Even
though
all
sources
have
recently
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
interim
standards,
the
dioxin/
furan
data
in
our
data
base
preceded
the
compliance
demonstration.
This
explains
why
we
have
emissions
data
that
are
higher
than
the
interim
standard.
6
Hourly
rolling
average.
Hydrocarbons
reported
as
propane.
7
Applicable
only
to
newly­
constructed
cement
kilns
at
greenfield
sites
(
see
64
FR
at
52885).
The
50
ppmv
standard
is
a
30­
day
block
average
limit.
8
Measurement
made
in
the
bypass
sampling
system
of
any
kiln
(
e.
g.,
alkali
bypass
of
a
preheater/
precalciner
kiln;
midkiln
gas
sampling
system
of
a
long
kiln).

A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
dioxin
and
furans
to
either
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
for
existing
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
by
§
63.1204(
a)(
1)
to
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796,
February
13,
2002).
Since
promulgation
of
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
have
obtained
additional
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data.
We
now
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
but
one
cement
kiln
that
burns
hazardous
waste.
The
compliance
test
dioxin/
furan
emissions
in
our
data
base
range
from
approximately
0.004
to
20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
88
Cement
kilns
control
dioxin
by
quenching
kiln
gas
temperatures
so
that
gas
temperatures
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
are
below
the
range
of
optimum
dioxin/
furan
formation.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
Emissions
Approach
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
C
above.
The
calculated
floor
is
0.22
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
These
best
performing
sources
controlled
inlet
temperatures
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
from
380
°
­
475
°
F.
Although
some
best
performing
sources
had
inlet
temperatures
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
within
the
optimum
temperature
range
(
i.
e.,
>
400
°
F)
for
formation
of
dioxin/
furan,
their
emissions
were
lower
than
other
non­
best
performing
sources.
Our
data
base
shows
that
these
other
non­
best
performing
sources,
when
operating
within
a
temperature
range
up
to
475
°
F,
had
emissions
of
dioxin/
furan
as
high
as
1.2
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
We
cannot
explain
why
some
sources
emit
dioxin/
furan
at
significantly
lower
levels
than
other
sources
operating
at
similar
control
device
inlet
temperatures.
As
noted
earlier,
there
are
many
uncertainties
and
imperfectly
understood
complexities
relating
to
dioxin/
furan
formation.
The
data
generally
support
the
relationship
between
inlet
temperature
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
and
dioxin/
furan
emissions:
When
inlet
temperatures
are
below
the
optimum
range
of
formation,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
are
lower.
However,
the
converse
may
not
hold:
When
inlet
temperatures
are
within
the
optimum
range
of
formation,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
may
or
may
not
be
higher
(
but
in
most
cases
are
higher).
Moreover,
we
are
concerned
that
a
floor
level
of
0.22
ng
TEQ/
dscm
is
not
replicable
by
all
sources
using
temperature
control
because
we
have
emissions
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

