Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0179
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-07T04:00Z

*
OMB
Review
Draft*

1
This
standard
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
level
of
0.030
gr/
dscf
for
wet
process
kilns
and
0.040
gr/
dscf
for
preheater/
precalciner
kilns.
The
conversion
varies
by
process
type
because
the
amount
of
flue
gas
generated
per
ton
of
raw
material
feed
varies
by
process
type.

124
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
particulate
matter
to
65
mg/
dscm
(
0.028
gr/
dscf)
and
13
mg/
dscm
(
0.0058
gr/
dscf),
respectively.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Particulate
matter
emissions
for
existing
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
0.15
kilograms
of
particulate
matter
per
megagram
dry
feed1
and
20%
opacity
by
§
63.1204(
a)(
7).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
particulate
matter
standard
is
a
surrogate
control
for
the
metals
antimony,
cobalt,
manganese,
nickel,
and
selenium
in
the
hazardous
waste
and
all
HAP
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
auxiliary
fuels
which
are
controllable
by
particulate
matter
control.
All
cement
kilns
control
particulate
matter
with
baghouses
and
electrostatic
precipitators.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
cement
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Our
data
base
of
particulate
matter
stack
emission
concentrations
range
from
0.0008
to
0.063
gr/
dscf.
To
identify
the
floor
level,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
65
mg/
dscm
(
0.028
gr/
dscf),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
44%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions
by
43
tons
per
year.
We
are
also
proposing
to
delete
the
current
opacity
standard
in
conjunction
with
revisions
to
the
compliance
assurance
requirements
for
particulate
matter
for
cement
kilns.
These
proposed
compliance
assurance
amendments
include
requiring
a
cement
kiln
source
using
a
baghouse
to
comply
with
the
same
bag
leak
detection
system
requirements
that
are
currently
applicable
to
all
other
hazardous
waste
combustors
(
see
§
63.1209(
m)).
A
cement
kiln
source
using
an
ESP
has
the
option
either
to
(
1)
use
a
particulate
matter
emissions
detector
as
a
process
monitor
in
lieu
of
complying
with
operating
parameter
limits,
as
we
are
proposing
for
all
other
hazardous
waste
combustor
sources;
or
(
2)
establish
site­
specific,
enforceable
operating
parameter
limits
that
are
linked
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
See
Part
Three,
Section
III
for
a
discussion
of
the
proposed
changes.
We
also
request
comment
on
whether
the
particulate
matter
standard
should
be
expressed
on
a
concentration
basis
(
as
proposed
today)
or
on
a
production­
based
format.
A
concentration­
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

2
We
did
not
evaluate
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
fuel
substitution
because
particulate
matter
emissions
from
cement
kilns
are
primarily
entrained
raw
material,
not
ash
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste
fuel.
There
is,
therefore,
no
correlation
between
particulate
matter
emissions
and
the
level
of
ash
in
the
hazardous
waste.

125
based
standard
is
expressed
as
mass
of
particulate
matter
per
dry
standard
volume
of
gas
(
e.
g.,
mg/
dscm
as
proposed
today)
while
a
production­
based
standard
is
expressed
as
mass
of
particulate
matter
emitted
per
mass
of
dry
raw
material
feed
to
the
kiln
(
e.
g.,
the
format
of
the
interim
standard).
We
evaluated
the
compliance
test
production­
based
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
to
determine
what
the
floor
level
would
be
under
this
approach.
The
calculated
floor
would
be
0.10
kilograms
of
particulate
matter
per
megagram
dry
feed.
We
note
that
a
concentration
format
can
be
viewed
as
penalizing
more
energy
efficient
kilns,
which
burn
less
fuel
and
produce
less
kiln
exhaust
gas
per
megagram
of
dry
feed.
This
is
because
with
a
concentration­
based
standard
the
more
energy­
efficient
kilns
would
be
restricted
to
a
lower
level
of
particulate
matter
emitted
per
unit
of
production.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
particulate
matter
control
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
32
mg/
dscm
(
0.014
gr/
dscf),
which
is
a
50%
reduction
from
MACT
floor
emissions.
2
For
an
existing
source
that
needs
a
significant
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions,
we
assumed
and
estimated
costs
for
a
new
baghouse
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level.
If
little
or
modest
emissions
reductions
were
needed,
then
improved
control
was
costed
as
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
modifications
of
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
equipment.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
4.8
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
385
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
thefloor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
385
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
15
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
12,400
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Particulate
matter
emissions
from
new
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
0.15
kilograms
of
particulate
matter
per
megagram
dry
feed
and
20%
opacity
by
§
63.1204(
b)(
7).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
particulate
matter
would
be
13
mg/
dscm
(
0.0058
gr/
dscf),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Technology
Approach
could
be
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

126
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
are
also
proposing
to
delete
the
current
opacity
standard
in
conjunction
with
revisions
to
the
compliance
assurance
requirements
for
particulate
matter
for
cement
kilns.
See
Part
Three,
Section
III
for
details.
As
discussed
for
existing
sources,
we
also
request
comment
on
whether
the
particulate
matter
standard
should
be
expressed
on
a
concentration
basis
or
on
a
production­
based
format.
We
evaluated
the
compliance
test
production­
based
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
to
determine
what
the
floor
level
would
be
under
this
approach.
The
calculated
floor
would
be
0.028
kilograms
of
particulate
matter
per
megagram
dry
feed.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
emissions
control
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
6.7
mg/
dscm
(
0.0029
gr/
dscf).
This
reduction
represents
a
50%
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
from
MACT
floor
levels.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
cement
kiln
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.38
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
of
approximately
2.6
tons
per
year.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
less
than
6
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
1.8
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
61,400
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
cement
kilns.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
particulate
matter
standard
of
13
mg/
dscm
for
new
sources.
D.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
cement
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
(
cadmium
and
lead,
combined)
to
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
The
proposed
standard
for
new
sources
is
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Semivolatile
metals
emissions
from
existing
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
330
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1204(
a)(
3).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
Cement
kilns
control
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
with
baghouses
or
electrostatic
precipitators
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
cement
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Semivolatile
metal
stack
emissions
range
from
approximately
1
to
2,800
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
semivolatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
range
from
3.0
x
10­
6
to
3.7
x
10­
3
lbs
per
million
Btu.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
represent
the
mass
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

