> **[CRWI's HANDOUTS OF OMB MEETING OF 8-26-2005]{.underline}**
>
> Summary
>
> We agree with the way EPA is handling the following issues.
>
> 1\. The proposed methods for developing the standards.
>
> 2\. The use of the Maximum Deviation concept.
>
> 3\. CRWI supports a flexible approach for setting standards for liquid
> fuel-fired boilers.
>
> 4\. CRWI supports the use of chlorine as a surrogate for metals in the
> HAF subcategory.
>
> 5\. CRWI supports EPA's decision not to go beyond-the-floor for the
> chlorine standard for solid fuel-fired boilers.
>
> 6\. CRWI supports the use of a health-based alternative standard for
> chlorine and hydrochloric acid.
>
> We have concerns about how EPA is handling the following issues.
>
> 7\. CRWI believes that the health-based alternative standard for
> chlorine (Cl~2~) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) should be
> self-implementing.
>
> 8\. Unless at least one source is able to meet all new source
> standards, the new source standards are not achievable.
>
> 9\. The top performers used to determine the new source standards must
> be *similar* to the other sources within the category.
>
> 10\. EPA should not incorporate data from facilities that have already
> upgraded to meet the interim standards into the calculations for the
> permanent replacement standards.
>
> 11\. EPA should make sure that data used to develop the standards,
> especially for new sources, meet the requirements for data quality.
>
> 12\. EPA needs to ensure that the current EPA approved methods can be
> used to show compliance with the proposed standards.
>
> 13\. EPA should ensure, especially for new sources, that all aspects
> of data uncertainty are considered.
>
> 14\. EPA needs to justify any beyond-the-floor standards.
>
> 15\. EPA should not require site-specific risk assessments (SSRA) as a
> part of the permanent replacement standards rulemaking.
>
> **Detailed discussion**

**[Issues where we agree with EPA]{.underline}**

**1. The proposed methods for developing the standards.**

-   The Hazardous Waste Combustion (HWC) source category is comprised of
    a diverse mix of industrial activities, ranging from commercial and
    non-commercial incinerators utilizing thermal treatment to reduce
    the volume and toxicity of hazardous waste, cement kilns,
    lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial boilers, and halogen acid
    recovery furnaces combusting hazardous waste primarily for fuel
    value, and the specialty facilities for munitions and chemical
    weapons destruction.

-   Individual categories of HAPs -- dioxins and furans (D/F),
    semi-volatile (SVM) and low-volatile metals (LVM), particulate
    matter (PM), chlorine and hydrochloric acid (Cl~2~/HCl)) -- require
    different control technologies. There is no one-size-fits-all
    methodology for judging the performance of the HWC source category.

-   EPA proposed to use straight emissions to develop D/F emission
    standards, a technology approach to develop PM emission standards,
    and a SRE/Feed approach to develop most of the rest of the emission
    standards.

-   CRWI continues to support these proposed methods for developing the
    HWC MACT standards.

**2. The use of the Maximum Deviation concept.**

-   We agree that, in setting emission standards, using the detection
    limit as the default emissions rate for non-detects underestimates
    run-to-run variability. It appears that EPA has found a reasonable
    solution in the Maximum Deviation concept (Max Dev) that can be
    applied uniformly to all cases where non-detect data are used to
    provide a consistent method of estimating variability.

-   Our most immediate concern with the concept is our inability to
    independently verify this concept on the actual data used to develop
    the standards. These data will not be released until the final rule
    is published. When the method is applied to the selection of the top
    performers and to development of the floor values for each HAP in
    each sub-category, problems may be encountered that could not be
    anticipated from a theoretical evaluation.

-   We also have concerns about using non-detect data to develop
    emission standards. When the agency is forced to use non-detect data
    to develop standards, we believe that EPA should follow their own
    guidance and use the reliable detection limit (RDL) rather than the
    method detection limit (MDL) -- (RDL=2.623 x MDL). See *Developments
    of Compliance Levels from Analytical Detection and Quantification
    Levels*, USEPA, NTIS, PB95-216321.

**3. CRWI supports a flexible approach for setting standards for liquid
fuel-fired boilers.**

-   In our comments, CRWI suggested finalizing the liquid fuel-fired
    boiler standards as either a thermal based emission limit or as a
    concentration based emission limit.

-   EPA has indicated that the final rule will allow flexibility in how
    the heat-recovery units meet their standards. We support the use of
    flexibility but cannot specifically endorse this new concept without
    having seen it.

**4. CRWI supports the use of chlorine/hydrochloric acid as a surrogate
for metals in the HAF subcategory.**

-   CRWI supports the proposal that total chlorine (Cl~2~ + HCl) can be
    used as a surrogate for particulate matter, mercury, semi-volatile
    metals, and low-volatile metals standards for the halogen acid
    recovery furnaces subcategory for both existing and new sources.

-   Most hydrochloric acid production furnaces use wet scrubbers to
    recover HCl as a product. These scrubbers will also remove the small
    amounts of metals and particulate that may be present in the waste
    feeds.

-   We agree that controlling CL~2~/HCl emissions will also ensure
    control of metal HAPs and particulates.