89
Under
the
exemption
from
hazardous
waste
status
in
§
261.4(
b)(
8),
cement
kiln
dust
is
not
currently
classified
as
a
hazardous
waste.
data
from
sources
operating
below
the
optimum
temperature
range
of
dioxin/
furan
formation
that
is
higher
than
the
calculated
floor
level
of
0.22
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
As
a
result
of
this
concern,
we
would
identify
the
floor
level
as
0.22
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
controlling
the
inlet
temperature
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
Allowing
a
source
to
comply
with
a
temperature
limit
alone,
however,
absent
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
limit,
is
less
stringent
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
The
current
interim
standard
is
a
regulatory
limit
that
is
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level
because
it
fixes
a
level
of
performance
for
the
source
category.
Given
that
all
sources
are
achieving
this
interim
standard
and
that
the
interim
standard
is
judged
as
more
stringent
than
the
calculated
MACT
floor,
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
current
regulatory
limit.
We
are,
therefore,
proposing
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
as
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
This
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
all
sources
because
it
is
the
current
required
interim
standard.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
dioxin/
furans
in
various
combustion
applications.
However,
currently
no
cement
kiln
that
burns
hazardous
waste
uses
activated
carbon
injection.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.10
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
represents
a
75%
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
the
floor
level.
We
selected
this
level
because
it
represents
a
level
that
is
considered
routinely
achievable
with
activated
carbon
injection.
In
addition,
we
assumed
for
costing
purposes
that
cement
kilns
needing
activated
carbon
injection
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
would
install
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
after
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
device
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
injected
carbon
with
the
adsorbed
dioxin/
furan.
We
chose
this
costing
approach
to
address
potential
concerns
that
injected
carbon
may
interfere
with
cement
kiln
dust
recycling
practices.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
21
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
3.4
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste89
generated
by
7,800
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
2.6
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
6.2
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
use
of
activated
carbon
injection.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
for
new
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
by
§
63.1204(
b)(
1)
to
either
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
calculated
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
0.21
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
Emissions
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
As
discussed
for
existing
sources,
we
are
concerned
that
a
floor
level
of
0.21
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
not
be
reproducible
by
all
sources
using
temperature
control
because
we
have
emissions
data
from
sources
operating
below
the
optimum
temperature
range
of
dioxin/
furan
formation
that
is
higher
than
the
calculated
floor
level
of
0.21
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
As
a
result
of
this
concern,
we
would
identify
the
MACT
floor
as
0.21
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
controlling
the
inlet
temperature
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
Allowing
a
source
to
comply
with
a
temperature
limit
alone,
however,
absent
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
limit,
is
less
stringent
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
The
current
interim
standard
is
a
regulatory
limit
that
is
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level
because
it
fixes
a
level
of
performance
for
new
cement
kilns.
Given
that
all
sources
are
achieving
this
interim
standard
and
that
the
interim
standard
is
judged
as
more
stringent
than
the
calculated
MACT
floor,
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
current
regulatory
limit.
We
are,
therefore,
proposing
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
as
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.10
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
represents
a
75%
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
the
floor
level.
We
selected
this
level
because
it
represents
a
level
that
is
considered
routinely
achievable
with
activated
carbon
injection.
In
addition,
we
assumed
for
costing
purposes
that
a
new
cement
kiln
will
install
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
after
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
device
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
injected
carbon
with
the
adsorbed
dioxin/
furan.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
cement
kiln
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
1.0
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
approximately
0.17
grams
TEQ
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
5.8
million
per
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
not
significant
factors.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
for
new
cement
kilns.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
standard
as
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
control
of
flue
gas
temperature
not
to
exceed
400
°
F
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
B.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
that
limit
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

90
An
alternative
mercury
standard
is
available
for
existing
cement
kilns
whereby
a
source
can
elect
to
comply
with
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
or
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm.
MTEC
is
a
term
to
compare
metals
and
chlorine
feedrates
across
sources
of
different
sizes.
MTEC
is
defined
as
the
metals
or
chlorine
feedrate
divided
by
the
gas
flow
rate
and
is
expressed
in
units
of
ug/
dscm.

91
Given
that
we
only
have
normal
feedrate
and
emissions
data
for
mercury
for
cement
kilns,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissionsbased
standard.
We
prefer
to
establish
emission
standards
under
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
using
compliance
test
data
because
the
metals
feedrate
information
from
compliance
tests
that
we
use
to
apportion
emissions
to
calculate
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
are
more
reliable
than
feedrate
data
measured
during
testing
under
normal,
typical
operations.
emissions
of
mercury
to
64
and
35
ug/
dscm,
respectively.
If
we
were
to
adopt
these
standards,
then
sources
would
comply
with
the
limit
on
an
annual
basis
because
the
standards
are
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Mercury
emissions
for
existing
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
120
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1204(
a)(
2).
90
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
None
of
the
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
use
a
dedicated
control
device
to
remove
mercury
from
the
gas
stream;
however,
kilns
control
the
feed
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
emissions
data
for
all
sources.
All
of
these
data
are
best
classified
as
from
normal
operations,
although,
as
explained
below,
there
is
a
substantial
range
within
these
data.
For
most
sources,
we
have
normal
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
test
campaign.
The
normal
mercury
stack
emissions
in
our
data
base
range
from
less
than
2
to
118
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
mercury
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
all
normal
emissions
data
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
We
considered
normal
emissions
data
from
all
test
campaigns.
91
For
example,
one
source
in
our
data
base
has
normal
emissions
data
for
three
different
testing
campaigns:
1992,
1995,
and
1998.
Under
this
approach
we
would
consider
the
emissions
data
from
the
three
separate
years
or
campaigns.
We
believe
this
approach
better
captures
the
range
of
average
emissions
for
a
source
than
only
considering
the
most
recent
normal
emissions.
Given
that
no
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
use
a
control
device
which
captures
mercury
from
the
flue
gas
stream,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis
we
assumed
all
sources
achieved
a
SRE
of
zero.
The
effect
of
this
assumption
is
that
the
sources
with
the
lowest
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
were
identified
as
the
best
performing
sources.
The
calculated
floor
is
64
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability,
based
on
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
(
MTEC)
of
26
ug/
dscm.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

92
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
is
a
trade
organization
that
represents
cement
companies
that
burn
hazardous
wastes
as
a
fuel.
CKRC
also
represents
companies
that
manage
and
market
hazardous
waste
fuels
used
in
cement
kilns.
achieved
by
59%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
mercury
emissions
by
0.23
tons
per
year.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
a
floor
level,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
comply
with
the
limit
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
Under
this
approach,
compliance
would
not
be
based
on
the
use
of
a
total
mercury
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
because
these
monitors
have
not
been
adequately
demonstrated
as
a
reliable
compliance
assurance
tool
at
cement
kiln
sources.
Instead,
a
source
would
maintain
compliance
with
the
mercury
standard
by
establishing
and
complying
with
limits
on
operating
parameters
(
e.
g.,
limit
on
maximum
total
mercury
feedrate
in
all
feedstreams)
on
an
annual
basis.
We
did
not
use
the
stack
emissions
data
of
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
in
the
floor
analysis
because
we
believe
the
mercury
emissions
are
biased
low
when
the
in­
line
raw
mill
is
on­
line
and
biased
high
when
the
in­
line
raw
mill
is
off­
line.
(
See
earlier
discussion
on
why
we
are
proposing
not
to
subcategorize
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
for
mercury
between
wet
process
kilns
and
preheater/
precalciner
kilns
with
in­
line
raw
mills.)
For
either
case,
we
believe
the
normal
mercury
data
are
not
representative
of
average
emissions
and,
therefore,
not
appropriate
to
include
in
the
floor
analysis.
We
request
comment
on
this
data
handling
decision.
In
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
acknowledged
that
a
cement
kiln
using
properly
designed
and
operated
MACT
control
technologies,
including
controlling
the
levels
of
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste,
may
not
be
capable
of
achieving
a
given
emission
standard
because
of
mineral
and
process
raw
material
contributions
that
might
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
To
address
this
concern,
we
promulgated
a
provision
that
allows
kilns
to
petition
for
alternative
standards
provided
they
submit
site­
specific
information
that
shows
raw
material
hazardous
air
pollutant
contributions
to
the
emissions
prevent
the
source
from
complying
with
the
emission
standard
even
though
the
kiln
is
using
MACT
control.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
10).
Today's
proposed
floor
of
64
ug/
dscm,
which
was
based
on
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
26
ug/
dscm,
may
likewise
necessitate
such
an
alternative
because
contributions
of
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels
at
some
sources
may
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
Therefore,
we
are
considering
retaining
the
alternative
standard;
however,
we
also
request
comment
on
whether
to
delete
the
alternative
standard
petitioning
process
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)
and
instead
allow
sources
to
comply
either
with
the
stack
emission
standard
or
hazardous
waste
MTEC
level
(
without
a
requirement
to
submit
a
petition).
This
approach
would
establish
the
mercury
standard
as
either
64
ug/
dscm
or
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
26
ug/
dscm.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
an
approach,
we
would
require
sources
to
comply
with
either
limit
they
select
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
In
June
2003,
the
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
(
CKRC)
92
submitted
to
EPA
information
on
actual
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
burn
tanks
of
all
14
cement
facilities
for
a
three
year
period
covering
1999
to
2001.
In
general,
the
information
shows
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

93
For
two
cement
facilities,
the
mercury
concentration
data
are
only
available
on
a
monthly­
averaged
basis.

94
Data
from
three
of
the
facilities
had
a
significant
number
of
individual
measurements
reported
as
not
detectable
and
also
had
relatively
high
analysis
detection
limits
(
compared
to
levels
achieved
by
other
cement
plants).
The
detection
limit
for
most
cement
kilns
was
typically
0.1
ppm
or
less.
For
purposes
of
today's
preamble
discussion,
the
measurements
from
these
three
cement
plants
are
excluded
from
the
data
characterization
conclusions.