3
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

127
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
Lead
was
the
most
significant
contributor
to
semivolatile
emissions
during
compliance
test
conditions.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
81%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
1
ton
per
year.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
180
ug/
dscm.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
semivolatile
metals­
containing
materials
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels.
The
additional
contribution
to
stack
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
in
an
average
raw
material
and
coal
is
estimated
to
range
as
high
as
20
to
50
ug/
dscm.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
less
than
230
ug/
dscm,
which
is
less
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
330
ug/
dscm.
Given
that
comparing
the
proposed
floor
level
to
the
interim
standard
requires
numerous
assumptions
(
as
just
illustrated)
including
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rates,
heat
input
requirements
per
ton
of
clinker,
concentrations
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
and
coal,
and
system
removal
efficiency,
we
have
a
more
detailed
analysis
in
the
background
document.
3
Our
detailed
analysis
indicates
the
proposed
floor
level
is
as
least
as
stringent
as
the
interim
standard
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
cement
kilns,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
Thus,
we
conclude
that
a
dual
standard
 
the
semivolatile
metals
standard
as
both
the
calculated
floor
level,
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
level,
and
the
current
interim
standard
 
is
not
needed
for
this
standand.
In
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
acknowledged
that
a
cement
kiln
using
properly
designed
and
operated
MACT
control
technologies,
including
controlling
the
levels
of
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste,
may
not
be
capable
of
achieving
a
given
emission
standard
because
of
mineral
and
process
raw
material
contributions
that
might
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
To
address
this
concern,
we
promulgated
a
provision
that
allows
kilns
to
petition
for
alternative
standards
provided
that
they
submit
site­
specific
information
that
shows
raw
material
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

128
hazardous
air
pollutant
contributions
to
the
emissions
prevent
the
source
from
complying
with
the
emission
standard
even
though
the
kiln
is
using
MACT
control.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
10).
If
we
were
to
adopt
the
semivolatile
(
and
low
volatile)
metals
standard
using
a
thermal
emissions
format,
then
there
would
be
no
need
for
these
alternative
standard
provisions
for
semivolatile
metals
(
since,
as
explained
earlier,
that
standard
is
based
solely
on
semivolatile
metals
contributions
from
hazardous
waste
fuels).
Therefore,
we
would
delete
the
provisions
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
10)
as
they
apply
to
semivolatile
(
and
low
volatile)
metals.
We
invite
comment
on
this
approach.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals.
Our
data
show
that
all
cement
kilns
are
already
achieving
greater
than
98.6%
system
removal
efficiency
for
semivolatile
metals,
with
most
attaining
99.9%
removal.
Thus,
additional
control
of
particulate
matter
are
likely
to
result
in
only
modest
additional
reductions
of
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
2.0
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
50%
reduction
in
emissions
from
MACT
floor
levels.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
2.7
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
1.2
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
300
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
5.7
million
kW­
hours
of
energy
per
year
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
2.3
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
3.2
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
representing
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
appreciable
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.30
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.36
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
national
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

129
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
0.84
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
semivolatile
metal
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
lead
and/
or
cadmium
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
higher
levels
of
these
metals.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
even
be
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above,
however.
Given
that
cement
kilns
are
sited
near
the
primary
raw
material
supply,
acquiring
and
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
feed.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
For
the
same
reasons
discussed
for
mercury,
we
judge
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
based
on
fuel
switching
as
unwarranted.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
cement
kilns
at
4.0
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Semivolatile
metals
emissions
from
new
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
180
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1204(
b)(
3).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
semivolatile
metals
would
be
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
80
ug/
dscm,
including
contributions
from
typical
raw
materials
and
coal.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
less
than
the
current
interim
standard
for
new
sources
of
180
ug/
dscm.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
the
same
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

130
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals.
We
evaluated
improved
control
of
particulate
matter
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
2.5
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
cement
kiln
with
an
average
gas
flow
rate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
to
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.38
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
144
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
$
5.3
million
per
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
cement
kilns.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
further
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
semivolatile
metals
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
5.0
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
compliance
cost
estimates.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
levels
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
coupled
with
estimated
emission
reductions.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
cadmium
and
lead
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
cement
plant,
we
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
to
the
cement
plant.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
semivolatile
metalscontaining
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
cement
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
greenfield
site,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
inherently
lower
in
semivolatile
metals
that
would
consistently
achieve
reduced
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using
a
lower,
if
it
exists,
semivolatile
metals­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
metals
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyond­
the­
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

131
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
For
the
same
reasons
discussed
for
mercury,
we
judge
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
fuel
switching
as
unwarranted.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
new
cement
kilns
at
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
E.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium,
combined)
to
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Low
volatile
metals
emissions
from
existing
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
56
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1204(
a)(
4).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
Cement
kilns
control
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
with
baghouses
or
electrostatic
precipitators
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
cement
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Low
volatile
metal
stack
emissions
range
from
approximately
1
to
100
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
low
volatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
range
from
9.2
x
10­
7
to
1.0
x
10­
5
lbs
per
million
Btu.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
represent
the
mass
of
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
For
nearly
every
cement
kiln,
chromium
was
the
most
significant
contributor
to
low
volatile
emissions.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
52%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
low
volatile
metals
emissions
by
0.10
tons
per
year.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
7
ug/
dscm.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
low
volatile
metals­
containing
materials
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels.
The
additional
contribution
to
stack
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
in
an
average
raw
material
and
coal
is
estimated
to
range
from
less
than
1
to
15
ug/
dscm.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
attributable
to
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