**5. CRWI supports EPA's decision not to go beyond-the-floor for the
chlorine standard for solid fuel-fired boilers.**

-   CRWI supports EPA's decision not to go beyond-the floor for Cl~2~
    and HCl for solid fuel-fired boilers

**6. CRWI supports the use of a health-based alternative standard for
chlorine (Cl~2~) and hydrochloric acid (HCl).**

-   Congress gave EPA the authority in Section 112(d)(4) to establish
    health-based alternative standards for HAPs with established
    health-based thresholds. In the report language, Congress encouraged
    EPA to use its discretion to avoid compliance costs that secure no
    public health or environmental benefit.

-   HCl is a threshold pollutant. The reference dose (RfC) is listed in
    the IRIS database.

-   The RfC for HCl has an uncertainty factor of 300, thus already
    meeting the ample margin of safety requirement for 112(d)(4).

-   EPA properly noticed and should promulgate the health-based
    alternative for chlorine and HCl as proposed with one exception as
    discussed below.

> **[Issues of concern]{.underline}**

**7. CRWI believes that the health-based alternative standard for
chlorine (Cl~2~) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) should be
self-implementing.**

What are our concerns?

-   As proposed, EPA would require agency approval of a facility's
    eligibility demonstration prior to the compliance date. Should the
    Agency fail to approve the demonstration prior to the compliance
    date, the facility is required to comply with the technology-based
    standard.

-   The Agency's past record for other HWC MACT approvals, such as CPT
    plans, alternative monitoring applications, etc., has
    [not]{.underline} given us much faith that these eligibility
    demonstrations will be promptly acted upon. Timeliness of agency
    review is further complicated by state/regional interactions and by
    what authority will or will not have been delegated by the time
    approvals are needed.

> Why is this a problem?

-   We do not object to submitting the eligibility determination to the
    Agency for approval.

-   Our only concern is that the permitting authority can effectively
    remove this option by failing to approve the eligibility
    demonstration in a timely manner. While the proposed rule allows the
    Agency 6 months to make a decision, there are no provisions for any
    extensions nor are there any penalties on the permitting agency for
    a failure to act. This could force eligible facilities to expend
    resources to reduce emissions that would have no benefit to human
    health and the environment simply because the Agency failed to act
    on a timely basis.

-   We do not believe that facilities should be punished because the
    permitting agencies fail to approve these demonstrations in a timely
    manner. This is contrary to Congress' intent when allowing these
    types of standards.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   If the health-based Cl~2~/HCl standard is self-implementing in the
    final rule, no action by OMB is needed

-   If the health-based Cl~2~/HCl eligibility demonstration requires
    prior approval in the final rule, we suggest that EPA develop a
    method that allows for extensions of the compliance date for
    facilities that have submitted complete eligibility demonstrations
    but are waiting on agency approval.

**8. Unless at least one existing source is able to meet all new source
standards, the new source standards are not achievable.**

> What are our concerns?

-   The "A" in MACT stands for "achievable." When Congress imposed the
    technology-based MACT regimen in 1990, the first step for dealing
    with HAPs was to determine what HAP-emitting source categories were
    actually achieving, then setting emission standards based on the
    best level of industry performance.

-   In making this determination for the HWC MACT, EPA has proceeded on
    a HAP-by-HAP basis, calculating an average for the best performing
    existing sources. In the proposed rule, EPA stated that at least 6%
    of existing facilities could simultaneously meet all of the proposed
    standards for existing sources.

-   In setting the significantly more stringent MACT standards for new
    sources, however, EPA did not consider whether any single existing
    source can actually meet the new source standards for each HAP.

-   In our comments, we showed that no one source could meet all the new
    source standards.

-   We consider that this renders the proposed new source standards
    unachievable.

> Why is this a problem?

-   EPA has chosen to use a HAP-by-HAP process to develop existing
    standards.

-   This works for existing sources because the method averages
    emissions for the top performers and many of the top performers in
    the HAP categories overlap.

-   When EPA chooses the best top performer for each HAP category to set
    the new source standards, each standard comes from a different
    facility. For example, the chlorine standard is from source 349, the
    mercury standard is from source 3019, the LVM standard is from
    source 341, the SVM standard is from source 810, the PM standard is
    from source 3011, and the dioxin/furan standard is from source 222.

-   As a result, no single source can simultaneously meet all the new
    source standards.

-   In addition, technologies are incompatible. For example the best
    technology to control PM, SVM, and LVM is fabric filters, the best
    technology to control mercury and dioxin/furan is activated carbon,
    and the best technology to control chlorine is wet scrubbing. Fabric
    filters and activated carbon can work well together. However,
    neither fabric filters nor activated carbon works well with wet
    scrubbing systems without some method to remove the water in the gas
    stream (not impossible but not easy and requires additional energy
    input).

-   Congress anticipated this problem and addressed it during a colloquy
    between Senators Dole and Durenberger during the Senate debate on
    the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 conference report (Leg History
    Vol. 1: 1129). See text of exchange below.

> "Mr. DOLE. This section also requires the development of standards for
> a variety of pollutants. It is entirely possible that different
> technologies may reduce one pollutant better than another. For
> example, technology A may reduce heavy metals better than technology B
> while technology B may reduce particulates better than technology A;
> yet, one would not be compatible with the other. I would assume that
> EPA would have adequate discretion to balance environmental benefits
> to determine which technology on the whole represents a better MACT. I
> would appreciate some discussion on this point as well from my
> distinguished colleague from Minnesota.
>
> Mr. DURENBERGER. The Senator is correct. Where differing air pollution
> control technologies result in one technology producing better control
> of some pollutants and another producing better control of different
> pollutants but it is technically infeasible according to the MACT
> definition to use both, EPA should judge MACT to be the technology
> which best benefits human health and the environment on the whole."
>
> What do we want OMB to do?

