**MEMORANDUM**

**TO:** Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency **FROM:** Eastern Research Group, Inc. **DATE:** November 20, 2011 **SUBJECT:** Reconsideration Proposal Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions

Estimates for Existing CISWI Units

**B ACKGROUND**  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), is required to regulate emissions of nine pollutan ts 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 (NO x ), and sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ). 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 definit ions 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 gr anted 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 respo nse 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 s ource 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 additio n, 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. The development of the MACT floors used to determine proposed emission limits under this reconsideration of the final CISWI rules is discussed in more detail in a separate memorandum. 1 The purpose of this memorandum is to present baseline emissions estimates for existing sources and anticipated emissions reductions that would result from compliance with the proposed standards. This memo is organized as follows:I. Emissions Reductions Summary

II. Baseline Emissions III. MACT Floor Emissions IV

. Lowest Cost Floor Emissions

**I. Emissions Redu**  **ctions Summary** The current population of CISWI units is estimated to consist of 95 units. This population represents the estimate of CISWI units that would still be burning waste materials upon implementation of the rule. Emissions reductions for the CISWI units were calculated for each of the nine pollutants (plus particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 )) for two scenarios: 1) Assuming each existing unit complied with the proposed emissions limits, and 2) Assuming that units would comply usi ng the lowest cost alternative, either complying with the emission limits or ceasing to use the combustion device and utilizing less costly alternatives, such as landfilling solid waste materials. Under the first scenario (MACT Floor Emission Reductions), we estimate 34,406 tons per year of emissions would be reduced, consisting of 578 tons of HCl, 22,104 tons of CO, 3.09 tons of Pb, 1.62 tons of Cd, 0.14 tons of Hg, 1,439 tons of PM, 0.0001 tons of PCDD/PCDF, 5,299 tons of NO x , and 4,983 tons of SO 2 . Und er the second scenario (Lowest Cost Alternative Emissions Reductions), we estimate 34,544 tons per year of emissions would be reduced, consisting of 590 tons of HCl, 22,069 tons of CO, 3.09 tons of Pb, 1.62 tons of Cd, 0.15 tons of Hg, 1,442 tons of PM, 0. 0001 tons of PCDD/PCDF, 5,405 tons of NO x , and 5,033 tons of SO 2 . Table 1 presents the anticipated emissions reductions by subcategory assuming all units remain operating and comply with the proposed emission limits. Table 2 presents the anticipated emis sions reductions by subcategory assuming units either comply or cease operation and use alternative disposal methods, depending on which option costs less. Table 2 also includes estimates of secondary air emissions that would result from landfilling the d iverted waste materials and flaring the landfill gas that these wastes would generate.
**II. Baseline Emissions**  Baseline emissions represent the estimated annual emissions of existing units prior to retrofit of controls to comply with the proposed emission limits. Calculation Methodology. Annual emissions estimates are calculated using the pollutant concentration (mass per stack gas volume) multiplied by the flue gas flow rate (dry standard cubic feet per minute) and the time (hours per year) the unit i s operated. Appendix A presents the calculations needed to convert from the standard pollutant concentrations to the annual tons emitted. Pollutant Concentration data. Pollutant concentration data measured from emissions tests for the unit were used whe never available. When there were data gaps, these were filled first by using the same measured data from similar units operated by the corporate entity. If these data were not available, then subcategory default values were assigned for the unit. These default values were the mean of the actual emissions test values measured for the units within a subcategory.Flue Gas Flow Rate and Operating Hours. The flue gas flow rate and annual operating hours

used to calculate emissions were similar to those that were used as inputs for control costing algorithms. Each unit’s baseline emissions are based on unit average test data for each pollutant. Actual emissions test data a nd survey data from the CISWI database were used whenever available. Similar unit values were used if there were any data gaps for a similar unit operated by the entity. Lastly, F

- factor estimates or subcategory default values were applied as necessary t o fill in the remaining gaps in flue gas flow rates. The flue gas flow rate data gap filling procedures are discussed in more detail in the control costing memorandum. 2 Table 3 presents the baseline concentration, hours of operation, stack gas flow rat e, and annual emissions estimates for each of the CISWI units.
**III. MACT Floor Emissions**  MACT floor emissions are the estimated annual emissions that would result from CISWI units complying with the proposed MACT floor emissions limits. These were calcu lated by using the same equations that were used for the baseline emissions that are listed in Appendix A. However, the proposed MACT floor emissions limit is used as the pollutant concentration if the baseline concentration exceeds the final limit value. If a unit’s baseline pollutant concentration is below the proposed emissions limit, then that concentration was used to calculate the MACT floor emissions as well (i.e., no backsliding or emissions increases would occur). Additionally, for units expected to require the addition of fabric filters to meet one or more pollutant limits, a reduction efficiency of 99% was applied to their baseline values for Cd, Pb,and PM to determine their MACT floor emissions for these pollutants to fully account for the co