4
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

132
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
less
than
22
ug/
dscm,
which
is
less
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
56
ug/
dscm.
Given
that
comparing
the
proposed
floor
level
to
the
interim
standard
requires
numerous
assumptions
(
as
just
illustrated)
including
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rates,
heat
input
requirements
per
ton
of
clinker,
concentrations
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
and
coal,
and
system
removal
efficiency,
we
have
included
a
more
detailed
analysis
in
the
background
document.
4
Our
detailed
analysis
indicates
the
proposed
floor
level
is
as
least
as
stringent
as
the
interim
standard
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
cement
kilns,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
Thus,
we
conclude
that
a
dual
standard
 
the
low
volatile
metals
standard
as
both
the
calculated
floor
level,
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
level,
and
the
current
interim
standard
 
is
not
needed
for
this
standand.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
low
volatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
low
volatile
metals.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals.
Our
data
show
that
all
cement
kilns
are
already
achieving
greater
than
99.9%
system
removal
efficiency
for
low
volatile
metals,
with
most
attaining
99.99%
removal.
Thus,
additional
control
of
particulate
matter
emissions
is
likely
to
result
in
only
a
small
increment
in
reduction
of
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
7.0
x
10­
6
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
50%
reduction
in
emissions
from
MACT
floor
levels.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.7
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
120
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
72
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
1.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
63
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.1
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

133
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
representing
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
appreciable
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.2
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
38
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
64
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
low
volatile
metal
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and/
or
chromium
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
higher
levels
of
these
metals.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
even
be
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above,
however.
Given
that
cement
kilns
are
sited
near
the
primary
raw
material
supply,
acquiring
and
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
feed.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
For
the
same
reasons
discussed
for
mercury,
we
judge
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
fuel
switching
as
unwarranted.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
cement
kilns
at
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Low
volatile
metals
emissions
from
new
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
54
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1204(
b)(
4).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796,
February
13,
2002).
The
floor
level
for
new
sources
for
low
volatile
metals
would
be
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
22
ug/
dscm,
including
contributions
from
typical
raw
materials
and
coal.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

134
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
6.2
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
current
interim
standard
for
new
sources
of
54
ug/
dscm.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
the
same
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
low
volatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals.
We
evaluated
improved
control
of
particulate
matter
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
6.0
x
10­
6
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
cement
kiln
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.38
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
33
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
$
23.5
million
per
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
cement
kilns.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.1
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
believe
that
the
expense
for
further
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
low
volatile
metals
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted
given
the
costs,
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
effects.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
low
volatile
metals
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
cement
plant,
we
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
to
the
cement
plant.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
low
volatile
metalscontaining
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
cement
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
greenfield
site,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
inherently
lower
in
low
volatile
metals
that
would
consistently
achieve
reduced
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using
a
lower,
if
it
exists,
low
volatile
metals­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
metals
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyond­
the­
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

5
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies",
March
2004.

135
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
For
the
same
reasons
discussed
for
mercury,
we
judge
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
fuel
switching
as
unwarranted.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
a
low
volatile
metals
standard
of
1.4
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
F.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns
that
limit
total
chlorine
emissions
(
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
combined,
reported
as
a
chloride
equivalent)
to
110
and
83
ppmv,
respectively.
However,
we
are
also
proposing
to
establish
alternative
risk­
based
standards,
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4),
which
could
be
elected
by
the
source
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine.
The
emission
limits
would
be
based
on
national
exposure
standards
that
ensure
protection
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIII
for
additional
details.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Total
chlorine
emissions
from
existing
cement
kilns
are
limited
to
130
ppmv
by
§
63.1204(
a)(
6).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
None
of
the
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
use
a
dedicated
control
device,
such
as
a
wet
scrubber,
to
remove
total
chlorine
from
the
gas
stream.
However,
the
natural
alkalinity
in
some
of
the
raw
materials
is
highly
effective
at
removing
chlorine
from
the
gas
stream.
Our
data
base
shows
that
the
majority
of
the
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
data
of
total
chlorine
 
over
80%
 
indicate
a
SRE
greater
than
95%.
This
scrubbing
effect,
though
quite
effective,
varies
across
different
sources
and
also
at
individual
sources
over
time
due
to
differences
in
raw
materials,
operating
conditions,
cement
kiln
dust
recycle
rates,
and
production
requirements.
Likewise,
our
data
show
that
total
chlorine
emissions
from
a
given
source
can
vary
over
a
considerable
range.
Based
on
these
data,
we
conclude
that
the
best
(
highest)
SRE
achieved
at
a
given
source
is
not
duplicable
or
replicable.
The
majority
of
the
chlorine
fed
to
the
cement
kiln
during
a
compliance
test
comes
from
the
hazardous
waste.
5
In
all
but
a
few
cases
the
hazardous
waste
contribution
to
the
total
amount
of
chlorine
fed
to
the
kiln
represented
at
least
75%
of
the
total
chlorine
loading
to
the
kiln.
As
we
identified
in
the
September
1999
final
rule,
the
proposed
MACT
floor
control
for
total
chlorine
is
based
on
controlling
the
concentration
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste.
The
chlorine
concentration
in
the
hazardous
waste
will
affect
emissions
of
total
chlorine
at
a
given
SRE
because
emissions
increase
as
the
chlorine
loading
increases.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
cement
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

6
We
are
also
requesting
comment
on
whether
the
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
floor
level
should
be
the
standard
itself
(
i.
e.,
no
stack
emission
concentration
standard)
or
as
an
alternative
to
the
stack
emission
standard
(
e.
g.,
sources
have
the
option
to
comply
with
either
the
calculated
stack
emissions
concentration
or
the
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
limit).