-   To make the standards for new sources "achievable," at least one
    existing facility has to be able to meet all standards
    simultaneously. If this is not done, the standards for new sources
    are not achievable and are vulnerable to challenge.

-   Direct EPA to address the statutory requirement that new source
    standards be based on actual performance of the best performing
    single source. To do this, EPA has to show that at least one
    existing facility can meet the all new source standards
    simultaneously.

**9. The top performers used to determine the new source standards must
be *similar* to the other sources within the category.**

> What are our concerns?

-   Based on the database used for the proposed permanent replacement
    standards for PM, the database contains 38 rotary kilns, 39 liquid
    injection units, 6 fixed hearths, 5 fluidized beds, 3 rotary
    hearths, 2 roller hearths, 2 controlled air units, and 1 moving
    hearth.

-   The two most common configurations are rotary kilns and liquid
    injection units. A rotary kiln will typically be 40-60 feet long,
    12-16 feet in diameter, feed 10,000-15,000 pounds per hour, and have
    a thermal rating of 60-120 MM BTU/hr.

-   The top performers are as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chlorine -- Unit 349, rotary kiln, 5 feet inside diameter, thermal
    rating of 4.9 MM BTU/hr, reported Cl~2~/HCl emissions of 0.18 ppmv.

-   Mercury -- Unit 3019, vertical fired, liquid injection, reported
    mercury emissions of 8.1 ug/dscm.

-   LVM -- Unit 341, fixed hearth, feed 900 pounds per hour, thermal
    rating of 6.4 MM BTU/hr, reported LVM emissions of 8.9 ug/dscm.

-   SVM -- Unit 810, liquid injection, reported SVM emissions of 6.5
    ug/dscm.

-   PM -- Unit 3011, rotary hearth, small arms munitions furnace, 2080
    pounds per hour feed rate, reported PM emissions of 0.0007 gr/dscf
    (\< 2 mg/dscm).

> Why is this a problem?

-   Section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires that the standards
    for new sources be developed based on "the emissions control that is
    achieved in practice by the best control *similar* source..."
    (emphasis added).

-   When setting MACT standards for existing sources, the average of
    several sources is used, thus diffusing the effect of one anomalous
    facility on the eventual standard. When the regulatory task is
    selecting one facility to use as the benchmark to set new source
    MACT standards, however, special attention must be paid to how
    representative that "top performer" is of the overall source
    category.

-   For the following reasons, CRWI submits that the "top performers"
    used as the models for EPA's new source MACT standards are not
    representative of the overall HWC source category.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The chlorine standard for new sources is based on a facility that is
    much smaller than the typical hazardous waste combustor. It is less
    than half the diameter (5 feet) of a typical rotary kiln (12-16
    feet) and has a significantly lower thermal rating (4.9 MM BTU/hr
    vs. 60 MM BTU/hr).

-   The mercury standard is based on what could be considered a
    representative unit -- however, the unit did not feed significant
    amounts of mercury based on a strategy to develop an annualized
    permit limit, and a need to show only 40% SRE. Furthermore, the
    testing protocol employed a non-standard sampling rate with the BIF
    metals sampling method in Part 266 Appendix IX, which has a
    potential low-bias for mercury if precipitate forms in the KMnO~4~
    impingers (Method 29 is required to show compliance under the HWC
    MACT and has procedures to avoid the bias.).

-   The LVM standard is based on a small, fixed hearth unit, atypical of
    common HWC technology. In addition, this unit feeds significantly
    less waste (900 lb/hr vs. 10,000 lbs/hr) and has a much lower
    thermal rating (6.4 MM BTU/hr vs. 60 MM BTU/hr) than does typical
    rotary kilns. Furthermore, seven of the nine measurements in the
    database were non-detects, and 80% of the waste profile is
    non-hazardous (Note: CRWI commented that there were several errors
    in the test report and reporting methodology for this facility,
    making it questionable for use).

-   The PM standard is based on a small rotary hearth unit, also
    atypical of common HWC technology. In addition, the feed rate of
    this unit is significantly less than typical rotary kilns (2080
    lb/hr vs. 10,000 lb/hr) and its feed type (small arms munitions) is
    not similar to typical rotary kilns combusting organic waste.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The SVM standard is based on what could be considered a typical unit
    -- however, this unit had already upgraded to meet the interim
    standard prior to testing.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   EPA's methodology for setting HWC MACT standards for new sources
    does not meaningfully address the statutory requirement that
    benchmark performers must be *similar* to the overall source
    category and likely proposed new facilities. Ask EPA to modify their
    technique for setting new standards to include some mechanism to
    ensure that the best performing source for each HAP is actually
    *similar* to the units in each source category.

**10. EPA should not incorporate data from facilities that have already
upgraded to meet the interim standards into the calculations for the
permanent replacement standards.**

> What are the concerns with the revised database?

-   After the court vacated the 1999 HWC MACT standards, EPA initiated a
    data gathering effort to update the database.