- c ontrol for all of these pollutants due to the addition of a high

- efficiency fabric filter. Table 4 presents the estimated MACT floor emissions for each unit as described above. Hours of operation and stack gas flow rates used to determine tons per year ar e also included. Table 5 puts the baseline and MACT floor emissions estimates together and presents the annual emissions reductions for each CISWI unit. Table 5 also presents the amount of PM 2.5 emissions reduction anticipated for each unit. These emi ssions are calculated as a percent of the PM filterable emissions reductions. These fractions were based on emission factors from EPA’s AP

- 42 document 3 , and are a function of the materials burned and the baseline control devices (if any) present on the un it. These PM 2.5 fraction factors are presented in Appendix B.
**IV. Low**  **est Cost Floor Emissions** Two of the CISWI subcategories have potential alternatives to incineration that could be more economical than complying with the proposed CISWI standards. The incinerator and small, remote incinerator subcategories could cease to burn solid waste and instead divert this waste to a landfill for disposal. The costs of complying with the proposed rule and those associated with these disposal alternatives are disc ussed in more detail in the control costing memorandum. 2 The cost estimates indicate that all but three of the incinerators would cease using the combustion unit and use alternative disposal rather than adding controls necessary to comply with the propose d standards. The three incinerators that would likely remain operating are ILFlintHillsResources MB

- 1012, LAShellChemical F

- T701, and SCEastmanColumbia 1560

- 0008 ID #15. For the small remote subcategory, we estimate that no units would shut down, but that for many units it would be less expensive to segregate their waste and divert the nonferrous metal and chlorinated plastic to a landfill, rather than install the controls necessary to comply with the limits if no wastesegregation were being practiced. This is possible for this particular subcategory since the waste

these units are burning is primarily municipal

- type waste from industrial sites, which is usually able to be segregated for recyclable materials. The waste segregated out is assumed to be no n digestable or minimally digestible materials such as ferrous and non

- ferrous metals and PVC, and therefore would not contribute significantly to landfill gas emissions. By removing these materials from the waste stream, it is expected that these small r emote units will be able to meet the PCDD/PCDF and Hg MACT floor limits. When incinerators cease combusting waste, the waste that is diverted to a landfill will generate landfill gas (methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, chlorine gas, and other t race constituents). This waste may likely be combusted by a landfill flare, which would generate some emissions. These landfill flare emissions would be considered a secondary air impact to the final CISWI rule, since the waste that generates the landfil l gas was diverted to the landfill due to the rule. The potentially diverted waste estimates are presented in the control costing me morandum2 , but were estimated based on the unit’s waste combustion capacity and the annual operating hours. The waste dive rted estimates were then assumed to be steady for 20 years (the expected useful life of a CISWI unit) to calculate estimates of the landfill gas generated from the diverted waste. These estimates were calculated using a first

- order decay model (EPA’s Land fill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02). 4 Then, LandGEM default landfill gas sulfur and chlorine concentrations, along with landfill gas flare emissions factors from EPA’s AP

- 42 were then used to calculate annual secondary air impact emissions fr om the landfilling of the diverted solid waste. The LandGEM model inputs, flare emission factors, and calculated emissions are presented in Appendix C. These emissions were then subtracted from the total emission reductions to get an adjusted annual emis sions reduction in Table 2.

**REFERENCES**
1. 

### “CI SWIEmission L imit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for Reconsideration Proposal ” Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 3, 2011

. 2. “Reconsideration Proposal Revised CISWI Control Costs” Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 20, 2011. 3. U.S. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. 1. (AP

- 42) Fifth Edition. 1995. 4. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02. May 2005.**APPENDIX A**

**CONVERSION CALCULATIONS**The following calculations were used to develop ton/year emission estimates:

PM, Pb, Cd and Hg Concentration ”X” given in mg/dscm, flow rate ”FR” in dscf/minute (dscfm), and annual hours ”H” (hours/year): [X(mg/dscm) x FR(dscf/min) x 60(min/hr) x H(hr/year)] ÷ [35.3147(dscf/dscm) x 453,592(mg/lb) x 2,000(lb/ton)] = (t on/yr) PCDD/PCDF Concentration ”X” given in ng/dscm, flow rate ”FR” in dscf/minute (dscfm), and annual hours ”H” (hours/year): [X(ng/dscm) x FR(dscf/min) x 60(min/hr) x H(hr/year)] ÷ [35.3147(dscf/dscm) x 1,000,000 (ng/mg) x 453,592(mg/lb) x 2,000(lb/t on)] = (ton/yr) HCl, NOx, SO 2 , CO Concentration ”X” given in ppmvd, flow rate ”FR” in dscf/minute (dscfm), annual hours ”H” (hours/year), and molecular weight ”MW” as follows: HCl = 36.45, NOx = 46, SO2 = 64.06, CO = 28.01: [X(ppmvd) x MW(lb/lbmol) x FR(dscf/min) x 60(min/hr) x H(hr/year)] ÷ [1,000,000 x 385.5(dscf/lbmol) x 2,000(lb/ton)] = (ton/yr)**APPENDIX B**

**PM2.5 FRACTION INFORMATION APPENDIX C** 

**LANDFILL GAS AND FLARE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES**