1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FROM: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE: November 18, 2011

SUBJECT: CISWI Reconsideration – Data Review and Updates

1. BACKGROUND

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), is required to 

regulate emissions of nine pollutants from Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) 

units: hydrogen chloride (HCl), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), 

particulate matter (PM), dioxins/furans (PCDD/PCDF), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

On December 1, 2000, the EPA adopted new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission 

guidelines (EG) for CISWI units under Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. In 2001 the EPA 

granted a petition for reconsideration regarding the definitions of "commercial and industrial waste" and 

"commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit." In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit granted the EPA’s voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the 2000 rule. 

In 2005, the EPA proposed and finalized the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition 

rule which, among other things, revised the definitions of "commercial and industrial waste" and 

"commercial and industrial waste incineration unit." In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the 2005 commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration definition rule.

On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG as its response to the voluntary remand 

that was granted in 2001 and the vacatur and remand of the commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration definition rule in 2007. In addition, the standards re-development included the 5-year 

technology review of the new source performance standards and emission guidelines required under 

Section 129. Following that action, the Administrator received petition[s] for reconsideration and 

identified some issues that warranted further opportunity for public comment. In addition, data were 

received that enabled the EPA to revise the CISWI inventory of waste-burning kilns and energy recovery 

units to more accurately reflect the definition of non-hazardous secondary materials. 

This memorandum summarizes the activities associated with data reviews and database updates to the 

CISWI data set as part of CISWI reconsideration. In particular, these reviews and updates consist of the 

following activities:

 The dioxin/furan emissions data in the CISWI database were reviewed to ensure that data have 

been correctly characterized as being “above detection level” or “non-detect.” 

 The mercury emissions data for the CISWI units within each MACT floor, excluding wasteburning kilns, were reviewed to confirm that the facility used the summation of the fractions of 

mercury and the associated detection level instead of assigning the non-detect fractions of 

mercury as zero prior to the summation of the individual fractions.
2

 The filterable particulate matter emissions data for the CISWI units within each floor were 

reviewed to confirm the treatment of negative filter weights. If encountered, the negative filter 

weights were treated as zeros. 

 Updates were made to the waste-burning kiln and energy recovery unit subcategories of the 

CISWI data set. 

2. DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REVIEW

2.1. DATA REVIEW PROCEDURES

In order to verify the dioxin/furan emissions data and the associated detection designations, the original 

test reports submitted by each facility with dioxin/furan data were reviewed and the following data 

components were confirmed and corrected, if necessary.

 The non-detect designation,

 Source of TEQ dioxin/furan data, and

 Emissions data.

The non-detect designation was reviewed by comparing the dioxin/furan emission records in the CISWI 

database to the emission test reports to confirm whether or not it was noted appropriately in the “Non 

Detect” and “ND Count” fields. Also, it was noted if a more specific non-detect designation was reported 

in the test report: above detection limit (ADL), below detection limit (BDL) or detection limit limited 

(DLL). For purposes of data use in emission limit calculations in CISWI, BDL and DLL are synonymous 

with non-detect (ND).

The TEQ dioxin/furan data was reviewed in order to determine whether or not the TEQ data was 

calculated and submitted by the facility or calculated by ERG from the mass basis data for the isomers. 

This observation was noted in the CISWI database under a comment field. 

While the emissions test database was originally reviewed to ensure that data were imported accurately, 

this task repeated this quality assurance check to confirm that dioxin/furan data were imported into the 

database correctly. 

2.2. RESULTS

The accompanying spreadsheet in Appendix A identifies which units required dioxin/furan non-detect 

designation corrections. The fields “Dioxin/Furans (Total Mass Basis): Correction Required? (Y/N)” and 

“Dioxin/Furans (TEQ): Correction Required? (Y/N)”, identifies whether or not any of the dioxin/ furan 

records for the associated unit required corrections to the non-detect designations. 
3

3. MERCURY DATA REVIEW

3.1. DATA REVIEW PROCEDURES

In order to verify the Hg emissions data and to confirm that the facility used the summation of the 

fractions of Hg and the associated detection level as opposed to assigning the non-detect fractions of Hg 

as zero prior to the summation of the fractions, the original test reports submitted by each facility were 

reviewed and confirmed and/or corrected for CISWI units within each floor excluding waste-burning 

kilns.

 Fractions of Hg,

 The non-detect designation, and

 Emissions data.

The fractions of Hg were reviewed by identifying within the emission test reports submitted by each 

facility the fractions of Hg to see if the facility had used a summation of total Hg and the associated nondetect designation, as opposed to assigning the non-detect fractions of Hg as zero prior to the summation. 

Similarly to the dioxin/furan data review, the detection designation was examined to confirm that each 

designation was noted appropriately in the “Non Detect” and “ND Count” fields. 

While the emissions test database was originally reviewed to ensure that data were imported accurately, 

this task repeated this quality assurance check to confirm that Hg data were imported into the database 

correctly. 

3.2. RESULTS

For mercury records associated with facilities within the MACT floor pool, 2 units out of 10 required 

corrections. The AKCoeur incinerator (subcategory = small remote) emissions were recalculated to 

ensure the emissions were correct. The average emission detection designation for the AKCoeur unit was 

updated from detect to the non-detect designation, due to the detection designations of the runs that were 

averaged. The emission detection designation for Run 1 for the ALIPRiverdale No. 2 Bark Boiler was 

updated from non-detect to detect because it was reported as above detection levels in the emissions test 

report. The emission detection designation for the average emissions for the ALIPRiverdale No. 2 Bark 

Boiler were updated from detect to non-detect because run 3 was below the detection level.

No corrections were needed for the fractions of Hg. Each facility in this review followed the proper 

protocol of using the summation of the fractions to determine the detection limit, or did not submit the 

fractions of Hg in the first place.

4. FILTERABLE PARTICULATE MATTER DATA REVIEW

4.1. DATA REVIEW PROCEDURES

In order to verify the filterable particulate matter (PM) emissions data and to confirm that the facility 

appropriately assigned zeros to negative filter weights, the original test reports submitted by each facility 

with PM data in the MACT floor were reviewed and confirmed and or corrected if needed for the 

following data elements:
4

 PM catch amounts,

 Treatment of negative filter weights,

 The non-detect designation, and

 Emissions data.

The PM catch amounts and treatment of negative filter weights within the emission test reports submitted 

by each facility were reviewed to see if the values were less than 1 mg and or negative, respectively. If 

the catch amounts were less than 1 mg per sample, they were assigned the MDL value of one. If the filter 

weights were negative, they were treated as zero.

Similarly to the dioxin/furan data review, the detection designation was examined to confirm that each 

designation was noted appropriately in the “Non Detect” and “ND Count” fields. 

While the emissions test database was originally reviewed to ensure that data were imported accurately, 

this task repeated this quality assurance check to confirm that PM data were imported into the database 

correctly. 

4.2. RESULTS

No corrections were needed for the PM emissions data in this review. The PM catch amounts were all 

above 1 mg, and the filter weights were all positive. No corrections were needed for the emissions data 

and the detection designations, ensuring the quality of the dataset for those facilities within the MACT 

floor.

5. CISWIINVENTORY UPDATES

5.1. WASTE-BURNING KILNS

Updates to the dataset include the addition of 4 facilities (11 kilns) to the waste-burning kiln subcategory 

of CISWI units. The additional kilns were identified as being solid waste-combusting kilns during review 

of the Portland cement kiln population for the development of the emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (PC NESHAP). See Appendix B for more details on this review. Appendix C contains the PC 

NESHAP data that were used to populate the CISWI database for kiln design type and the newly added 

kilns (highlighted in yellow). The following kiln facilities were added to the CISWI database:

 California Portland Cement Company (Colton, CA),

 Lehigh Cement (Union Bridge, MD),

 Lafarge Midwest Inc. (Alpena, MI), and

 Ash Grove Texas, L.P. (Midlothian, TX).

1.1. ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS

Updates to the energy recovery unit subcategory of the CISWI data set include the addition of data for 

one facility that was identified by industry as a possible waste combustor, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy 

Company (Anderson, CA) and removal of data for five facilities that were identified as units that no 

longer burn waste materials. The non-waste energy recovery units data were transferred to the industrial 
5

and commercial boiler inventory for use in developing standards for that source category. For the 

Wheelabrator unit, the previously-submitted data were re-incorporated into the CISWI data set. In 

addition, new data were submitted to the EPA early in 2011. These data are provided in Appendix D. 

Note that these data include data from several boiler units that the submitters believed could be potential 

CISWI units. The EPA reviewed this information, and concluded that the Wheelabrator units are most 

likely CISWI, while the others units in the data submittal have more uncertain applicability status. 

Therefore, only the Wheelabrator facility was added to the CISWI population and the others were 

incorporated into the boiler population. 

The following units were CISWI energy recovery units as of promulgation of the final rule, but have now 

been transferred to the industrial and commercial boilers population after being identified as non-waste 

burning units:

 Black River Generation, LLC (Fort Drum, NY),

 Kimberly-Clark of PA, LLC (Chester, PA),

 Herman Miller, Inc. (Zeeland, MI),

 Boralex – Livermore Falls (Livermore Falls, ME), and

 Port Townsend Paper Corp. (Port Townsend, WA).