136
compliance
test
campaign.
Total
chlorine
emissions
range
from
less
than
1
ppmv
to
192
ppmv.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
a
variant
of
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
because
of
concerns
about
a
cement
kiln's
ability
to
replicate
a
given
SRE.
To
identify
the
floor
level
we
first
evaluated
the
chlorine
feed
level
in
the
hazardous
waste
for
all
sources.
The
best
performing
sources
had
the
lowest
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
or
MTEC,
considering
variability.
We
then
applied
a
SRE
of
90%
to
the
best
performing
sources'
total
MTEC
(
i.
e.,
includes
chlorine
contributions
to
emissions
from
all
feedstreams
such
as
raw
material
and
fossil
fuels)
to
identify
the
floor
level.
Given
our
concerns
about
the
reproducibility
of
SREs
of
total
chlorine,
we
selected
a
SRE
of
90%
because
our
data
base
shows
that
all
sources
have
demonstrated
this
SRE
at
least
once
(
and
often
several
times)
during
a
compliance
test.
The
calculated
floor
is
110
ppmv,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
best
performing
feed
control
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
93%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
total
chlorine
emissions
by
64
tons
per
year.
We
also
invite
comment
on
an
alternative
approach
to
establish
a
floor
level
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration.
6
A
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
is
expressed
as
mass
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
The
floor
would
be
based
on
the
best
five
performing
sources
with
the
lowest
thermal
feed
concentration
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
considering
each
source's
most
recent
compliance
test
data.
One
advantage
of
this
approach
is
that
the
uncertainty
surrounding
the
capture
(
SRE)
of
chlorine
in
a
kiln
is
removed.
The
calculated
floor
level
would
be
2.4
lbs
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
in
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
variability.
For
a
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
that
gets
50%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
hazardous
waste
with
a
chlorine
concentration
of
2.4
lbs
chlorine
per
million
Btu
and
achieving
90%
SRE
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
75
ppmv.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
chlorine­
containing
materials
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels.
The
additional
contribution
to
stack
emissions
of
total
chlorine
in
an
average
raw
material
and
coal
is
estimated
to
range
from
less
than
1
to
35
ppmv.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
wet
process
cement
kiln
this
floor
level
is
estimated
to
be
less
than
110
ppmv,
which
is
less
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
130
ppmv.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
total
chlorine:
(
1)
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

137
use
of
wet
scrubbers;
(
2)
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
chlorine
in
the
raw
materials.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
for
total
chlorine.
Use
of
Wet
Scrubbers.
We
evaluated
the
use
of
wet
scrubbers
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Wet
scrubbers
are
not
currently
being
used
at
any
hazardous
waste
burning
cement
kilns
to
capture
hydrogen
chloride.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
thefloor
level
of
55
ppmv.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.4
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
370
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
wet
scrubbing
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
water
usage
and
waste
water
generated
by
1.5
billion
gallon
per
year.
The
option
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
12
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
9,300
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
wet
scrubbing.
Feed
Control
of
Chlorine
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
88
ppmv,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
that
represents
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
cement
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.1
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
100
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
11,000
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Chlorine
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
chlorine
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
higher
levels
of
chlorine.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
even
be
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above
because
most
chlorine
feed
to
the
kiln
is
in
the
hazardous
waste.
In
addition,
given
that
cement
kilns
are
sited
near
the
primary
raw
material
supply,
acquiring
and
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
chlorine
in
the
raw
material
feed.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
chlorine
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
kilns.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
For
the
same
reasons
discussed
for
mercury,
we
judge
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
based
on
fuel
switching
as
unwarranted.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

138
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
not
to
adopt
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
total
chlorine
and
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
cement
kilns
at
110
ppmv.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Total
chlorine
emissions
from
new
cement
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
86
ppmv
by
§
63.1204(
b)(
6).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6796).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
total
chlorine
would
be
78
ppmv,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
similar
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
total
chlorine
for
new
sources:
(
1)
use
of
wet
scrubbing;
(
2)
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
chlorine
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Use
of
Wet
Scrubbers.
We
considered
wet
scrubbing
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
total
chlorine
emissions
and
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
39
ppmv.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
cement
kiln
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
1.2
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
of
approximately
22
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
For
these
reasons
and
costs
of
$
24,000
per
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
wet
scrubbing
for
new
cement
kilns.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
62
ppmv,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
believe
that
the
expense
for
further
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
chlorine
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted
given
the
costs,
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
effects.
Feed
Control
of
Chlorine
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Cement
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
chlorine
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
cement
plant,
we
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
to
the
cement
plant.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
chlorine­
containing
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
cement
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
greenfield
site,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
inherently
lower
in
chlorine
that
would
consistently
achieve
reduced
total
chlorine
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using
a
lower,
if
it
exists,
chlorine­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
chlorine
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyond­
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

7
A
greenfield
cement
kiln
is
a
kiln
that
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
after
April
19,
1996
at
a
site
where
no
cement
kiln
previously
existed,
irrespective
of
the
class
of
kiln
(
i.
e.,
nonhazardous
waste
or
hazardous
waste
burning).
A
newly
constructed
or
reconstructed
cement
kiln
at
an
existing
site
is
not
classified
as
a
greenfield
cement
kiln,
and
is
subject
to
the
same
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
standards
as
an
existing
cement
kiln.