-   EPA appropriately removed facilities that have shut down or no
    longer burn hazardous waste.

-   In addition, EPA added data that was gathered from facilities after
    they had upgraded to meet the interim standards. We believe that
    including data from upgraded sources is not appropriate.

> Why is this a problem?

-   We believe that including facilities that have already upgraded to
    meet the interim standards no longer measures the state-of-the-art
    as it existed at the time mandated by Congress, but rather the
    performance of a source category already affected by the MACT
    regulatory initiative. The result of such a modified MACT pool is an
    inevitable downward ratchet of emission requirements not anticipated
    or intended by Congress. The shorthand description for this unique
    regulatory phenomenon is "MACT of MACT," a MACT standard derived
    from performance data of facilities that have already modified their
    operations to meet the MACT standards.

-   EPA has partially acknowledged this and has already removed data
    from a new cement kiln because the new kiln was designed to meet the
    interim standards.

> Would removing data from upgraded facilities make any difference when
> developing the standards?

-   This will only matter if one of the facilities that has upgraded or
    completed its comprehensive performance test is included in the top
    performers (EPA's way of designating the top 12% as required by
    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act).

-   The top performing facility for SVM (810 -- Eastman Chemical,
    Kingsport, TN) had already upgraded to meet the interim standards.

-   Not only will this have an impact on the existing source SVM
    standards, it will set the new source standard for SVM. Thus, the
    new source standard will be set by a facility that has already
    upgraded to meet the interim standard.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   If data from upgraded facilities is included in the top performers,
    we believe that data should be removed and the data from the
    facility that is ranked next should be substituted. This would not
    require EPA to completely redo the analysis -- only that they
    substitute one or more facilities and recalculate the second step of
    the standards setting process.

**11. EPA should make sure that data used to develop the standards,
especially for new sources, meets the requirements for data quality.**

> What are our concerns?

-   The data used to develop the standards was developed for a totally
    different purpose.

-   There is nothing wrong with using data developed for another
    purpose. However, to do this, the suitability of the data should be
    examined in light of the new use for the data. For example, when a
    facility is testing to show compliance with a 0.08 gr/dscf PM limit
    under RCRA, there is no reason for the permitting agency to question
    data quality of a test that showed 0.008 gr/dscf in PM emissions,
    simply because the test results were so far below the required
    limit. When this data is used for a different purpose (to set
    emissions standards under MACT), additional scrutiny of this data is
    appropriate.

> Why is this a problem?

-   One way to show this is to look at the top performers for PM.

-   EPA's Emissions Measurement Center developed a report in 1996 that
    concluded that the minimum catch for a ±10% accuracy for PM would be
    7.2 mg.

-   Based on the data from the 2002 database, a member company (Lilly)
    estimated the catch from the top performers for PM. The catch ranged
    from 0.9 mg to 1.9 mg, far below the minimum catch determined by EPA
    to achieve reasonable accuracy. Again, for the purpose of showing
    compliance with a RCRA limit of 0.08 gr/dscf, the quality of the
    data was more than adequate since resulted in PM emissions ranging
    from 0.0007 to 0.0012 gr/dscf. However, data quality objectives did
    not exist to validate the result at the much lower concentrations
    (two orders of magnitude below the 0.08 gr/dscf limit). Without an
    adequate data quality determination, these results should not be
    considered as adequate for setting standards in the 0.0007 range.
    These analyses were provided to EPA during the comment period.

-   From this, one could conclude that the proposed PM standard for new
    sources is based on data of questionable quality.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   OMB should require EPA to reanalyze the database in the following
    manner.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Select representative sources.

-   Exclude facilities that have already upgraded to meet MACT.

-   Follow the data quality program recommended by EPA's Office of
    Environmental Information.

**12. EPA needs to ensure that the current EPA approved methods can be
used to show compliance with the proposed standards.**

> What are our concerns?

-   EPA committed in a response to previous comments that "MACT
    standards will not be set below levels which are not consistently or
    accurately achievable using established (and required) sampling
    methods."

-   Most of the methods used to show compliance have never been
    evaluated at the levels being considered for some existing and all
    new source standards.

-   For example, Section 1.2 of SW-846 Method 0050 states that "This
    method is not acceptable for demonstrating compliance with HCl
    emissions standards less than 20 ppm," but both the proposed
    existing and new source standards are below 20 ppm.

> Why is this a problem?

-   While the laboratory techniques themselves can be very accurate, the
    accuracy and precision of the sampling train may not be capable of
    consistently delivering results to show that new sources are in
    compliance with the standards.

-   When standards were fairly high, the variability relative to the
    actual standard was not a significant issue. As standards get more
    stringent, the variability becomes relatively higher and designing a
    test to show compliance with these more stringent standards becomes
    more complicated (e.g., target measurement levels must be set
    further below the emission standards).

-   For example, Method 5i for PM states a practical quantification
    limit of 3 mg. DOE funded research has shown that the 95% confidence
    interval for a 3 mg/dscm PM measurement is bounced by 2 and 4
    mg/dscm. A 99% confidence interval (one chance in a hundred for
    random failure) would be even broader. The new source PM standard is
    less than 2 mg/dscm.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   Require EPA to document method performance as necessary to
    demonstrate compliance.

**13. EPA should ensure, especially for new sources, that all aspects of
data uncertainty are considered.**

> What are our concerns?

-   EPA has not considered all the uncertainties associated with the
    feed MTEC calculation that it uses in its rankings. EPA is only
    accounting for run-to-run variability which is an assessment of
    precision only, not accuracy.

-   Even in accounting for run-to-run variability in the feed MTEC
    calculation, EPA has apparently excluded the uncertainties
    associated with stack flow measurements and stack oxygen
    measurements, both of which are part of the MTEC calculation.

-   Trial Burn quality assurance plans typically specify an acceptable
    accuracy for metals in waste feeds as +/- 35%. Accuracy of metals
    assays in organic matrices is typically poor, but precision may be
    good.

> Why is this a problem?

-   For example, take source 341 which is reportedly the best performer
    for LVM. Its feed MTEC ranking is 11^th^. Is the feed MTEC ranking
    of the 13^th^ ranked source statistically different? The 13^th^
    ranked source's feed MTEC (source 3016) is only 11% higher which is
    certainly within the typical +/- 35%. Furthermore, the measured
    average MTEC for the 13^th^ ranked source (without the run-to-run
    variability factor) is actually [less]{.underline} than the 11^th^
    ranked source. How can the performance of these sources be
    considered different?

-   The calculation of the feed rate MTEC is a function of the metals
    being fed, the stack flow, and the oxygen concentration (the later
    because the MTEC is corrected to 7% oxygen). There are several
    measurements of stack flow and oxygen taken during a trial burn, but
    the EPA's calculation apparently uses a constant value for both when
    calculating feed MTEC. This artificially dampens the apparent
    run-to-run variation. What is the potential affect? Recalculating
    the feed rate MTEC for source 341 using the highest variation of
    stack flow and oxygen resulted in a 31 % increase in feed rate MTEC,
    moving its ranking two places down on the list.

-   A more comprehensive assessment of uncertainty, using one or both of
    the examples above, would change source 341's overall performance
    ranking from uniquely #1 to tied for #1 with the next two sources.
    Accordingly, the new source LVM standard would potentially change
    from 8.9 ug/dscm to something close to the interim standard of 97
    ug/dscm.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   OMB should require EPA to assess all aspects of uncertainty in its
    calculations and rankings, and not just run-to-run precision.

**14. EPA needs to justify any beyond-the-floor standards.**

> What are the concerns?

-   We have concerns about a dioxin/furan beyond-the-floor standard for
    halogen acid furnaces

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the proposed rule, EPA justified a beyond-the-floor standard for
    this sub-category based on reducing dioxin/furan emissions by 2.3
    grams per year.

-   About a third of the units in the database used to propose the
    standard were either misclassified or have ceased operations. CRWI
    or member companies have pointed this out to the Agency during the
    comment period.

-   When the database is updated, the dioxin/furan emissions reduction
    will be reduced to 1.3 grams per year.

> Why is this a problem?

-   It seems like a lot of effort and expense for a small amount of
    reduction in dioxin/furan emissions.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   Ask EPA to re-examine this beyond-the-floor decision to determine if
    the calculated reduction in dioxin/furan emissions is worth
    considering.

**15. EPA should not require site-specific risk assessments (SSRA) as a
part of the permanent replacement standards rulemaking.**

> What is the history of SSRAs?

-   EPA's Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy (1994)
    recommended that site-specific risk assessments (SSRA) become a part
    of the RCRA permitting process for hazardous waste combustors where
    necessary to protect human health and the environment.

-   In 1998, EPA released draft guidance on conducting SSRAs.

-   The preamble of the 1999 HWC MACT rule (see the discussion beginning
    at 64 FR 52840) recommended that for facilities subject to the new
    standards, permit writers evaluate the need for a SSRA on a
    case-by-case basis. EPA went on to state that "SSRAs are not
    anticipated to be needed for every facility, but should be conducted
    for facilities where there is reason to believe that operations in
    accordance with the MACT standards alone may not be protective of
    human health and the environment."

-   These instructions left considerable room for interpretation by the
    states and the regions. Some states and regions were using the
    policy statements made in 1994 as the justification for requiring
    SSRAs.

-   CKRC petitioned EPA to withdraw the SSRA guidance, suggesting that
    it was a rule in the form of guidance and suggesting that if EPA
    believes that SSRAs are necessary, they should initiate the
    rulemaking process to make them mandatory.

-   In partial response to the CKRC petition, a memo from the Office of
    Solid Waste and Emergency Response Assistant Administrator Marianne
    Horinko was sent to the Regions on April 10, 2003 (copy attached).
    This memo made it clear that the only authority to require a SSRA is
    the RCRA omnibus authority which requires a fully documented finding
    in the administrative record.

-   In the 2004 *Federal Register* notice rule, EPA proposed to add two
    new paragraphs (270.10(l) and 270.32(b)(3)) in response to the
    Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition's petition.

-   EPA has stated at public meetings that these two paragraphs do not
    make any changes in their authority to require site-specific risk
    assessments and has reiterated that these provisions do not change
    current EPA policy.

> What do we want OMB to do?

-   Since, in the Agency's opinion, these two paragraphs do not add to
    their authority or make any changes in current policy, we see no
    real reason to keep them in the final rule. OMB should suggest that
    EPA remove these two paragraphs from the final rule.

-   If the Agency believes that additional explicit language must be
    added to make it clear that permit writers have the authority to
    require site-specific risk assessments, then OMB should request that
    the following language is necessary to define how this process will
    proceed.

> "[The factual and technical basis for any decision under this
> paragraph should be included in the administrative record for the
> facility according to the requirements in 40 CFR 124]{.underline}."

-   This change is required to be consistent with the Horinko memo,
    dated April 10, 2003, which defines current EPA policy on when and
    how to require risk assessments.

> **[SLIDE PRESENTATION]{.underline}**
>
> **[SLIDE \# \_1\_]{.underline}**
>
> The Hazardous Waste Combustion (HWC) MACT Rule
>
> Continuing Concerns of the Coalition for Responsible Waste
> Incineration
>
> August 26, 2005
>
> **[SLIDE \# 2\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Who We Are

-   The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI) is a trade
    organization representing virtually all facets of the Hazardous
    Waste Combustion (HWC) source category affected by this proposed
    MACT Rule.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   CRWI members include companies engaged in commercial and captive
    hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, halogen acid recovery
    furnaces, and chemical weapon disposal facilities, as well as
    consulting experts and academic programs supporting hazardous waste
    combustion as a responsible waste disposal alternative.

-   The membership of CRWI is currently implementing the interim MACT
    standards and will be impacted by this proposed rule.

> **[SLIDE \# 3\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Why We Are Here

-   The HWC MACT source category includes diverse industrial activities
    affecting CRWI members, all addressed in previous dialogue with EPA.

-   EPA's currently proposed HWC standards leave some of these issues
    unresolved, particularly as they will impact new sources.

-   The Comparison Table attached illustrates the history of the HWC
    MACT standards and how EPA's proposed regulatory approach to this
    Rule will impact the MACT emission standards for the subcategory of
    hazardous waste incinerators.

> **[SLIDE \# \_4\_]{.underline}**
>
> Comparison Tables

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| <table>                                                               |
| <colgroup>                                                            |
| <col style="width: 24%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 6%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 3%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 1%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 1%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 10%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 0%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 1%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 10%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 3%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 8%" />                                             |
| </colgroup>                                                           |
| <tbody>                                                               |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td colspan="2"></td>                                                 |
| <td colspan="2"></td>                                                 |
| <td colspan="2"></td>                                                 |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td colspan="2"></td>                                                 |
| <td colspan="3"></td>                                                 |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td colspan="2"> </td>                                                |
| <td colspan="4"><strong>Original MACT Standards</strong></td>         |
| <td colspan="5"><strong>Interim MACT Standards</strong></td>          |
| <td colspan="3"><strong>Proposed MACT Standards</strong></td>         |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><strong>HAPs</strong></td>                            |
| <td colspan="2">Existing</td>                                         |
| <td colspan="2">New</td>                                              |
| <td colspan="3">Existing</td>                                         |
| <td colspan="2">New</td>                                              |
| <td>Existing</td>                                                     |
| <td colspan="2">New</td>                                              |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td colspan="2">Dioxins/Furans (expressed in TEQ)</td>                |
| <td colspan="2"><p>0.20 ng/ dscm or 0.40 ng/</p>                      |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>0.20 ng/</p>                                       |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="3"><p>0.20 ng/</p>                                       |
| <p>dscm or 0.40 ng/</p>                                               |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>0.20 ng/</p>                                       |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td><p>0.28 ng/ dscm or 0.40 ng/</p>                                  |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>0.11 ng/</p>                                       |
| <p>dscm or 0.2 ng/</p>                                                |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td colspan="2">Particulate Matter</td>                               |
| <td colspan="2"><p>34 mg/</p>                                         |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>34 mg/</p>                                         |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="3"><p>34 mg/</p>                                         |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>34 mg/</p>                                         |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td>0.015 gr/dscf</td>                                                |
| <td colspan="2">0.00070 gr/dscf</td>                                  |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td colspan="2">Semivolatile Metals</td>                              |
| <td colspan="2"><p>240 µg/</p>                                        |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>24 µg/</p>                                         |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="3">240 µg/ dscm</td>                                     |
| <td colspan="2"><p>120 µg/</p>                                        |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td>59 µg/ dscm</td>                                                  |
| <td colspan="2">6.5 µg/ dscm</td>                                     |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td colspan="2">Low Volatile Metals</td>                              |
| <td colspan="2"><p>97 µg/</p>                                         |
| <p>Dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>97 µg/</p>                                         |
| <p>Dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="3"><p>97 µg/</p>                                         |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td colspan="2"><p>97µg/</p>                                          |
| <p>dscm</p></td>                                                      |
| <td>84 µg/ dscm</td>                                                  |
| <td colspan="2">8.9 µg/ dscm</td>                                     |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| </tbody>                                                              |
| </table>                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> **[SLIDE \# 5\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> **Comparison Tables (cont.)**

+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| >        | > **     |         | > *      |         | > **     |    |
|          | Original |         | *Interim |         | Proposed |    |
|          | > MACT   |         | > MACT   |         | > MACT   |    |
|          | > Sta    |         | > Sta    |         | > Sta    |    |
|          | ndards** |         | ndards** |         | ndards** |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| >        | >        | > New   | >        | > New   | >        | >  |
| **HAPs** | Existing |         | Existing |         | Existing |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| >        | > 130    | > 45    | > 130    | > 45    | > 130    | >  |
|  Mercury | > µg/    | > µg/   | >        | >       | >        |    |
|          | >        | >       |  µg/dscm | µg/dscm |  µg/dscm |    |
|          | > dscm   | > dscm  |          |         |          |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| > HCl/Cl | > 77     | > 21    | > 77     | > 21    | > 1.5    | >  |
|          | > ppmv   | > ppmv  | > ppmv   | > ppmv  | > ppmv   |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| > Hydro  | > 10     | > 10    | > 10     | > 10    | > 10     | >  |
| -carbons | > ppmv   | > ppmv  | > ppmv   | > ppmv  | > ppmv   |    |
|          | > or 100 | > or    | > or 100 | > or    | > or 100 |    |
|          | > ppmv   | > 100   | > ppmv   | > 100   | > ppmv   |    |
|          | > CO     | > ppmv  | > CO     | > ppmv  | > CO     |    |
|          |          | > CO    |          | > CO    |          |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| > DRE    | > 99.99% | >       | > 99.99% | >       | > 99.99% | >  |
|          |          |  99.99% |          |  99.99% |          |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
|          | >        | >       |          |         |          | >  |
|          |          |         |          |         |          |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| >        | >        | >       | >        | >       | >        | >  |
|          |          |         |          |         |          |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+
| >        | >        | >       | >        | >       | >        | >  |
|          |          |         |          |         |          |    |
+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+----------+----+

> **[SLIDE \# 6\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concurrence:\
> Methods for Deriving Standards

-   There is no one-size-fits-all methodology for judging the
    performance of the HWC source category. Individual categories of
    HAPs \-- dioxins and furans (D/F), Semi-volatile (SVM) and
    Low-volatile Metals (LVM), particulate (PM), Total Chlorine and
    Hydrochloric Acid (CL/HCl)) -- require different control
    technologies.

-   CRWI concurs in EPA's chosen methodologies for setting
    technology-based MACT standards.

> **[SLIDE \# \_7\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concurrence:\
> The Maximum Deviation Approach

-   The database used to set the HWC MACT standards includes many
    instances of "non-detect" of a particular pollutant.

-   EPA acknowledges that using an analytical detection limit in lieu of
    actual emission data tends to bias the statistical variability
    values used to set MACT standards.

-   The Maximum Deviation concept is a reasonable approach for more
    accurately estimating variability.

> **[SLIDE \# 8\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> A Caveat to\
> The Maximum Deviation Approach

-   CRWI has not been able to test this approach on the actual data
    being used.

-   CRWI continues to have reservations about using "non-detect" data
    points for setting emission standards. If non-detect data are used,
    the Agency should follow their own guidelines and use the Reliable
    Detection Limit (RDL) rather than the Method Detection Limit (MDL).

> **[SLIDE \# 9\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concurrence:\
> Flexibility for HWC Subcategories

-   CRWI supports the options for setting standards for liquid
    fuel-fired boilers.

-   CRWI supports using chlorine as a surrogate for metals in the
    halogen acid furnace subcategory.

-   CRWI supports EPA's decision to not develop beyond-the-floor
    chlorine standards for solid fuel-fired boilers.

> **[SLIDE \# 10\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concurrence:\
> The Health-Based Chlorine/HCl Standard Alternative

-   Section 112(d)(4) authorizes EPA to set HAP emission standards based
    on established health thresholds.

-   HCl is a threshold pollutant with an established reference dose that
    incorporates a conservative uncertainty factor, satisfying the
    "ample margin of safety" requirement of the CAA.

-   CRWI supports EPA's proposed Chlorine/HCl standard as reasonable and
    consistent with the CAA, with one exception.

> **[SLIDE \# 11\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Implementation of the Health-Based Alternative Standard

-   As proposed, the permitting agency is given 6 months to review an
    eligibility determination. Such eligibility applications are
    necessarily time-sensitive because of imminent MACT compliance
    dates. If approval is not timely, the facilities are obliged to
    implement costly technology-based controls of little discernible
    benefit to public health or the environment.

-   Six months should be enough time for an agency to determine whether
    an eligibility application is submitted in good faith. At that time,
    the burden should shift to the agency for a prompt, decisive, and
    reasonable action on the eligibility application.

> **[SLIDE \# 12\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Implementation of the Health-Based Alternative Standard:\
> Proposed Resolution

-   If EPA's final HWC MACT Rule does not require prior agency approval
    of an eligibility demonstration before of a health-based alternative
    standard can be implemented, no action by OMB is necessary.

-   If the final Rule requires agency approval before health-based MACT
    standards can be implemented, CRWI suggests the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provisions for a compliance date extension; or

-   Default approval after agency review for six months with no action.

> **[SLIDE \# 13 \_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Achievability of New Source Standards

-   Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA states that new source MACT standards
    should be set based on "the emission control that is achieved in
    practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the
    Administrator" (emphasis added).

-   Note, in the Table provided, how many of the new source standards
    are much more stringent than existing source standards. This stems
    from the HAP-by-HAP approach used by EPA in setting the new source
    standards.