95
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.
mercury
concentration
(
in
parts
per
million)
in
the
hazardous
waste
for
each
burn
tank.
93
In
total,
approximately
20,000
mercury
burn
tank
concentration
data
points
are
included
in
CKRC's
submission.
94
The
data
show
that
approximately
50%
of
the
individual
burn
tank
measurements
are
0.6
ppmw
or
less,
75%
are
less
than
1.1
ppmw,
88%
are
less
than
2
ppmw,
and
97%
of
all
burn
tank
measurements
are
less
than
5
ppmw.
For
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
hazardous
waste
with
a
mercury
concentration
of
0.6
ppmw
equates
approximately
to
an
uncontrolled
(
i.
e.,
a
system
removal
efficiency
of
zero)
stack
gas
concentration
of
24
ug/
dscm.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration,
of
course,
does
not
include
contributions
to
emissions
from
other
mercury­
containing
feedstocks
including
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels.
Mercury
concentrations
of
1.1,
2,
and
5
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
equate
to
uncontrolled
stack
gas
concentrations
of
approximately
43,
79,
and
196
ug/
dscm.
95
We
compared
the
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
associated
with
the
normal
emissions
data
in
our
data
base
to
the
3­
year
historical
burn
tank
concentration
data
to
estimate
whether
the
normal
data
in
our
data
base
 
the
basis
of
today's
proposed
floor
of
64
ug/
dscm
 
are
likely
to
represent
the
high
end,
low
end,
or
close
to
average
emissions.
Mercury
feed
concentration
information
is
not
available
for
every
test
condition;
however,
the
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
burned
by
the
best
performing
sources
during
the
tests
that
generated
the
normal
emissions
ranged
from
0.1
to
0.44
ppmw.
For
the
best
performing
sources
comprising
the
MACT
pool
for
which
we
can
make
a
comparison,
it
appears
that
the
normal
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
during
testing
represent
the
low
end
(
15th
percentile
or
less)
of
average
mercury
concentrations.
We
invite
comment
on
whether
the
normal
emissions
data
in
our
data
base
are
representative
of
average
emissions
in
practice
and
whether
evaluating
the
data
to
identify
a
floor
level
is
appropriate.
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
how
to
identify
a
floor
level
using
the
3­
year
hazardous
waste
mercury
concentration
data.
One
potential
approach
would
be
to
establish
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
standard
expressed
in
ppmw.
To
identify
a
floor
level
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
in
ppmw,
we
identified
and
evaluated
the
3­
year
historical
burn
tank
concentration
data
of
the
five
best
performing
facilities
(
those
sources
with
the
lowest
mean
concentration
considering
variability).
The
calculated
alternative
floor
level
is
2.2
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste.
To
put
this
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

96
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.

97
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
mercury
concentration
of
2.2
ppmw
in
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
an
uncontrolled
stack
gas
concentration
of
86
ug/
dscm.
96
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration,
of
course,
does
not
include
contributions
to
emissions
from
other
mercury­
containing
feedstocks
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
an
approach,
we
would
require
sources
to
comply
with
the
feed
concentration
standand
on
a
short
term
basis
(
e.
g.,
12
hour
average).
We
also
invite
comment
on
whether
we
should
judge
an
annual
limit
of
64
ug/
dscm
as
less
stringent
than
either
the
current
emission
standard
of
120
ug/
dscm
or
the
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm
for
cement
kilns
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
sources,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
In
order
to
comply
with
the
current
emission
standard,
generally
a
source
must
conduct
manual
stack
sampling
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard
and
then
establish
a
maximum
mercury
feedrate
limit
based
on
operations
during
the
performance
test.
Following
the
performance
test,
the
source
complies
with
a
limit
on
the
maximum
total
mercury
feedrate
in
all
feedstreams
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
(
not
an
annual
average).
Alternatively,
a
source
can
elect
to
comply
with
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm
that
would
require
the
source
to
limit
the
mercury
feedrate
in
the
hazardous
waste
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average.
The
floor
level
of
64
ug/
dscm
proposed
today
would
allow
a
source
to
feed
more
variable
mercury­
containing
feedstreams
(
e.
g.,
a
hazardous
waste
with
an
mercury
MTEC
greater
than
120
ug/
dscm)
than
the
current
12­
hour
rolling
average
because
today's
proposed
floor
level
is
an
annual
limit.
For
example,
we
estimated
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
for
each
burn
tank
measurement
associated
with
the
3­
year
historical
concentration
data
submitted
by
CKRC.
We
found
that
approximately
5%
of
burn
tank
measurements
would
exceed
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
120
ug/
dscm,
including
sources
upon
which
the
proposed
floor
is
based.
97
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
activated
carbon
injection;
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
and
auxiliary
fuels.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
mercury.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyondthe
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
mercury
in
several
combustion
applications;
however,
currently
no
cement
kiln
that
burns
hazardous
waste
uses
activated
carbon
injection.
Given
this
lack
of
experience
using
activated
carbon
injection,
we
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
will
provide
70%
mercury
control
and
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
19
ug/
dscm.
In
addition,
for
costing
purposes
we
assumed
that
cement
kilns
needing
activated
carbon
injection
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
would
install
the
activated
carbon
injection
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