139
the­
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
chlorine
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
chlorine
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Given
that
most
cement
kilns
burning
hazardous
waste
also
burn
coal
as
a
fuel,
we
considered
switching
to
natural
gas
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
For
the
same
reasons
discussed
for
mercury,
we
judge
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
fuel
switching
as
unwarranted.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
a
total
chlorine
standard
of
78
ppmv
for
new
cement
kilns.
G.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Carbon
Monoxide?
Hydrocarbon
and
carbon
monoxide
standards
are
surrogates
to
control
emissions
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
for
existing
and
new
cement
kilns.
For
cement
kilns
without
bypass
or
midkiln
sampling
systems,
the
standard
for
existing
sources
limit
hydrocarbon
or
carbon
monoxide
concentrations
to
20
ppmv
or
100
ppmv,
respectively.
The
standards
for
new
sources
limit
(
1)
hydrocarbons
to
20
ppmv;
or
(
2)
carbon
monoxide
to
100
ppmv.
New,
greenfield
kilns7,
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
standard,
however,
must
also
comply
with
a
50
ppmv
hydrocarbon
standard.
New
and
existing
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
standard,
including
new
greenfield
kilns
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
and
50
ppmv
hydrocarbon
standard,
must
also
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
20
ppmv
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
However,
continuous
hydrocarbon
monitoring
following
the
performance
test
is
not
required.
For
cement
kilns
with
bypass
or
midkiln
sampling
systems,
existing
cement
kilns
are
required
to
comply
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
10
ppmv.
Both
standards
apply
to
combustion
gas
sampled
in
the
bypass
or
a
midkiln
sampling
port
that
samples
representative
kiln
gas.
See
§
§
63.1204(
a)(
5)
and
(
b)(
5).
The
rationale
for
these
decisions
are
discussed
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
64
FR
at
52885).
We
view
the
standards
for
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
as
unaffected
by
the
Court's
vacature
of
the
challenged
regulations
in
its
decision
of
July
24,
2001.
We
therefore
are
not
proposing
these
standards
for
cement
kilns,
but
rather
are
mentioning
them
here
for
the
reader's
convenience.
H.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
The
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard
is
a
surrogate
to
control
emissions
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
other
than
dioxin/
furans.
The
standard
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
requires
99.99%
DRE
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent,
except
that
99.9999%
DRE
is
required
if
specified
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
are
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

140
burned.
See
§
§
63.1204(
c).
The
rationale
for
these
decisions
are
discussed
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
64
FR
at
52890).
We
view
the
standards
for
DRE
as
unaffected
by
the
Court's
vacature
of
the
challenged
regulations
in
its
decision
of
July
24,
2001.
We
therefore
are
not
proposing
these
standards
for
cement
kilns,
but
rather
are
mentioning
them
here
for
the
reader's
convenience.

IX.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns?
In
this
section,
the
basis
for
the
proposed
emission
standards
is
discussed.
See
proposed
§
63.1205A.
The
proposed
emission
limits
apply
to
the
stack
gases
from
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste
and
are
summarized
in
the
table
below:

PROPOSED
STANDARDS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
LIGHTWEIGHT
AGGREGATE
KILNS
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
or
Surrogate
Emission
Standard1
Existing
Sources
New
Sources
Dioxin
and
furan
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
Mercury2
67
ug/
dscm
67
ug/
dscm
Particulate
Matter
57
mg/
dscm
(
0.025
gr/
dscf)
23
mg/
dscm
(
0.0099
gr/
dscf)

Semivolatile
metals3
3.1
x
10­
4
lb/
MMBtu
and
250
ug/
dscm
2.4
x
10­
5
lb/
MMBtu
and
43
ug/
dscm
Low
volatile
metals3
9.5
x
10­
5
lb/
MMBtu
and
110
ug/
dscm
3.2
x
10­
5
lb/
MMBtu
and
110
ug/
dscm
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas4
150
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
150
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
Hydrocarbons5,
6
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)
20
ppmv
(
or
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide)

Destruction
and
removal
efficiency
For
existing
and
new
sources,
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
POHC.

1
All
emission
standards
are
corrected
to
7%
oxygen,
dry
basis.
2
Mercury
standard
is
an
annual
limit.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

141
3
Standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
emissions
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
million
British
thermal
unit
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
4
Combined
standard,
reported
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent.
5
Sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
6
Hourly
rolling
average.
Hydrocarbons
reported
as
propane.

A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
dioxin
and
furans
to
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
by
§
63.1205(
a)(
1)
to
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F.
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
Since
promulgation
of
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
have
obtained
additional
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data.
We
now
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
The
compliance
test
dioxin/
furan
emissions
in
our
database
range
from
approximately
0.9
to
58
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Quenching
kiln
gas
temperatures
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
so
that
gas
temperatures
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device
are
below
the
temperature
range
of
optimum
dioxin/
furan
formation
(
400­
750
°
F)
may
be
problematic
for
some
of
these
sources.
Some
of
these
sources
have
extensive
(
long)
duct­
work
between
the
kiln
exit
and
the
inlet
to
the
control
device.
For
these
sources,
quenching
the
gases
at
the
kiln
exit
to
a
low
enough
temperature
to
limit
dioxin/
furan
formation
may
conflict
with
the
source's
ability
to
avoid
acid
gas
dew
point
related
problems
in
the
long
duct­
work
and
control
device.
As
a
result,
some
sources
quench
the
kiln
exit
gases
to
a
temperature
that
is
in
the
optimum
temperature
range
for
surface­
catalyzed
dioxin/
furan
formation.
Available
compliance
test
emissions
data
indicate
that
inlet
temperatures
to
the
control
device
range
from
435­
450
°
F.
This
means
that
temperatures
in
the
duct­
work
are
higher
and
well
within
the
range
of
optimum
dioxin/
furan
formation.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
Emissions
Approach
described
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI
above.
The
calculated
floor
is
14
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
However,
the
current
interim
emission
standard
 
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F
 
is
a
regulatory
limit
that
is
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level
because
it
fixes
a
level
of
performance
for
the
source
category.
We
estimate
that
sources
achieving
the
"
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F"
part
of
the
current
standard
can
emit
up
to
6.1
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Given
that
all
sources
are
achieving
the
interim
standard
and
that
the
interim
standard
is
judged
as
more
stringent
than
the
calculated
MACT
floor,
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
current
regulatory
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

8
Even
though
all
sources
have
recently
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
interim
standards,
the
dioxin/
furan
data
in
our
data
base
preceded
the
compliance
demonstration.
This
explains
why
we
have
emissions
data
that
are
higher
than
the
interim
standard.

