DRAFT:
May
2005
ASSESSMENT
OF
THE
POTENTIAL
COSTS,
BENEFITS,
&
OTHER
IMPACTS
OF
THE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
COMBUSTION
MACT
FINAL
RULE
STANDARDS
Economics,
Methods,
and
Risk
Analysis
Division
Office
of
Solid
Waste
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave,
N.
W.
Washington,
DC
20460
May
2005
DRAFT:
May
2005
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
Agency
recognizes
Industrial
Economics,
Incorporated
(
IEc),
for
the
overall
organization
and
development
of
this
report.
IEc,
with
EERGC
Corporation,
developed
the
database
and
analytical
model
that
allowed
for
comprehensive
analyses
of
the
replacement
standards
and
the
options
presented
in
this
report.
Lyn.
D
Luben
and
Gary
L.
Ballard
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
provided
guidance
and
review.
DRAFT:
May
2005
NOTICE
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
has
reviewed
this
document
and
accepts
the
findings
presented
herein.
DRAFT:
May
2005
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
Summary
of
Findings
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
8
Engineering
and
Compliance
Cost
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
11
Social
Cost
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
14
Benefits
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
15
Other
Regulatory
Issues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
17
INTRODUCTION
AND
REGULATORY
OPTIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
1
Background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
Analytical
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
2
Need
for
Regulatory
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
4
Examination
of
Alternative
Regulatory
Options
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
8
Agency
Preferred
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
10
MACT
Standards
for
New
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
10
Potential
Emissions
Reductions
Under
the
MACT
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
21
Timetable
for
MACT
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
22
Analytic
Approach
and
Organization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
23
OVERVIEW
OF
COMBUSTION
PRACTICES
AND
MARKETS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
2
Combustion
Market
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
Types
of
Combustion
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
2
Number
of
Combustion
Facilities
and
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
4
Geographical
Distribution
of
the
Universe
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
Industry
Sectors
Represented
in
the
Universe
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
Characteristics
of
Combusted
Waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
9
Waste
Quantity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
9
Waste
Forms
and
Constituents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
12
Regulatory
and
Economic
Forces
Influencing
Combustion
Practices
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
17
Regulatory
Requirements
Affecting
Combustion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
17
Liability
Concerns
Affecting
Combustion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
18
Economic
Forces
Affecting
Combustion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
19
DRAFT:
May
2005
ii
Current
Regulatory
Framework
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
20
Regulations
Governing
Hazardous
Waste­
Burning
Kilns,
Boilers,
and
HCl
Production
Furnaces
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
20
Regulations
Governing
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerators
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
21
Ash
Disposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
22
Effect
of
Regulatory
Differences
on
Market
Competition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
22
Industry
Dynamics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
23
On­
Site
Facilities
(
Boilers,
HC1
Production
Furnaces,
and
On­
Site
Incinerators)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
24
Commercial
Facilities
(
Cement
Kilns,
LWAKs,
and
Commercial
Incinerators)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
25
Fuel
Blenders
and
Other
Intermediaries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
25
Combustion
Market
Financial
Performance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
27
Historical
Performance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
27
Recent
Trends
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
28
Capacity
and
Competition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
30
DEFINING
THE
REGULATORY
BASELINE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
3
Baseline
Economic
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
3
Baseline
Waste­
Burning
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
4
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Prices
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
8
Hazardous
Waste
Quantities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
9
Energy
Cost
Savings
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
11
Transportation
Cost
Savings
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
11
Baseline
Profitability
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
12
Future
Capacity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
15
Emissions
and
Pollution
Control
Practices
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
16
Emissions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
17
Air
Pollution
Control
Practices
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
18
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
22
COMPLIANCE
COST
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
4
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
Costing
Methodology
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
2
Air
Pollution
Control
Measures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
4
Administrative
Compliance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
5
Results
of
Compliance
Cost
Analysis
for
Existing
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
8
Compliance
Costs
for
New
Combustion
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
12
Limitations
of
Compliance
Cost
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
13
Role
of
Site­
Specific
Risk
Assessments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
13
Government
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
16
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
18
DRAFT:
May
2005
iii
SOCIAL
COST
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
5
Overview
of
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
2
Social
Cost
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
2
Economic
Impact
Measure
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
3
Social
Cost
Methodological
Framework
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
4
Combustion
Market
Structure
Used
for
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
5
Economic
Welfare
Changes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
6
Government
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
10
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Market
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
11
Total
Compliance
Costs
Under
the
Engineering
Cost
Scenario
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
11
Modeling
Market
Dynamics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
12
Total
Compliance
Costs
Under
Market­
Adjusted
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
15
Breakeven
Quantity
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
17
Summary
of
Modeling
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
18
Social
Cost
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
19
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
19
Compliance
Cost
Results
for
the
Engineering
Cost
Scenario
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
20
Compliance
Cost
Results
for
the
Market­
Adjusted
Scenario
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
23
Economic
Impact
Measures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
25
Economic
Impact
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
26
Market
Exits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
28
Hazardous
Waste
Reallocated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
30
Employment
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
33
Combustion
Price
Increases
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
38
Other
Industry
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
42
BENEFITS
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
6
Benefits
Quantification
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
3
Risk
Assessment
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
4
Human
Health
Benefits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
6
Approach
for
Assessing
Benefits
from
Cancer
Risk
Reductions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
7
Approach
for
Assessing
Benefits
from
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Reduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
8
Valuation
of
Human
Health
Benefits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
13
Human
Health
Benefits
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
17
Visibility
Benefits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
31
Ecological
Benefits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
33
Ecological
Benefits
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
34
Forest
Health
and
Aesthetics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
35
Productivity
to
Agricultural
Land
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
35
DRAFT:
May
2005
iv
Waste
Minimization
Benefits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
36
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
38
EQUITY
CONSIDERATIONS
AND
OTHER
IMPACTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
7
Assessment
of
Small
Entity
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
2
Environmental
Justice
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
5
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
7
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
7
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
12
Children's
Health
Protection
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
13
Particulate
Matter
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
13
Mercury
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
14
Lead
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
14
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
14
Joint
Impacts
of
Rules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
14
Unfunded
Mandates
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
15
Tribal
Governments
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
16
Federalism
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
16
Regulatory
Takings
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
17
Energy
Impact
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
19
Energy
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
20
Energy
Supply
and
Delivery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
23
Civil
Justice
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
23
Facilitation
of
Cooperative
Conservation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
23
COMPARISON
OF
COSTS,
BENEFITS,
AND
OTHER
IMPACTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER
8
Cost­
Effectiveness
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8­
1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8­
1
Cost­
Effectiveness:
Dollar
per
Unit
of
Reduced
Emissions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8­
2
Cost­
Effectiveness:
Dollar
per
Health
and
Ecological
Benefit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8­
8
Caveats
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8­
13
Cost­
Benefit
Comparison
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8­
14
REFERENCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
R­
1
DRAFT:
May
2005
v
APPENDICES
Appendix
A:
Data
Collection
Methods
and
Core
Data
Inputs
Appendix
B:
Baseline
Cost
Report
Appendix
C:
Detailed
Cost
Model
Results
Appendix
D:
Description
of
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Economic
Model
Appendix
E:
Methodology
for
Employment
Impacts
Analysis
Appendix
F:
1997
Waste
Minimization
Report
Appendix
G:
1999
Particulate
Matter
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
H:
Regulatory
Flexibility
Screening
Analysis
Appendix
I:
Facilities
and
Systems
in
the
Regulatory
Universe
DRAFT:
May
2005
vi
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
ES­
1:
Regulatory
Alternatives
for
Existing
Sources
Exhibit
ES­
2:
Comparison
of
Social
Costs
and
Benefits
Exhibit
ES­
3:
Overview
of
System­
Specific
Compliance
Cost
Analysis
Exhibit
ES­
4:
Summary
of
Social
Cost
Estimates
Exhibit
1­
1:
Aggregate
Baseline
Emissions
Exhibit
1­
2:
Baseline
Emissions
per
System
Exhibit
1­
3:
Regulatory
Alternatives
for
Existing
Sources
Exhibit
1­
4:
Regulatory
Alternatives
for
New
Sources
Exhibit
1­
5:
Percent
Change
in
Aggregate
Emissions
with
Agency
Preferred
Approach
Exhibit
1­
6:
Timeline
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards
Exhibit
2­
1:
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Market
Structure
Exhibit
2­
2:
Combustion
Facility
Structure
Exhibit
2­
3:
Number
of
Facilities
and
Sources
in
Universe
Exhibit
2­
4:
Locations
of
Combustion
Facilities
in
Universe
Exhibit
2­
5:
Summary
of
Industry
Sectors
with
Combustion
Facilities
Exhibit
2­
6:
Quantity
of
Waste
(
tons)
Treated
by
Each
Facility
Type
Exhibit
2­
7:
Quantity
of
Waste
Treated
as
Reported
by
Combustion
Facilities
in
2001
BRS
Exhibit
2­
8:
Waste
Quantities
Reported
by
Combustion
Facilities
in
2001
BRS
 
Industry
Sector
Totals
Exhibit
2­
9:
Quantity
of
Waste
Combustion
in
2001
(
tons)
by
Waste
Form
Exhibit
2­
10:
Number
of
Facilities
Combusting
Each
Waste
Type
Exhibit
2­
11:
Comparison
of
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Universe
in
2000
and
2005
Exhibit
3­
1:
Annual
Baseline
Costs
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Systems
Exhibit
3­
2:
Hazardous
Waste
Disposal
Prices
for
Economic
Impact
Model
Exhibit
3­
3:
2001
Hazardous
Waste
Quantities
by
System
Type
Exhibit
3­
4:
Mean
and
Median
Annual
Operating
Profits
per
System
in
the
Baseline
Exhibit
3­
5:
Baseline
Operating
Profits
per
Ton
of
Hazardous
Waste
Burned
Exhibit
3­
6:
Summary
of
1998
Report:
Influencing
the
Viability
of
Combustion
Exhibit
3­
7:
Baseline
National
Emissions
from
Combustion
Systems
Exhibit
3­
8:
Average
Baseline
National
Emissions
Per
System
Exhibit
3­
9:
Baseline
APCDs
by
Combustion
Sector
Exhibit
4­
1:
Overview
of
System­
Specific
Compliance
Cost
Analysis
Exhibit
4­
2:
Air
Pollution
Control
Measures
Assigned
in
Compliance
Cost
Analysis
Exhibit
4­
3:
Summary
of
Other
Compliance
Cost
Components
Exhibit
4­
4:
Average
Compliance
Costs
Per
Combustion
System
(
Assuming
No
Market
Exit)
DRAFT:
May
2005
vii
Exhibit
4­
5:
Percentage
of
Systems
Requiring
Control
Measures
Exhibit
4­
6:
Percent
of
Total
New
Compliance
Costs
by
Control
Measure
Exhibit
4­
7:
Summary
of
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards'
Incremental
Costs
to
Government
Exhibit
5­
1:
Analytical
Framework
for
On­
Site
Waste
Market
Exhibit
5­
2:
Welfare
Loss
in
the
Commercial
Combustion
Market
Exhibit
5­
3:
Demand
for
Combustion
Alternatives
Exhibit
5­
4:
Combustion
System
Consolidation
Methodology
Exhibit
5­
5:
Summary
of
Social
Cost
Estimates
Exhibit
5­
6:
Total
Annual
Compliance
Costs:
Engineering
Cost
Scenario
Exhibit
5­
7:
Total
Annual
Compliance
Costs:
Market
Adjusted
Scenario
After
Combustion
System
Consolidation
Exhibit
5­
8:
Summary
of
Economic
Impact
Analysis
Exhibit
5­
9:
Summary
of
Market
Exit
Impacts
Exhibit
5­
10:
Routine
for
Calculating
Quantity
of
Waste
Diverted
to
the
Commercial
Sector
Exhibit
5­
11:
Summary
of
Quantity
of
Hazardous
Waste
Reallocated
Exhibit
5­
12:
Procedure
to
Estimate
Employment
Dislocations
Exhibit
5­
13:
Procedure
Used
to
Estimate
Employment
Gains
Exhibit
5­
14:
Summary
of
Estimated
Employment
Dislocations
Exhibit
5­
15:
Summary
of
Estimated
Employment
Gains
Exhibit
5­
16:
Simplified
Example
of
Determination
of
New
Market
Price
for
Combustion
Exhibit
5­
17:
Combustion
Prices
Per
Ton
Due
to
Assumed
Cost
Pass
Through
Exhibit
6­
1:
Diagram
of
16
Sector
Polar­
Based
Grid
Used
in
the
Risk
Assessment
Exhibit
6­
2:
Avoided
Cost
of
Cases
Associated
with
PM
Exhibit
6­
3:
Annual
Emissions
Reduction
for
the
Final
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards
Exhibit
6­
4:
Human
Health
Benefits
Summary:
Baseline
to
Agency
Preferred
Approach
Exhibit
6­
5:
Human
Health
Benefits
Summary:
Reduced
Incidence
of
Adverse
Health
Effects
Exhibit
6­
6:
Human
Health
Benefits
Summary:
Baseline
to
Agency
Preferred
Approach
Exhibit
6­
7:
Summary
of
Benefits
by
Source
Category
Exhibit
6­
8:
Summary
of
Annual
Benefits
Resulting
from
the
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards
Exhibit
7­
1:
Small
Entity
Analysis
Results
Exhibit
7­
2:
Potentially
Exposed
General
and
Minority
Populations
Exhibit
7­
3:
Potentially
Exposed
General
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Exhibit
7­
4:
Overview
of
Energy
Impacts
Resulting
from
Closures
in
the
Market­
Based
Scenario
DRAFT:
May
2005
viii
Exhibit
8­
1:
Expected
Aggregate
Annual
Emission
Reductions
Exhibit
8­
2:
Cost­
Effectiveness
Results
Exhibit
8­
3:
Cost­
Effectiveness
Per
Unit
Health
and
Ecological
Improvement
Exhibit
8­
4:
Benefit
and
Social
Cost
Summary
DRAFT:
May
2005
ix
LIST
OF
ACRONYMS
ACC
American
Chemistry
Council
ACI
Activated
Carbon
Injection
APCD
Air
Pollution
Control
Device
ARAR
Applicable,
Relevant,
and
Appropriate
Requirement
AWFCO
Automatic
Waste
Feed
Cutoff
BDAT
Best
Demonstrated
Available
Technology
BEQ
Breakeven
Quantity
BIF
Boiler
or
Industrial
Furnace
BRS
Biennial
Reporting
System
BTF
Beyond
the
Floor
CAA
Clean
Air
Act
CE
Cost­
Effectiveness
CEM
Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring
CERCLA
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
CESQG
Conditionally
Exempt
Small
Quantity
Generator
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CKD
Cement
Kiln
Dust
CKRC
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
Cl
Chlorine
CO
Carbon
Monoxide
DESP
Dry
Electrostatic
Precipitator
D/
F
Dioxin/
Furan
DOM
Design,
Operation,
and
Maintenance
DRE
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
DSCF
Dry
Standard
Cubic
Foot
DSCM
Dry
Standard
Cubic
Meter
EERGC
EERGC
Corporation
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ESV
Emergency
Safety
Valve
FTE
Full­
Time
Equivalent
GDP
Gross
Domestic
Product
HAP
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
HAPF
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnace
HC
Hydrocarbons
HCl
Hydrochloric
Acid
Hg
Mercury
HQ
Hazard
Quotient
HSWA
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
HWC
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
HWIR
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
DRAFT:
May
2005
x
IAQR
Inter­
state
Air
Quality
Rule
ICR
Information
Collection
Request
IEc
Industrial
Economics,
Inc.
LDR
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
LVM
Low­
Volatile
Metals
LWAK
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
MACT
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
MRAD
Minor
Restricted
Activity
Day
NACR
National
Association
of
Chemical
Recyclers
NAFTA
North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement
NAICS
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
NIC
Notice
of
Intent
to
Comply
NSPS
New
Source
Performance
Standards
O&
M
Operating
and
Maintenance
OMB
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
OSW
Office
of
Solid
Waste
OSWER
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
PACE
Pollution
Abatement
and
Control
Expenditure
PCDD
Polychlorinated
Dibenzo­
P­
Dioxins
PCDF
Polychlorinated
Dibenzo
Furans
PIC
Products
of
Incomplete
Combustion
PM
Particulate
Matter
RCRA
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
RFA
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
RFSA
Regulatory
Flexibility
Screening
Analysis
ROD
Records
of
Decision
SBA
Small
Business
Administration
SBREFA
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
SDL
Statistical
Design
Level
SRE
System
Removal
Efficiency
SVM
Semi­
Volatile
Metals
TCl
Total
Chlorine
TEQ
Dioxin/
Furan
Toxic
Equivalents
TSD
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facility
UMRA
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
VSL
Value
of
a
Statistical
Life
WHB
Waste
Heat
Boiler
WLD
Work
Loss
Day
WTA
Willingness
to
Accept
WTP
Willingness
to
Pay
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
1
For
complete
text
of
the
decision,
refer
to
255
F3d
855.

2
U.
S.
EPA,
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Standards:
Final
Rule,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
July
1999.

ES­
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
In
May
of
1993,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
introduced
a
draft
Waste
Minimization
and
Combustion
Strategy
to
address
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste
and
encourage
reduced
generation
of
these
wastes.
Among
the
key
objectives
of
the
strategy
is
the
reduction
of
health
and
ecological
risks
posed
by
the
combustion
of
hazardous
waste.
In
September
1999,
as
part
of
this
strategy,
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
establishing
"
maximum
achievable
control
technology"
(
MACT)
emissions
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
In
the
"
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
v.
EPA"
decision
in
July
2001,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
ruled
that
EPA's
final
rule
was
in
violation
of
Section
7412
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
1
In
response,
EPA
implemented
Interim
MACT
standards
in
2002
and
is
now
establishing
these
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
(
HWC)
MACT
replacement
standards
to
address
a
variety
of
air
pollutants,
including
dioxins/
furans,
particulate
matter,
mercury,
semi­
volatile
and
low­
volatile
metals,
and
chlorine.
In
addition,
emissions
of
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
will
be
regulated
as
proxies
for
non­
dioxin,
nonfuran
toxic
organic
emissions.
The
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
establish
emissions
restrictions
for
commercial
incinerators,
on­
site
incinerators,
waste­
burning
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
(
LWAKs),
solid
and
liquid
fuel
boilers
(
including
process
heaters),
and
HCl
production
furnaces.

As
part
of
the
original
1999
Rulemaking,
EPA
conducted
an
Economic
Assessment
that
examined
and
compared
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
1999
Standards.
The
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Standards:
Final
Rule
(
the
1999
Assessment)
examined
both
the
MACT
floor
and
a
more
stringent
"
beyond­
thefloor
(
BTF)
MACT
option
for
dioxins/
furans
and
mercury
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
technology
(
the
"
BTF­
ACI"
MACT
option).
2
This
document
(
Assessment
of
the
Potential
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Other
Impacts
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
MACT
Replacement
Standards:
Final
Rule)
is
similar
in
scope
to
the
1999
Assessment,
but
analyzes
the
costs,
benefits,
and
other
impacts
specific
to
the
replacement
rule
incremental
to
the
baseline
established
by
the
2002
Interim
Standards.
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
3
The
standards
for
new
sources
are
generally
more
stringent
in
controlling
emissions
than
the
standards
for
existing
sources.

ES­
2
In
this
document,
we
analyze
the
impacts
of
three
replacement
rule
MACT
floor
options
reflecting
different
methods
of
measuring
the
performance
of
systems'
emissions
controls.
These
options
are
referred
to
as
the
Option
A
Floor,
the
Option
C
Floor,
and
the
Option
D
Floor
throughout
this
document.
We
also
examine
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach,
which
represents
a
beyond­
thefloor
version
of
Option
A.
Exhibit
ES­
1
lists
the
emission
standards
for
existing
sources
by
pollutant
and
combustion
source
category
for
the
four
MACT
alternatives
analyzed
in
this
document.
3
This
assessment
is
designed
to
satisfy
OMB's
requirements
for
regulatory
review
under
Executive
Order
12866
(
as
amended
by
Executive
Order
13258),
which
applies
to
any
significant
regulatory
action.
This
document
also
fulfills
the
requirements
of
the
following:

°
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996;

°
Executive
Order
12898,
"
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations";

°
Executive
Order
13045,
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks";

°
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995;

°
Executive
Order
13175,
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments";

°
Executive
Order
13132,
"
Federalism";

°
Executive
Order
12630,
"
Government
Action
and
Interference
with
Constitutionally
Protected
Property
Rights";

°
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
Or
Use";

°
Executive
Order
12988,
"
Civil
Justice
Reform";
and
°
Executive
Order
13352,
"
Facilitation
of
Cooperative
Conservation."
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
3
Exhibit
ES­
1
REGULATORY
ALTERNATIVES
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES
MACT
Source
Category
Chlorinated
D/
F
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
a
PM
Hg
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
SVM
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
LVM
(

g/
dscm)
TCl
(
ppmv)
f
CO
(
ppmv)
HC
b,
c
(
ppmv)

Agency
Preferred
Approach
m
Incinerators
0.30
for
dry
APCDs
or
WHBs;

0.20
if
APCD
>
400
°
F;
0.40
for
others
d
0.013
gr/
dscf
j
130
ug/
dscm
200
ug/
dscm
92
ug/
dscm
32
ppmv
100
or
10
Cement
Kilns
0.20
or
0.40
and
temperature
control
<
400

F
at
APCD
inlet
0.028
gr/
dscf
3.0
ppmw
and
120
ug/
dscm
(
HW
MTEC
feed
restriction)
g
or
120
ug/
dscm
(
total
emissions)
330
ug/
dscmh
and
7.6E­
4
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
2.2E­
5
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
120
ppmv
100
or
10
100
or
20
LWAKs
0.2
or
rapid
quench
of
flue
gas
at
exit
to
kiln
to
<
400
°
F
0.025
gr/
dscf
120
ug/
dscm
(
HW
MTEC
or
total
emissions)
g
250
ug/
dscmh
and
3.0E­
4
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
110
ug/
dscmh
and
9.5E­
5
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
600
ppmv
100
or
20
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
a
surrogate
0.030
gr/
dscf
j
11
ug/
dscm
180
ug/
dscm
380
ug/
dscm
440
ppmv
100
or
10
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
e
0.4
for
dry
APCD
sources;

CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
for
others
0.035
gr/
dscf
j
10
ug/
dscmk
or
1.5E­
5
lbs/
MMBtuk,
i
26
ug/
dscmk
or
2.5E­
5
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtuk,
i
in
HW
160
ug/
dscml
or
1.6E­
4
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtul,
i
in
HW
34
ppmv
or
6,65E­
2
lbs
Cl
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
100
or
10
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
150
ppmv
or
99.923%
SRE
100
or
10
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
Exhibit
ES­
1
REGULATORY
ALTERNATIVES
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES
MACT
Source
Category
Chlorinated
D/
F
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
a
PM
Hg
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
SVM
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
LVM
(

g/
dscm)
TCl
(
ppmv)
f
CO
(
ppmv)
HC
b,
c
(
ppmv)

ES­
4
Option
A
Floor
Incinerators
0.30
for
dry
APCDs
or
WHBs;

0.20
if
APCD
>
400
°
F;
0.40
for
others
d
0.013
gr/
dscf
j
130
ug/
dscm
200
ug/
dscm
92
ug/
dscm
32
ppmv
100
or
10
Cement
Kilns
0.20
or
0.40
and
temperature
control
at
APCD
inlet
0.028
gr/
dscf
3.0
ppmw
and
120
ug/
dscm
(
HW
MTEC
feed
restriction)
g
or
120
ug/
dscm
(
total
emissions)
330
ug/
dscmh
and
7.6E­
4
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
2.2E­
5
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
120
ppmv
100
or
10
100
or
20
LWAKs
0.20
or
rapid
quench
of
flue
gas
at
exit
of
kiln
to
<
400
°
F
0.025
gr/
dscf
120
ug/
dcsm
(
HW
MTEC
feed
restriction)
g
or
120
ug/
dscm
(
total
emissions)
250
ug/
dscmh
and
3.0E­
4
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
110
ug/
dscmh
and
9.5E­
5
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
600
ppmv
100
or
20
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
0.073
gr/
dscf
j
11
ug/
dscm
180
ug/
dscm
380
ug/
dscm
440
ppmv
100
or
10
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
e
3.3
for
dry
APCD
sources;

CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
surrogate
for
others
0.035
gr/
dscf
j
10
ug/
dscmk
or
1.5E­
5
lbs/
MMBtuk,
i
26
ug/
dscmk
or
2.5E­
5
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtuk,
i
in
HW
160
ug/
dscml
or
1.6E­
4
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtul,
i
in
HW
34
ppmv
or
6.65E­
2
lbs
Cl
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
100
or
10
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
150
ppmv
or
99.923%
SRE
100
or
10
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
Exhibit
ES­
1
REGULATORY
ALTERNATIVES
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES
MACT
Source
Category
Chlorinated
D/
F
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
a
PM
Hg
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
SVM
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
LVM
(

g/
dscm)
TCl
(
ppmv)
f
CO
(
ppmv)
HC
b,
c
(
ppmv)

ES­
5
Option
C
Floor
Incinerators
0.30
or
0.20
for
dry
APCD
or
WHB
sources
if
APCD
>
400

F;
d
0.40
for
others
0.013
gr/
dscf
j
130
ug/
dscm
22
ug/
dscm
21
ug/
dscm
47
ppmv
100
or
10
Cement
Kilns
0.20
or
0.40
>
400
°
F
at
inlet
to
PM
control
device
0.028
gr/
dscf
3.0
ppmv
and
120
ug/
dscm
(
HW
MTEC
feed
restriction)
g
or
120
ug/
dscm
(
total
emissions)
1.3E­
4
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
1.4E­
5
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
120
ppmv
100
or
10
100
or
20
LWAKs
0.20
or
rapid
quench
of
flue
gas
at
exit
of
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F
0.025
gr/
dscf
120
ug/
dscm
(
HW
MTEC
feed
restriction)
g
or
120
ug/
dscm
(
total
emissions)
3.0E­
4
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
and
250
ug/
dscmh
9.5E­
5
lbs
LVM
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
and
110
ug/
dscmh
600
ppmv
100
or
20
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
a
surrogate
0.073
gr/
dscfj
11
ug/
dscm
180
ug/
dscm
380
ug/
dscm
440
ppmv
100
or
10
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
e
3.3
for
dry
APCD
sources;

CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
surrogate
for
others
0.035
gr/
dscf
10
ug/
dscmk
or
1.5E­
5
lbs/
MMBtuk,
i
26
ug/
dscmk
or
2.5E­
5
lbs
SVM
in
HW
per
MMBtuk,
i
in
HW
1.2
E­
4
lbs
LVM
per
MMBtu
in
HW
or
30
ug/
dscm
34
ppmv
or
6.65E­
2
lbs
C1
in
HW
per
MMBtui
in
HW
100
or
10
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
150
ppmv
or
99.923%
SRE
100
or
10
Option
D
Floor
Incinerators
0.30
or
0.20
for
dry
APCD
and
WHB
sources
if
APCD
>
400

F;
d
0.40
for
others
0.0037
gr/
dscf
j
130
ug/
dscm
22
ug/
dscm
21
ug/
dscm
47
ppmv
100
or
10
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
Exhibit
ES­
1
REGULATORY
ALTERNATIVES
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES
MACT
Source
Category
Chlorinated
D/
F
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
a
PM
Hg
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
SVM
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
LVM
(

g/
dscm)
TCl
(
ppmv)
f
CO
(
ppmv)
HC
b,
c
(
ppmv)