98
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs",
March
2004
system
after
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
device
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
injected
carbon
with
the
adsorbed
mercury.
We
chose
this
costing
approach
to
address
potential
concerns
that
injected
carbon
may
interfere
with
cement
kiln
dust
recycling
practices.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
16.8
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.41
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
4,400
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
21
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
41
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
51
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
representing
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
(
beyond
feedrate
control
that
may
be
necessary
to
achieve
the
floor
level)
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
98
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.7
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
180
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
42
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
mercury
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
be
even
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above,
however.
Given
that
sources
are
sited
near
the
supply
of
the
primary
raw
material,
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive,
especially
considering
the
small
expected
emissions
reductions
that
would
result.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
mercury
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
We
are
concerned
about
the
availability
of
natural
gas
to
all
cement
kilns
because
natural
gas
pipelines
are
not
available
in
all
regions
of
the
United
States.
See
68
FR
1673.
Moreover,
even
where
pipelines
provide
access
to
natural
gas,
supplies
of
natural
gas
may
not
be
adequate.
For
example,
it
is
common
practice
in
cities
during
winter
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

months
(
or
periods
of
peak
demand)
to
prioritize
natural
gas
usage
for
residential
areas
before
industrial
usage.
Requiring
cement
kilns
to
switch
to
natural
gas
would
place
an
even
greater
strain
on
natural
gas
resources.
Consequently,
even
where
pipelines
exist,
some
sources
may
not
be
able
to
use
natural
gas
during
times
of
limited
supplies.
Thus,
natural
gas
may
not
be
a
viable
control
option
for
some
sources.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
mercury
in
the
raw
material
feed
and
auxiliary
fuels.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
not
to
adopt
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
mercury
and
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
cement
kilns
at
64
ug/
dscm.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
a
standard,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
comply
with
the
standard
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Mercury
emissions
from
new
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
120
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1204(
b)(
2).
New
cement
kilns
can
comply
with
an
alternative
mercury
standard
that
limits
the
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
or
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm.
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
mercury
would
be
35
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability,
based
on
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
5.1
ug/
dscm.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
As
for
existing
sources,
we
assumed
all
sources
equally
achieved
a
SRE
of
zero.
The
effect
of
this
assumption
is
that
the
single
source
with
the
lowest
mercury
concentration
in
the
hazardous
waste
was
identified
as
the
best
performing
source.
We
also
invite
comment
on
whether
we
should
judge
an
annual
limit
of
35
ug/
dscm
as
less
stringent
than
either
the
current
emission
standard
of
120
ug/
dscm
or
the
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm
for
cement
kilns
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
sources).
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
the
same
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
use
of
activated
carbon;
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
and
auxiliary
fuels.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyondthe
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
We
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
will
provide
70%
mercury
control
and
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
11
ug/
dscm.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
cement
kiln
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
1.0
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
of
approximately
88
pounds
per
year.
We
also
estimate
that
this
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
400
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
1.9
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
$
23
million
per
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
for
new
cement
kilns.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

99
A
greenfield
cement
kiln
is
a
kiln
constructed
at
a
site
where
no
cement
kiln
previously
existed;
however,
a
newly
constructed
or
reconstructed
cement
kiln
at
an
existing
site
would
not
be
considered
as
a
greenfield
cement
kiln.
further
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
A
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
28
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
would
result
in
little
additional
mercury
reductions.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
coupled
with
estimated
emission
reductions.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
mercury
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
cement
plant,
we
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
to
the
cement
plant.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
mercury­
containing
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
new
cement
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
site
 
a
greenfield
site99
 
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
low
in
mercury
which
would
consistently
decrease
mercury
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using
a
lower,
if
it
exists,
mercury­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
metals
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyond­
the­
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
mercury
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
We
considered
using
natural
gas
in
lieu
of
a
fossil
fuel
such
as
coal
containing
higher
concentrations
of
mercury
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
As
discussed
for
existing
sources,
we
are
concerned
about
the
availability
of
the
natural
gas
infrastructure
in
all
regions
of
the
United
States
and
believe
that
using
natural
gas
would
not
be
a
viable
control
option
for
all
new
sources.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
mercury
in
the
raw
material
feed
and
auxiliary
fuels.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
mercury
standard
of
35
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
a
standard,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
comply
with
the
standard
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