142
limit.
8
We
are,
therefore,
proposing
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F.
This
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
all
sources
because
it
is
the
interim
standard.
In
addition,
there
are
no
emissions
reductions
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
comply
with
the
floor
level.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
dioxin/
furans
in
various
combustion
applications;
however,
no
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
burns
hazardous
waste
uses
activated
carbon
injection.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
represents
a
level
that
is
considered
routinely
achievable
using
activated
carbon
injection.
In
addition,
we
assumed
for
costing
purposes
that
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
needing
activated
carbon
injection
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
would
install
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
after
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
device
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
injected
carbon
with
the
adsorbed
dioxin/
furans.
We
chose
this
costing
approach
to
address
potential
concerns
that
injected
carbon
may
interfere
with
lightweight
aggregate
dust
use
practices.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
2.2
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
1.9
grams
TEQ
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
550
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
1
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
0.91
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
We
judge
that
the
cost
to
achieve
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
is
warranted
given
our
special
concern
about
dioxin/
furan.
Dioxin/
furan
are
some
of
the
most
toxic
compounds
known
due
to
their
bioaccumulation
potential
and
wide
range
of
health
effects,
including
carcinogenesis,
at
exceedingly
low
doses.
Exposure
via
indirect
pathways
is
a
chief
reason
that
Congress
singled
our
dioxin/
furan
for
priority
MACT
control
in
CAA
section
112(
c)(
6).
See
S.
Rep.
No.
128,
101st
Cong.
1st
Sess.
at
154­
155.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Dioxin
and
furan
emissions
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
by
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

9
MTEC
is
a
term
to
compare
metals
and
chlorine
feedrates
across
sources
of
different
sizes.
MTEC
is
defined
as
the
metals
or
chlorine
feedrate
divided
by
the
gas
flow
rate
and
is
expressed
in
units
of
ug/
dscm.

143
§
63.1205(
b)(
1)
to
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F.
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
The
calculated
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
1.3
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability,
or
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
Emissions
Approach.
However,
we
are
concerned
that
the
calculated
floor
level
of
1.3
ng
TEQ/
dscm
is
not
duplicable
by
all
sources
using
temperature
control
because
we
estimate
that
sources
rapidly
quenching
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F
can
emit
up
to
6.1
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
or
rapid
quench
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
exit
of
the
kiln
to
less
than
400
°
F.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
and
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
represents
a
level
that
is
considered
routinely
achievable
with
activated
carbon
injection.
In
addition,
we
assumed
for
costing
purposes
that
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
will
install
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
after
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
device
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
injected
carbon
with
the
adsorbed
dioxin/
furan.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
source
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.26
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
0.37
grams
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health,
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
effects
are
accounted
for
in
the
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
cost
of
$
0.71
million
per
gram
TEQ
removed,
we
are
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
We
believe
that
the
cost
to
achieve
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
is
warranted
given
our
special
concern
about
dioxin/
furan.
Dioxin/
furan
are
some
of
the
most
toxic
compounds
known
due
to
their
bioaccumulation
potential
and
wide
range
of
health
effects,
including
carcinogenesis,
at
exceedingly
low
doses.
B.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
mercury
to
67
ug/
dscm.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Mercury
emissions
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
120
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1205(
a)(
2).
Existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
have
the
option
to
comply
with
an
alternative
mercury
standard
that
limits
the
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
(
MTEC)
of
mercury
to
120
ug/
dscm.
9
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
One
lightweight
aggregate
facility
with
two
kilns
uses
a
venturi
scrubber
to
remove
mercury
from
the
flue
gas
stream
and
the
remaining
sources
limit
the
feed
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
to
control
emissions.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

10
Given
that
the
majority
of
feedrate
and
emissions
data
for
mercury
is
normal,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions­
based
standard.
We
prefer
to
establish
emission
standards
under
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
format
using
compliance
test
data
because
the
metals
feedrate
information
from
compliance
tests
that
we
use
to
apportion
emissions
to
calculate
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
are
more
reliable
than
feedrate
data
measured
during
testing
under
normal,
typical
operations.

144
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
only
one
source;
however,
we
have
normal
emissions
data
for
all
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
normal
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
test
campaign.
We
used
these
emissions
data
to
represent
the
average
emissions
from
a
source
even
though
we
do
not
know
whether
the
emissions
represent
the
high
end,
low
end,
or
close
to
the
average
emissions.
The
normal
mercury
stack
emissions
range
from
less
than
1
to
47
ug/
dscm,
while
the
highest
compliance
test
emissions
data
is
1,050
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
mercury
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
all
normal
emissions
data
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
We
considered
normal
stack
emissions
data
from
all
test
campaigns.
10
For
example,
one
source
in
our
data
base
has
normal
emissions
data
for
three
different
testing
campaigns:
1992,
1995,
and
1999.
Under
this
approach
we
considered
the
emissions
data
from
the
three
separate
years
or
campaigns.
As
explained
earlier,
we
believe
this
approach
better
captures
the
range
of
average
emissions
for
a
source
than
only
considering
the
most
recent
normal
emissions.
In
addition,
for
sources
without
control
equipment
to
capture
mercury,
we
assumed
the
sources
achieved
a
SRE
of
zero.
The
effect
of
this
assumption
is
that
the
sources
(
without
control
equipment
for
mercury)
with
the
lower
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
were
identified
as
the
better
performing
sources.
The
calculated
floor
is
67
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability,
based
on
a
hazardous
waste
maximum
theoretical
emissions
concentration
(
MTEC)
of
42
ug/
dscm.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
57%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
mercury
emissions
by
8
pounds
per
year.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
a
floor
level,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
comply
with
the
limit
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
Under
this
approach,
compliance
would
not
be
based
on
the
use
of
a
total
mercury
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
because
these
monitors
have
not
been
adequately
demonstrated
as
a
reliable
compliance
assurance
tool
at
all
types
of
incinerator
sources.
Instead,
a
source
would
maintain
compliance
with
the
mercury
standard
by
establishing
and
complying
with
limits
on
operating
parameters
(
e.
g.,
limit
on
maximum
total
mercury
feedrate
in
all
feedstreams)
on
an
annual
basis.
In
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
acknowledged
that
a
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
using
properly
designed
and
operated
MACT
control
technologies,
including
controlling
the
levels
of
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste,
may
not
be
capable
of
achieving
a
given
emission
standard
because
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

11
Solite
Corporation
has
four
kilns
at
its
Cascade
facility
and
three
kilns
at
its
Arvonia
facility.
However,
only
three
kilns
and
two
kilns,
respectively,
can
be
fired
with
hazardous
waste
at
any
one
time.
For
purposes
of
today's
proposal,
Solite
Corporation
is
assumed
to
operate
a
total
of
five
kilns.