ES­
6
Cement
Kilns
0.20
or
0.40
and
temperature
control
<
400
°
F
at
APCD
inlet
0.014
gr/
dscf
32
ug/
dscm
68
ug/
dscm
11
ug/
dscm
41
ppmv
100
or
10
100
or
20
LWAKs
0.20
or
rapid
quench
of
flue
gas
at
exit
of
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F
0.025
gr/
dscf
19
ug/
dscm
250
ug/
dscm
104
ug/
dscm
600
ppmv
100
or
20
Solid
Fuel
Boilers
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
0.072
gr/
dscf
j
11
ug/
dscm
180
ug/
dscm
380
ug/
dscm
440
ppmv
100
or
10
Liquid
Fuel
Boilers
e
3.3
for
dry
APCD;
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
for
others
0.0025
gr/
dscf
j
0.70
ug/
dscmk
9
ug/
dscmk
34
ug/
dscm
(
Cr
only)
l
33
ppmv
100
or
10
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
e
CO
or
HC
and
DRE
standard
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
TCl
as
surrogate
32
ppmv
100
or
10
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
Exhibit
ES­
1
REGULATORY
ALTERNATIVES
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES
MACT
Source
Category
Chlorinated
D/
F
(
ng
TEQ/
dscm)
a
PM
Hg
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
SVM
(

g/
dscm,
or
lb/
MMBtu)
LVM
(

g/
dscm)
TCl
(
ppmv)
f
CO
(
ppmv)
HC
b,
c
(
ppmv)

ES­
7
Notes:

a
Across
all
options,
a
DRE
of
99.99%
is
required
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
pollutant.
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
is
required
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
pollutant.

b
Across
all
options,
sources
have
the
option
to
continuously
comply
with
a
CO
standard
of
100
ppmv
in
lieu
of
complying
with
the
HC
standard.
Sources
that
choose
to
do
this,
however,
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
HC
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.

c
Across
all
options,
cement
kilns
without
a
bypass
must
comply
with
either
20
ppmv
HC
or
100
ppmv
CO.
Cement
kilns
with
a
bypass/
mid­
kiln
sampling
system
must
comply
with
either
10
ppmv
HC
or
100
ppmv
CO
in
the
bypass
duct,
mid­
kiln
sampling
system
or
bypass
stack.

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

e
Particulate
matter,
semi­
volatile
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.

f
For
all
sources
except
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
site­
specific
risk­
based
emission
limits
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas.

g
MTEC
denotes
maximum
theoretical
emission
concentration,
and
is
equivalent
to
the
feed
rate
divided
by
gas
flow
rate.

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

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

j
Sources
may
elect
to
comply
with
an
alternative
to
the
particulate
matter
standard.

k
Standard
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data,
resulting
in
an
annual
average
compliance
period.

l
Low
volatile
metal
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
for
chromium
only.

m
Shaded
cells
indicate
that
the
standards
represent
beyond­
the­
floor
levels
compared
with
Option
A.
DRAFT:
May
2005
4
All
dollar
values
presented
in
this
assessment
are
2002
dollars.

ES­
8
SUMMARY
OF
FINDINGS
This
assessment
estimates
the
costs
and
benefits
of
EPA's
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
for
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
We
estimate
the
costs
of
the
replacement
rule
under
two
scenarios:
a
market­
adjusted
scenario
and
an
engineering
cost
scenario.
Under
the
market­
adjusted
scenario,
we
assume
that
the
hazardous
waste
combustion
market
adjusts
to
the
costs
associated
with
the
replacement
standards.
Potential
adjustments
include
increasing
commercial
combustion
prices,
sending
waste
offsite
rather
than
upgrading
to
comply
with
the
standards,
and
(
for
facilities
with
multiple
combustion
systems)
consolidating
hazardous
waste
combustion
systems.
In
contrast,
under
the
engineering
cost
scenario,
we
assume
that
all
facilities
upgrade
to
comply
with
the
standards,
regardless
of
cost.

The
central
conclusions
our
analyses
of
these
scenarios
are
as
follows:

°
We
estimate
$
27.5
million
in
social
costs
under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach,
with
an
upper
bound
estimate
of
$
43.5
million
if
we
assume
that
no
facilities
change
their
waste
management
practices
in
response
to
the
standards.
Total
social
costs
associated
with
the
replacement
standards
range
from
$
26.3
to
$
52.0
million
annually
across
regulatory
options,
and
are
not
expected
to
exceed
$
70.5
million
if
all
systems
upgrade
to
comply
with
the
most
stringent
option
considered
in
this
document.
4
°
Social
costs
under
the
market­
adjusted
scenario
are
substantially
lower
than
costs
under
the
engineering
cost
scenario.
Because
the
marketadjusted
scenario
reflects
the
cost­
minimizing
behavior
of
facilities
directly
affected
by
the
standards,
costs
under
the
market­
adjusted
scenario
are
26
to
38
percent
lower
than
the
upper
bound
costs
associated
with
upgrading
all
facilities
to
comply
with
the
standards.

°
Government
administrative
costs
are
estimated
at
$
447,500
to
$
459,500
per
year,
with
an
upper
bound
estimate
under
the
engineering
cost
scenario
of
$
503,000
per
year.
These
government
costs
reflect
administration
and
enforcement
activities
associated
with
systems
not
regulated
under
the
2002
Interim
Standards.

°
Most
systems
expected
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
in
response
to
the
replacement
standards
are
non­
commercial
systems.
Under
the
market­
adjusted
scenario,
we
expect
the
following
market
exits:
up
to
two
commercial
incinerator
systems,
23
to
24
on­
site
incinerator
systems,
and
11
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
9
liquid
boiler
systems.
We
do
not
anticipate
that
any
cement
kiln,
lightweight
aggregate
kiln,
coal
boiler,
or
HCl
production
furnace
systems
will
exit
the
market
in
response
to
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.

°
Under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach,
market
exit
and
waste
consolidation
activity
is
expected
to
result
in
the
reallocation
of
47,100
to
53,200
tons
of
waste
from
combustion
systems
that
stop
burning.
Under
the
market
adjusted
scenario,
between
1.2
and
1.4
percent
of
total
combusted
wastes
in
the
current
universe
will
be
reallocated.
Approximately
38,900
tons
of
this
waste
will
likely
be
rerouted
to
off­
site
commercial
facilities
as
onsite
systems
exit
the
market.
The
remaining
8,200
to
14,200
tons
of
waste
will
continue
to
be
treated
on
site
at
facilities
that
consolidate
their
hazardous
waste
combustion
systems.

°
We
expect
combustion
facilities
to
experience
employment
dislocations
and
employment
gains
as
a
result
of
the
standards.
As
some
facilities
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
in
individual
combustion
systems
in
response
to
the
standards
and
others
invest
in
additional
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
there
are
likely
to
be
employment
gains
and
losses
at
different
facilities.
At
facilities
that
consolidate
their
combustion
operations
or
that
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
altogether,
we
estimate
employment
dislocations
ranging
from
265
to
295
full­
time
equivalent
employees.
We
also
expect
employment
gains
of
approximately
350
to
559
full­
time
equivalent
employees
as
several
other
facilities
invest
in
new
pollution
control
equipment.

°
Combustion
prices
may
increase
modestly
as
commercial
facilities
face
higher
costs.
Under
the
market­
adjusted
scenario
(
in
which
commercial
facilities
increase
their
prices
to
cover
compliance
costs),
prices
are
expected
to
increase
by
less
than
one
percent
under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach.
This
increase
would
affect
both
"
new
customers"
that
are
closing
on­
site
combustion
systems
and
also
existing
consumers
of
hazardous
waste
combustion
services.

°
The
replacement
standards
are
expected
to
yield
measurable
human
health
and
visibility
benefits.
The
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
are
expected
to
result
in
$
6.5
to
$
13.0
million
per
year
in
human
health
and
visibility
benefits
under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach.

°
Potential
ecological
improvements.
Water
and
terrestrial
ecosystems
may
experience
some
limited
benefits
as
a
result
of
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
10
°
Waste
minimization.
We
do
not
expect
the
replacement
standards
to
result
in
significant
waste
minimization
in
the
short
run.
However,
more
substantial
waste
minimization
may
occur
in
the
long
run
as
facilities
design
and/
or
adopt
new
production
technologies.

Exhibit
ES­
2
summarizes
our
estimates
of
monetized
costs
and
benefits
associated
with
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
The
exhibit
shows
that
across
all
regulatory
options,
costs
exceed
monetized
benefits.
However,
the
HWC
MACT
standards
are
expected
to
yield
other
benefits
that
are
not
expressed
in
monetary
terms.
These
include
health
benefits
associated
with
reduced
lead,
mercury,
and
chlorine
emissions
and
ecological
improvements
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
ecosystems.
The
full
range
of
impacts
associated
with
the
replacement
standards
also
include
equityenhancing
effects
such
as
environmental
justice
and
impacts
on
children's
health.
Consequently,
EPA's
final
regulatory
decision
with
respect
to
the
replacement
standards
reflects
policy
judgments
about
efficiency
as
well
as
equity
concerns.
The
remainder
of
this
executive
summary
provides
more
detail
on
the
basis
for
these
conclusions.

Exhibit
ES­
2
COMPARISON
OF
SOCIAL
COSTS
AND
BENEFITS
(
millions
of
2002
dollars)

Annual
Social
Cost
Estimates
a
Annual
Benefits
Estimates
b
(
non
discounted)

MACT
Option
Market
Adjusted
Engineering
Cost
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Option
A
Floor
$
26.3
$
42.3
$
6.5
$
11.5
Final
Rule
$
27.5
$
43.5
$
6.5
$
13.0
Option
C
Floor
$
33.3
$
50.0
$
6.5
$
11.5
Option
D
Floor
$
51.9
­
$
52.0
$
70.5
$
10.6
$
19.6
Notes:
a
Social
cost
estimates
include
government
administrative
costs.
Government
costs
for
our
market­
adjusted
estimate
range
from
approximately
$
447,500
to
$
459,500
per
year,
and
government
costs
for
our
upper
bound
engineering
cost
estimate
are
approximately
$
503,000.
b
Benefits
estimates
do
not
include
some
benefits
that
are
difficult
to
monetize,
such
as
health
improvements
for
children,
subsistence
fishermen,
and
commercial
beef
and
dairy
farmers
as
well
as
potential
ecological
improvements.
Therefore
the
benefits
presented
in
this
exhibit
underestimate
the
total
benefits
associated
with
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
The
range
of
potential
benefits
associated
with
visibility
improvements
accounts
for
the
range
in
benefits
estimates.
DRAFT:
May
2005
5
The
compliance
cost
estimates
for
cement
kilns
do
not
take
into
account
the
Portland
Cement
MACT,
which
addresses
non­
hazardous
cement
kilns.
If
the
Portland
Cement
MACT
is
accounted
for
in
these
estimates,
the
compliance
costs
for
cement
kilns
under
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
would
likely
be
lower.

ES­
11
ENGINEERING
COMPLIANCE
COST
ANALYSIS
Total
HWC
MACT
compliance
costs
for
existing
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities
will
depend
on
the
pollution
control
measures
necessary
for
compliance
at
individual
combustion
systems
and
the
costs
associated
with
these
measures.
To
estimate
these
costs,
we
developed
an
engineering
model
that
identifies
the
pollution
control
technologies
required
by
each
individual
system.
Based
on
the
technologies
selected,
the
model
then
generates
system­
specific
estimates
of
HWC
MACT
compliance
costs.
In
addition
to
these
pollution
control
costs,
the
model
includes
other
compliance
costs
associated
with
monitoring
requirements,
sampling
and
analysis,
permit
modifications,
and
other
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements.
Some
of
these
component
costs
may
be
specific
to
individual
combustion
systems,
while
others
are
consistent
across
all
systems
within
a
source
category
(
e.
g.,
cement
kilns)
or
across
the
entire
HWC
MACT
universe.
Exhibit
ES­
3
describes
the
different
steps
included
in
our
compliance
cost
methodology.
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
ES­
2
as
the
"
engineering
cost"
estimates.
Additional
results
include
the
following:

°
Liquid
boilers
have
the
highest
per
system
compliance
costs
under
each
of
the
regulatory
options
considered
in
this
document,
with
the
exception
of
the
Option
D
Floor,
under
which
average
costs
per
system
are
highest
for
cement
kilns.
Per
system
compliance
costs
are
lowest
for
LWAKs
across
all
regulatory
options
other
than
the
Option
D
Floor.
Under
the
Option
D
Floor,
per
system
costs
are
lowest
for
on­
site
incinerators.

°
Government
administrative
costs,
borne
primarily
by
EPA
offices
and
state
environmental
agencies,
total
$
503,244
per
year
if
all
systems
upgrade
to
comply
with
the
replacement
standards.

Compliance
costs
vary
significantly
across
individual
combustion
systems
within
a
given
source
category.
The
following
compliance
cost
results
for
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach
illustrate
the
wide
variability
across
specific
types
of
combustion
systems:


Cement
Kilns
­­
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
0
to
$
718,100
with
an
average
cost
of
$
113,600
per
system.
5

Commercial
Incinerators
­­
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
14,200
to
$
127,500,
with
an
average
cost
of
$
55,400
per
system.
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
12

LWAKs
­­
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
0
to
$
18,600,
with
an
average
cost
of
$
3,300
per
system.


On­
Site
Incinerators
­­
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
0
to
$
89,500,
with
an
average
cost
of
$
14,300
per
system.


Liquid
Boilers
 
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
0
to
$
1,603,700,
with
an
average
of
$
274,200
per
system.


Coal
Boilers
 
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
67,700
to
$
315,100,
with
an
average
of
$
170,200
per
system.


HCl
Production
Furnaces
 
Annual
per­
system
compliance
costs
range
from
$
0
to
$
130,400,
with
an
average
of
$
16,600.
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
13
Exhibit
ES­
3
OVERVIEW
OF
SYSTEM­
SPECIFIC
COMPLIANCE
COST
ANALYSIS
Set
allowable
emissions
for
HAPs
of
concern
Baseline
emiss
ions
for
actual
combustion
systems
included
in
the
model
APCDs
currently
in
p
lace
Calcu
late
%

reduction
required
for
each
HAP
Gas
flow
rate
Total
chlorine
in
feed
System
type
Evaluate
what
new
APCDs
or
DOMs
would
be
required
to
achieve
the
emis
sions
reduction
(
accounts
for
jo
int
control
of
mu
ltiple
HAPs)

Es
timate
HW
feed
control
costs
and/
or
retrofit
costs
KEY
Input
Process/
Calculation
Output/
Result
NOTES
1.
Setting
of
allowable
emiss
ions
for
haza
rdous
air
pollutants
(
HAPs)
based
on
MACT
analys
is
using
Tria
l
Burn
Reports.
Baseline
emiss
ions
also
determined
using
Trial
Burn
Reports
(
measured
at
the
stack)
and
imputation.
See
U.
S.
EPA,
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
II:

HWC
Database,
forthcoming
June
2005.

2.
All
other
data
inputs
from
U.
S.
EPA,
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Standards,
Volume
II:
HWC
Database,
June
2005.

3.
A
DOM
is
a
design,
operation,
or
ma
intenance
change
to
an
exis
ting
Air
Pollution
Control
Dev
ice
(
APCD).
CEMs
are
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems.

Add
additional
compliance
costs
(
e.
g.,
CEMs,
permitting)
Total
new
compliance
costs
per
system
Stack
moisture
Temperature
at
APCD
inlet
Select
standards
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
14
SOCIAL
COST
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
The
social
costs
of
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
include
the
value
of
resources
used
by
the
private
sector,
to
comply
with
the
standards,
costs
to
government
to
administer
the
standards,
and
the
value
of
output
lost
due
to
shifts
in
resources
to
less
productive
uses.
As
explained
in
more
detail
in
Chapter
5,
we
estimate
the
value
of
the
private
sector
resource
shifts
using
a
simplified
approach
designed
to
bracket
the
welfare
loss
attributable
to
the
MACT
standards.
The
high
end
of
the
economic
welfare
loss
range
is
consistent
with
the
engineering
cost
scenario
described
above,
under
which
all
combustion
facilities
are
assumed
to
continue
managing
hazardous
waste
on
site
and
upgrade
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards.
In
contrast,
our
market­
adjusted
cost
estimates
reflect
potential
changes
in
facilities'
waste
management
practices
as
well
as
potential
price
changes
at
commercial
facilities.

The
results
of
our
social
cost
analysis
are
presented
in
Exhibit
ES­
4.
As
the
exhibit
indicates,
annual
social
costs
range
between
$
26.3
and
$
52.0
million
across
regulatory
options,
with
an
upper
bound
of
$
70.5
million
under
the
Option
D
Floor,
reflecting
upgrades
under
the
engineering
cost
scenario.
Under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach,
the
best
estimate
for
total
social
costs
of
the
rule
are
$
27.5
million,
with
an
upper
bound
of
$
43.5
million.
Total
government
costs
represent
between
one
and
two
percent
of
total
social
costs
across
all
MACT
options.

Exhibit
ES­
4
SUMMARY
OF
ANNUAL
SOCIAL
COST
ESTIMATES
a
(
millions
of
2002
dollars)

Best
Estimate
(
Market­
Adjusted
Scenario)
Upper
Bound
(
Engineering
Cost
Scenario)

Final
Rule
$
27.5
$
43.5
Option
A
Floor
$
26.3
$
42.3
Option
C
Floor
$
33.3
$
50.0
Option
D
Floor
$
52.0
$
70.5
Notes:
a
Government
administrative
costs
are
included
in
the
social
cost
estimates.
Government
costs
for
our
best
estimate
range
from
$
447,500
to
$
459,500
per
year,
depending
on
the
compliance
option.
For
the
upper
bound
estimate,
under
which
all
systems
upgrade,
annual
government
costs
are
approximately
$
503,000.
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
15
BENEFITS
ASSESSMENT
The
benefits
associated
with
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
include
the
avoidance
of
a
variety
of
adverse
health
impacts,
including
premature
mortality,
chronic
bronchitis,
acute
bronchitis,
upper
and
lower
respiratory
conditions,
pollution­
related
work
loss
days,
minor
restricted
activity
days,
and
hospital
admissions
associated
with
respiratory
or
cardiovascular
disease.
The
standards
also
are
expected
to
improve
visibility
and
may
improve
the
health
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
ecosystems.

To
assess
these
benefits,
we
scaled
the
results
of
the
1999
Assessment
to
reflect
current
conditions
and
emissions
reductions
achieved
under
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
Since
the
1999
Assessment
was
completed,
several
facilities
have
either
closed
or
stopped
burning
hazardous
waste;
therefore,
we
incorporate
such
changes
in
the
HWC
MACT
universe
into
our
estimates
of
the
benefits
associated
with
the
replacement
standards.
Similarly,
the
emissions
reductions
expected
under
the
replacement
standards
are
different
than
those
associated
with
the
1999
standards,
even
for
facilities
that
still
burn
hazardous
waste.
Our
analysis
of
the
replacement
standards
accounts
for
these
differences.

To
measure
the
value
of
the
human
health
benefits
associated
with
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards,
we
assign
a
monetary
value
to
avoided
cases
of
each
health
endpoint
included
in
the
risk
assessment.
For
mortality
benefits,
we
apply
the
value
of
a
statistical
life
(
VSL),
which
is
based
on
an
individual's
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
to
reduce
the
risk
of
premature
death.
We
also
used
WTP
estimates
for
most
morbidity
effects,
but
in
cases
where
WTP
estimates
were
not
available
we
used
cost­
of­
illness
estimates
reflecting
the
average
medical
costs
associated
with
the
effect
(
e.
g.,
hospitalization
costs,
pharmaceutical
expenditures,
etc.).

Exhibit
ES­
5
presents
the
human
health
benefits
associated
with
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
As
the
exhibit
indicates,
most
of
the
human
health
benefits
resulting
from
the
standards
are
related
to
reduced
PM
emissions.
These
benefits
include
0.45
to
0.75
fewer
premature
deaths
per
year,
valued
at
approximately$
2.8
to
$
4.7
million
per
year.
Reduced
PM
emissions
also
yield
benefits
associated
with
avoided
morbidity
effects.
Our
estimates
of
these
benefits
include
(
on
an
annual
basis)
1.7
to
2.8
avoided
hospital
admissions
associated
with
respiratory
and
heart
conditions
and
71
to
117
avoided
cases
of
chronic
bronchitis,
acute
bronchitis,
and
upper
and
lower
respiratory
conditions.
We
also
estimate
the
avoidance
of
613
to
1,007
work
loss
days
per
year
and
5,103
to
8,391
minor
restricted
activity
days
per
year.
We
estimate
that
these
morbidity­
related
benefits
range
in
value
from
$
3.4
to
$
5.6
million
across
the
four
regulatory
options
presented
in
this
document.
Reductions
in
lead
and
mercury
emissions
may
provide
some
additional
health
benefits,
particularly
for
children,
subsistence
fishermen,
and
commercial
beef
and
dairy
farmers
living
in
close
proximity
to
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
6
U.
S.
EPA,
The
Benefits
and
Costs
of
the
Clean
Air
Act:
1990
to
2010,
November
1999.

ES­
16
Exhibit
ES­
5
HUMAN
HEALTH
BENEFITS
SUMMARY:
REDUCED
INCIDENCE
OF
ADVERSE
HEALTH
EFFECTS
Type
of
Benefit
Agency
Preferred
Approach
Option
A
Floor
Option
C
Floora
Option
D
Floor
PM­
related
Health
Benefits
Premature
mortality
0.46
0.455
0.45
0.75
Respiratory
Illness
Hospital
Adm.
1.21
1.20
1.20
1.97
Cardiovascular
Disease
Hospital
Adm.
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.87
Chronic
Bronchitis
7.70
7.65
7.65
12.54
Acute
Bronchitis
5.86
5.81
5.81
9.60
Lower
Respiratory
Symptoms
51.95
51.53
51.53
85.15
Upper
Respiratory
Symptoms
6.02
5.98
5.98
9.88
Minor
Restricted
Activity
Days
5,141.79
5,103.34
5,103.34
8,391.36
Work
Loss
Days
617.22
612.60
612.60
1,007.29
Dioxin­
related
Health
Benefits
Dioxin­
related
cancer
deaths
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
Notes:
a.
In
developing
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards,
EPA
also
considered
an
Option
B
Floor.

Visibility
is
also
expected
to
improve
because
of
PM
emissions
reductions
achieved
under
the
replacement
standards.
Based
on
the
visibility
benefits
estimated
in
EPA's
1999
analysis
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
we
estimate
visibility
benefits
ranging
from
$
0.2
to
$
9.3
million
per
year
across
the
HWC
MACT
standards
included
in
this
document.
6
Ecological
improvements
may
also
result
from
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
The
1999
MACT
standards
were
projected
to
reduce
potential
ecosystem
risks
for
38
square
kilometers
of
water
and
115
to
147
square
kilometers
of
land.
Because
the
emissions
reductions
expected
under
the
1999
Standards
exceed
the
emissions
reductions
resulting
from
the
replacement
standards,
we
do
not
expect
the
ecological
benefits
of
the
replacement
standards
to
exceed
the
improvements
associated
with
the
1999
standards.
That
is,
we
expect
less
than
38
square
kilometers
of
water
and
115
to
147
square
kilometers
of
land
to
experience
reduced
risks
as
a
result
of
the
replacement
standards.

It
is
important
to
note
that
benefits
for
certain
sensitive
sub­
populations
who
may
face
greater
risks,
namely
children,
low­
income
individuals,
minorities,
subsistence
fishermen,
and
commercial
beef
and
dairy
farmers,
could
not
be
estimated
in
the
risk
assessment.
As
a
result,
our
monetized
benefits
estimates
do
not
reflect
benefits
realized
by
these
individuals.
Our
monetized
results
also
do
not
include
the
value
of
ecological
benefits
associated
with
the
replacement
standards
because
we
cannot
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
17
translate
the
potential
improvements
into
an
end­
point
benefit
measure,
such
as
increased
fish
populations,
for
which
a
benefits
transfer
approach
could
assign
monetary
values.
Our
monetized
benefits,
therefore,
do
not
reflect
the
full
range
of
benefits
expected
from
this
rule.

OTHER
REGULATORY
ISSUES
To
satisfy
OMB
requirements
for
regulatory
review,
we
assessed
potential
equity
impacts
related
to
the
following:


Regulatory
Flexibility.
The
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Only
eight
of
the
145
combustion
facilities
(
six
percent)
are
classified
as
small
businesses.
The
upper
bound
compliance
cost
estimates
(
i.
e.,
those
associated
with
the
engineering
cost
scenario)
under
the
Agency
Preferred
Approach
represent
less
than
1
percent
of
total
sales
for
all
combustion
facilities
considered
a
small
business.


Environmental
Justice
Analysis.
The
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
should
not
have
any
adverse
environmental
or
health
effects
on
minority
or
low­
income
populations.
Any
impacts
the
rule
has
on
these
populations
are
likely
to
be
positive
because
the
rule
will
potentially
reduce
emissions
from
combustion
facilities
near
minority
and
low­
income
population
groups.


Children's
Health
Protection
Analysis.
Although
we
have
not
quantitatively
assessed
the
impacts
of
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
on
children's
health,
qualitative
analysis
indicates
that
children
would
benefit
from
the
replacement
rule.


Joint
Impacts
of
Rules.
Facilities
in
the
HWC
MACT
universe
are
affected
by
a
number
of
regulations.
However,
some
of
these
regulations
are
not
expected
to
have
an
aggregate
impact
on
regulated
facilities.


Unfunded
Federal
Mandates.
Based
on
these
criteria
set
forth
by
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA),
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
do
not
contain
a
significant
unfunded
mandate.
Because
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
EPA
to
establish
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants,
the
rule
should
be
exempt
from
all
relevant
requirements
of
UMRA.
In
addition,
compliance
with
the
rule
is
voluntary
for
non­
federal
governmental
entities
since
state
and
local
agencies
choose
whether
to
apply
to
EPA
for
the
permitting
authority
necessary
to
implement
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
IEc
DRAFT:
May
2005
ES­
18

Tribal
Governments
Analysis.
Although
there
is
no
specific
metric
for
determining
whether
a
regulation
"
significantly
or
uniquely
affects"
an
Indian
tribal
government,
the
replacement
standards
are
not
expected
to
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
tribal
governments
and
their
communities.


Federalism.
The
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
do
not
have
federalism
implications.
They
will
not
have
direct
financial
effects
on
the
States
because
EPA
will
be
responsible
for
permitting
and
monitoring
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
Furthermore,
the
replacement
standards
should
not
alter
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States
because
the
States
may
voluntarily
apply
for
permitting
authority
in
order
to
implement
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
Finally,
the
replacement
regulations
do
not
preempt
State
law
because
States
may
still
develop
air
pollution
laws
that
exceed
the
stringency
of
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.


Regulatory
Takings.
Based
on
our
review
of
relevant
case
law,
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
are
not
likely
to
result
in
any
regulatory
takings.
The
rule
will
not
require
that
private
property
be
invaded
or
taken
for
public
use.


Energy
Impact
Analysis.
This
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
energy
action"
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.


Civil
Justice
Analysis.
The
final
rule
meets
applicable
standards
in
sections
3(
a)
and
3(
b)(
2)
of
Executive
Order
12988,
"
Civil
Justice
Reform"
(
February
5,
1996),
to
minimize
litigation,
eliminate
ambiguity,
and
reduce
burden.
EPA
actions
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Order
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:
unambiguous
specification
of
the
standards,
establishment
of
clear
compliance
deadlines
for
regulated
facilities,
and
a
description
of
the
effect
of
the
standards
on
existing
law.


Facilitation
of
Cooperative
Conservation.
In
developing
the
final
replacement
standards,
EPA
considered
public
comments
on
the
proposed
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards
from
a
number
of
State
and
local
governments
and
private
organizations.
In
addition,
non­
federal
government
entities,
such
as
the
States,
may
voluntarily
apply
for
permitting
authority
to
implement
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
They
may
also
develop
air
pollution
laws
that
exceed
the
stringency
of
the
HWC
MACT
replacement
standards.