> **[SLIDE \# \_14\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Achievability of New Source Standards

-   The HAP-by-HAP approach works for existing sources in the HWC source
    category because the top performers are averaged. In setting the new
    source standards, EPA chooses the top performer for each individual
    HAP as the standard setter; in the HWC source category, however, no
    one facility is the top performer for each HAP.

-   Emission performance of existing facilities: Of the six HWC MACT
    HAPs, the best any facility can demonstrate is compliance with four
    new source standards (see provided spreadsheet).

> **[SLIDE \# 15\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Achievability of New Source Standards

-   Congress expressly addressed this issue in a colloquy between
    Senators Dole and Durenberger during the Senate Conference Report on
    the 1990 CAA Amendments. Senator Durenberger stated that if it is
    technically infeasible to combine incompatible technologies for HAP
    controls, "EPA should judge MACT to be the technology which best
    benefits human health and the environment on the whole."

-   CRWI respectfully submits that EPA has skipped this step in setting
    new source MACT standards for the HWC source category.

> **[SLIDE \# \_16\_]{.underline}**
>
> Achievability of New Source Standards:\
> Proposed Resolution

-   In order to meet the statutory mandate of the CAA, at least one
    existing HWC facility must be able to meet EPA's proposed new source
    standards. To assure that this mandate is honored, CRWI suggests
    OMB:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Require EPA to show that at least one existing facility can meet all
    new source standards simultaneously.

-   Further require EPA to assure that the benchmark "top performer" is
    comparable to the new HWC facility (see next concern below).

> **[SLIDE \# 17]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Comparability of "Top Performers"
>
> ■The accompanying CRWI Position Paper identifies the"top performers"
> for five of the six HAPs regulated by the MACT Rule (Position Paper at
> page 8).
>
> ■None of the five "top performers" are representative of the typical
> hazardous waste combustors, based on differences in physical
> configuration, feed rate, or pre-MACT performance.
>
> **[SLIDE \# \_18]{.underline}**
>
> Comparability of "Top Performers:"\
> Proposed Resolution

-   Ask EPA to clarify their techniques for setting new source standards
    to include some means to assure that the benchmark existing facility
    is actually *similar* as required by Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA.

> **[SLIDE \# 19]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> "MACT of MACT"

-   "MACT of MACT" is shorthand for a concern arising from the legal
    history of this particular MACT Rule.

-   The original HWC MACT Rule was proposed in 1996, promulgated in
    1999, and judicially vacated in 2001. Interim Standards were put
    into place in 2002.

-   In 2002, EPA reopened the "MACT Pool" as a prelude to setting new
    replacement standards. This updated "Pool" reflects the following
    new performance data:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Facilities that had ceased combustion of hazardous waste were
    removed (which CRWI supported); and

-   Facilities that had upgraded to meet the Interim Standards were
    included (which CRWI strenuously opposed).

> **[SLIDE \# 20\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> "MACT of MACT"

-   CAA Section 112(e) of the CAA clearly expresses Congressional intent
    to set technology-based performance standards by a date certain.

-   As a result of the EPA's decision to re-open the HWC MACT Pool in
    2002, a proactive facility modifying its technology to meet the
    Interim Standards became a HWC "top performer," ratcheting existing
    and new source HWC MACT standards downward.

-   This more stringent standard was derived, not from the
    state-of-the-art technology at the time Congress intended, but
    rather a facility's good faith effort to comply with post-MACT
    standards (i.e., "MACT of MACT").

> **[SLIDE \# \_21\_]{.underline}**
>
> "MACT of MACT:"\
> Proposed Resolution

-   Suggest to EPA that any facility that has upgraded to meet MACT
    standards should not be included in the MACT Pool for setting
    technology standards.

> **[SLIDE \# 22\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Data Quality Issues

-   As emission standards become more stringent, data quality becomes
    suspect. For instance, the PM standards may be set at lower than
    acknowledge accuracy levels.

-   Also, it will be more difficult for facilities to demonstrate
    compliance. The proposed standard for chlorine is set lower than the
    confidence level of established test methods.

> **[SLIDE \# 23\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Data Quality Issues:\
> Proposed Resolution

-   EPA should re-analyze the MACT database to assure that data quality
    guidelines are followed.

-   EPA should assure that compliance testing methods that yield
    consistent and accurate data are available.

> **[SLIDE \# 24 \_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Beyond-the-Floor Standards

-   EPA has proposed a beyond-the-floor standard for dioxins/furans for
    the halogen acid furnace subcategory. This will result in added
    compliance costs to achieve a reduction of only 1.3 grams per year
    of dioxin/furan emissions.

-   Proposed Resolution:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ask EPA to re-examine the cost-effectiveness of this
    beyond-the-floor decision.

> **[SLIDE \# 25\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> Concern:\
> Site Specific Risk Assessments (SSRAs)

-   In response to a petition by the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition,
    EPA is proposing amendments to RCRA regulations clarifying its
    authority to require SSRAs.

-   CRWI does not believe that risk assessment guidance should be
    promulgated as a rule.

-   CRWI does believe that any clarification of SSRA authority should
    also include strictures on when risk assessments should be
    performed.

> **[SLIDE \# 26\_\_]{.underline}**
>
> SSRAs:\
> Proposed Resolution

-   Either delete the amendments regarding SSRA authority; or

-   Add specific language making the amendments consistent with the
    April 10, 2003, policy memo from Marianne Horinko.