UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
SOLID
WASTE
AND
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ronald
A.
Shipley
Counsel,
CMA
Waste
Issues
Team
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
1300
Wilson
Blvd.
Arlington,
VA
22209
Dear
Mr.
Shipley:

Thank
you
for
your
March
1
O*
letter
regarding
an
"agreement
in
principle"
to
revise
the
alternative
particulate
matter
(I")
standard
in
the
September
1999
Hazardous
Waste
Combustor
(HWC)
NESHAP
final
rule.
We
concur
with
the
agreed
upon
approach
outlined
in
your
letter,
included
as
an
enclosure
herein.
As
a
result,
we
will
join
in
a
motion
with
you
to
sever
and
hold
in
abeyance
your
challenge
to
the
PM
standard
for
incinerators
in
the
HWC
MACT
rule.
In
addition,
we
are
pleased
to
understand
that
if
we
finalize
a
rulemaking
establishing
a
revised
alternative
PM
standard
in
accordance
with
the
"agreement
in
principle,"
then
you
and
other
petitioners,
i.
e.,
American
Cyanamid
and
General
Electric,
will
dismiss
your
challenge
to
the
incinerator
PM
standard
with
prejudice.

As
mentioned
previously,
a
revision
to
the
alternative
PM
standard
must
be
implemented
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
procedures.
We
plan
to
include
this
revision
as
part
of
an
inclusive
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
cNpRh4)
to
revise
other
certain
Iimited
aspects
of
the
HWC
MACT
rule.
In
my
estimation,
such
an
effort
would
not
likely
be
published
in
the
Federal
Register
before
late
fall,
with
a
final
rulemaking
being
published
sometime
in
late
spring
of
2001.

I
want
to
thank
you,
Tom
Nilan,
and
all
your
members
who
worked
with
us
to
craft
a
sensible
approach
towards
resolving
this
difficult
issue.
My
staff
will
be
contacting
you
shortly
to
discuss
a
schedule
for
submittal
of
the
joint
severance
motion.

Sincerely,

James
R.
Berlow,
Director
Hazardous
Waste
Minimization
and
Management
Division
RecycledlRecyclable
Printed
with
Vegetable
Oil
Based
inks
on
100%
Recycled
Paper
(20%
Postconsumer)
Alternative
PM
Standard
"Agreement
In
Principle"

Based
on
our
discussions,
we
understand
that:

1.
EPA
will
promptly
propose
in
the
Federal
Register
regulations
revising
the
alternative
PM
standard
as
described
herein.
Following
receipt
of
comments,
EPA
will
promptly
take
final
action
on
the
proposal.

2.
EPA's
proposed
revision
will
establish
an
alternative
metals
emissions
standard
for
semi­
voIatile
metals
(SVM)
and
low
volatile
metals
(LVM)
of
240
mg/
dscm
and
97
mg/
dscm
respectively
(both
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen)
on
an
"expanded"
basis,
ie.,
the
SVM
emission
standard
will
appIy
to
the
combined
emissions
of
lead,
cadmium,
and
selenium
and
the
LVM
emission
standard
will
apply
to
the
combined
emissions
of
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
nickel,
beryllium,
arsenic,
and
chromium.

3.
In
order
for
a
facility
to
qualifL
and
operate
under
the
alternative
metals
emissions
standard,
a
facility
must
demonstrate:

a)
that
the
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
(MTEC)
of
HAP
metals
­

excluding
mercury
­
for
the
combined`
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
the
incinerator
does
not
exceed
25%
of
the
MACT
MTEC
floors
on
an
expanded
basis,
i.
e.,
1,325
mg/
dscm
of
expanded
SVM
HAP
metals
and
4,000
mg/
dscm
of
expanded
LVM
HAP
metals
(both
corrected
to
7
percent
oxygen).
Non­
detectable
constitutents­
in
hazardous
waste
feeds
will
be
assumed
present
at
one­
half
the
detection
limit
for
the
purpose
of
calculating
the
MTEC.

b)
At
least
ninety
percent
(90%)
system
removal
efficiency
for
SV"
In
making
this
demonstration,
a
facility
may
"spike"
their
SVM
feed
above
25
percent
of
the
SVM
MACT
MTEC
floor,
so
long
as
the
alternative
SVM
metals
standard
is
attained
during
the
test.
This
test
may
be
performed
independently
of
the
comprehensive
performance
test
and
will
be
used
to
establish
SVM
and
LVM
operating
parameter
limits,
other
than
the
SVM
and
LVM
feedrate
limits
that
are
addressed
in
paragraph
5,
below.

c)
The
incinerator
meets
the
alternative
metals
emissions
standard.
This
demonstration
may
be
combined
with
the
SRE
demonstration
and
will
be
used
to
establish
SVM
and
LVM
operating
parameter
limits.
.
....

4.
Limits
established
to
ensure
that
the
facility
does
not
operate
above
25%
of
the
MACT
MTEC
floors
will
be
based
on
the
combined
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
the
incinerator
and
may
be
expressed
either
as
an
MTEC
limit
or
as
a
restriction
on
maximum
hazardous
waste
metals
mass
feedrate
and
minimum
gas
flow
rate.
These
limits
will
be
based
on
a
12
hour
rolling
average
5.
SVM
and
LVM
operating
parameter
limits
will
be
established
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
alternative
metals
emissions
standard.
Metal
feedrate
limits
established
to
comply
with
the
alternative
metals
emissions
standard
will
be
based
on
the
total
combined
feedstream
to
the
incinerator
and
will
be
expressed
on
a
mass
per
unit
time
basis.

6.
The
PM
standard
of
0.015
gr/
dscf
to
be
codified
at
40
C.
F.
R.
63.1203
will
not
apply
to
incinerators
that
qualify
for
the
alternative
metals
standard.
Such
incinerators
would
remain
subject
to
the
RCRA
PM
emission
standard
of
0.08
gr/
dscf
at
40
C.
F.
R.
264.343(
c).

3.
EPA
will
promptly
issue
a
guidance
memorandum
stating
that
a
facility
with
a
legitimate
expectation
of
qualifying
for
the
alternative
metals
emissions
standard
will
not
be
disqualified
fiom
being
considered
eligible
for
a
compliance
extension
or
a
schedule
of
compliance
if
the
facility
later
determines
that
it
needs
to
comply
with
the
base
PM
standard.

8.
EPA
will
provide
written
guidance,
based
on
discussions
with
CMA,
which
addresses
implementation
issues
concerning
analytical
anomalies
and
waste
feed
variability
when
demonstrating
eligibility
and
compliance.

9.
EPA
will
acknowledge
this
letter
of
understanding
in
writing
and
will
jointly
support
a
motion
to
sever
and
hold
briefing
of
CMA's
particulate
matter
standards
challenge
in
abeyance
before
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.