12
A
hazardous
waste
with
a
mercury
concentration
of
2
ppm
equates
approximately
to
a
mercury
emissions
level
of
200­
250
ug/
dscm,
and
a
source
firing
a
hazardous
waste
with
a
mercury
concentration
of
0.2
ppm
approximately
equates
to
20­
25
ug/
dscm.
The
existing
standard
of
120
ug/
dscm
allows
a
source
to
burn
a
hazardous
waste
with
a
mercury
concentration
of
approximately
1
ppm.

145
of
process
raw
material
contributions
that
might
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
To
address
this
concern,
we
promulgated
a
provision
that
allows
sources
to
petition
for
alternative
standards
provided
they
submit
site­
specific
information
that
shows
raw
material
hazardous
air
pollutant
contributions
to
the
emissions
prevent
the
source
from
complying
with
the
emission
standard
even
though
the
kiln
is
using
MACT
control.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
9).
Today's
proposed
floor
of
67
ug/
dscm,
which
was
based
on
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
42
ug/
dscm,
may
likewise
necessitate
such
an
alternative
because
contributions
of
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels
at
some
sources
may
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
Therefore,
we
are
considering
retaining
the
alternative
standard;
however,
we
also
request
comment
on
whether
to
delete
the
alternative
standard
petitioning
process
of
§
63.1206(
b)(
9)
and
instead
allow
sources
to
comply
either
with
the
stack
emission
standard
or
hazardous
waste
MTEC
level
(
without
a
requirement
to
submit
a
petition).
This
approach
would
establish
the
mercury
standard
as
either
67
ug/
dscm
or
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
42
ug/
dscm.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
an
approach,
we
would
require
sources
to
comply
with
either
limit
they
select
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
In
comments
submitted
to
EPA
in
1997,
Solite
Corporation
(
Solite),
owner
and
operator
of
five11
of
the
seven
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
stated
that
the
normal
emissions
data
in
our
data
base
are
unrepresentative
of
average
emissions
of
mercury
because
the
normal
range
of
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
burned
during
the
compliance
and
trial
burn
tests
was
not
captured
during
the
tests.
In
their
1997
comments,
Solite
provided
information
on
actual
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
burn
tanks
over
a
year
and
a
quarter
period.
The
information
showed
that
87%
of
the
burn
tanks
contained
mercury
at
concentrations
below
the
facility's
detection
limit
of
2
ppm.
Additional
analyses
of
a
limited
number
of
these
samples
conducted
at
an
off­
site
lab
showed
that
the
majority
of
samples
were
actually
less
than
0.2
ppm.
12
We
examined
the
test
reports
of
the
five
best
performing
sources
that
are
the
basis
of
today's
proposed
floor
level
to
determine
the
concentration
level
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
wastes.
The
hazardous
waste
burned
by
the
best
performing
sources
during
the
tests
that
generated
the
normal
emissions
data
had
mercury
concentrations
that
ranged
from
0.02
to
0.2
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

13
These
mercury
concentrations
were
analyzed
by
an
off­
site
lab
that
had
equipment
capable
of
detecting
mercury
at
lower
concentrations.
Sixteen
of
the
27
measurements
of
the
best
performers
were
reported
as
non­
detects.

146
ppm.
13
Even
though
the
concentrations
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
seem
low,
we
cannot
judge
how
these
snap
shot
concentrations
compare
to
long­
term
normal
concentrations
because
the
majority
of
the
burn
tank
concentration
data
submitted
by
Solite
are
nondetect
measurements
at
a
higher
detection
limit.
Solite
informed
us
in
July
2003
that
they
are
in
the
process
of
upgrading
the
analysis
equipment
at
their
on­
site
laboratory.
Once
completed,
Solite
expects
to
be
capable
of
detecting
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
at
concentrations
of
0.2
ppm.
Solite
also
indicated
that
they
intend
to
assemble
and
submit
to
EPA
several
months
of
burn
tank
concentration
data
analyzed
with
the
new
equipment.
We
will
add
these
data
to
the
docket
of
today's
proposal
once
available.
As
we
discussed
for
cement
kilns
for
mercury,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
approaches
to
establish
a
hazardous
waste
feed
concentration
standard
based
on
long­
term
feed
concentrations
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Likewise,
we
invite
comments
on
establishing
a
mercury
feed
concentration
standard
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
We
also
invite
comment
on
whether
we
should
judge
an
annual
limit
of
67
ug/
dscm
as
less
stringent
than
either
the
current
emission
standard
of
120
ug/
dscm
or
the
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
sources,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
In
order
to
comply
with
the
current
emission
standard,
generally
a
source
must
conduct
manual
stack
sampling
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard
and
then
establish
a
maximum
mercury
feedrate
limit
based
on
operations
during
the
performance
test.
Following
the
performance
test,
the
source
complies
with
a
limit
on
the
maximum
total
mercury
feedrate
in
all
feedstreams
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
(
not
an
annual
average).
Alternatively,
a
source
can
elect
to
comply
with
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
mercury
of
120
ug/
dscm
that
would
require
the
source
to
limit
the
mercury
feedrate
in
the
hazardous
waste
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average.
The
floor
level
of
67
ug/
dscm
proposed
today
would
allow
a
source
to
feed
more
variable
mercury­
containing
feedstreams
(
e.
g.,
a
hazardous
waste
with
an
mercury
MTEC
greater
than
120
ug/
dscm)
than
the
current
12­
hour
rolling
average
because
today's
proposed
floor
level
is
an
annual
limit.
For
example,
the
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
exceeded
a
hazardous
waste
MTEC
of
120
ug/
dscm
in
a
minumum
of
13%
of
the
burn
tanks
based
on
the
data
submitted
by
Solite
in
their
1997
comments
(
discussed
above).
As
mentioned
above,
Solite
intends
to
submit
several
months
of
burn
tank
concentration
data
using
upgraded
analysis
equipment
at
their
on­
site
laboratory
that
we
will
consider
when
comparing
the
relative
stringency
of
an
annual
limit
of
67
ug/
dscm
and
a
shortterm
limit
of
120
ug/
dscm.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
activated
carbon
injection;
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

14
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
V:
Emission
Estimates
and
Engineering
Costs",
March
2004
147
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
and
auxiliary
fuels.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
mercury.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyondthe
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
mercury
in
several
combustion
applications;
however,
currently
no
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
burns
hazardous
waste
uses
activated
carbon
injection.
Given
this
lack
of
experience
using
activated
carbon
injection,
we
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
will
provide
70%
mercury
control
and
evaluated
a
beyond­
thefloor
level
of
20
ug/
dscm.
In
addition,
for
costing
purposes
we
assumed
that
sources
needing
activated
carbon
injection
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
would
install
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
after
the
existing
baghouse
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
injected
carbon
with
the
adsorbed
mercury.
We
chose
this
costing
approach
to
address
potential
concerns
that
injected
carbon
may
interfere
with
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
dust
use
practices.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.1
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
11
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
thefloor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
270
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
1.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
209
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
54
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
representing
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
(
beyond
feedrate
control
that
may
be
necessary
to
achieve
the
floor
level)
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
14
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.3
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
3
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
229
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Lightweight
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

148
aggregate
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
a
lower
level
of
mercury
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
be
even
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above,
however.
Given
that
sources
are
sited
near
the
supply
of
the
primary
raw
material,
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials,
even
if
available,
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive,
especially
considering
the
small
expected
emissions
reductions
that
would
result.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
mercury
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Two
facilities
typically
burn
hazardous
waste
at
a
fuel
replacement
rate
of
100%,
while
one
facility
has
burned
a
combination
of
fuel
oil
and
natural
gas
in
addition
to
the
hazardous
waste.
We
considered
switching
only
to
natural
gas
as
the
auxiliary
fuel
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
We
do
not
believe
that
switching
to
natural
gas
is
a
viable
control
option
for
the
same
reasons
discussed
above
for
cement
kilns.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
67
ug/
dscm.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
a
standard,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
comply
with
the
standard
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Mercury
emissions
from
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
120
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1205(
b)(
2).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
mercury
would
be
67
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
the
same
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
use
of
activated
carbon;
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
and
auxiliary
fuels.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyondthe
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
We
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
will
provide
70%
mercury
control
and
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
20
ug/
dscm.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
with
average
gas
flow
rate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.26
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
of
approximately
42
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
$
12
million
per
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
for
new
sources.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

15
A
greenfield
source
is
a
kiln
constructed
at
a
site
where
no
lightweght
aggregate
kiln
previously
existed;
however,
a
newly
constructed
or
reconstructed
kiln
at
an
existing
site
would
not
be
considered
as
a
greenfield
kiln.

149
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
further
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
mercury
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
A
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
54
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level,
would
result
in
little
additional
mercury
reductions.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
coupled
with
estimated
emission
reductions.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
mercury
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
lightweight
aggregate
plant,
we
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
to
the
facility.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
mercury­
containing
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
site
 
a
greenfield
site15
 
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
low
in
mercury
which
would
consistently
decrease
mercury
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using
a
lower,
if
it
exists,
mercury­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
metals
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyond­
the­
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
mercury
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
mercury
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
We
considered
using
natural
gas
in
lieu
of
a
fuel
containing
higher
concentrations
of
mercury
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
As
discussed
for
existing
sources,
we
are
concerned
about
the
availability
of
the
natural
gas
infrastructure
in
all
regions
of
the
United
States
and
believe
that
using
natural
gas
would
not
be
a
viable
control
option
for
all
new
sources.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
mercury
in
the
raw
material
feed
and
auxiliary
fuels.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
mercury
standard
of
67
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
If
we
were
to
adopt
such
a
standard,
we
are
proposing
that
sources
comply
with
the
standard
on
an
annual
basis
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
particulate
matter
to
0.025
and
0.0099
gr/
dscf,
respectively.
This
standard
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

150
would
control
unenumerated
HAP
metals
in
hazardous
waste,
and
all
non­
Hg
HAP
metals
in
the
raw
material
and
fossil
fuel
inputs
to
the
kiln.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Particulate
matter
emissions
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
0.025
gr/
dscf
(
57
mg/
dscm)
by
§
63.1205(
a)(
7).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
The
particulate
matter
standard
is
a
surrogate
control
for
the
non­
mercury
metal
HAP.
All
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
control
particulate
matter
with
baghouses.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Our
database
of
particulate
matter
stack
emissions
range
from
0.001
to
0.042
gr/
dscf.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
APCD
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
0.029
gr/
dscf,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
The
calculated
floor
level
of
0.029
gr/
dscf
is
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
of
0.025
gr/
dscf,
which
is
a
regulatory
limit
relevant
in
identifying
the
floor
level
(
so
as
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
a
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
hence,
the
level
of
minimal
stringency
at
which
EPA
could
calculate
the
MACT
floor).
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
level
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
0.025
gr/
dscf.
This
emission
level
is
currently
being
achieved
by
all
sources.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
particulate
matter
control
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
29
mg/
dscm
(
0.013
gr/
dscf).
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.32
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
8.6
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
9
tons
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
36,600
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Particulate
matter
emissions
from
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
0.025
gr/
dscf
by
§
63.1205(
b)(
7).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797,
February
13,
2002).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
particulate
matter
would
be
23
mg/
dscm
(
0.0099
gr/
dscf),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

151
performing
source
identified
with
the
APCD
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
particulate
matter
control
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
12
mg/
dscm
(
0.005
gr/
dscf).
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
with
an
average
gas
flow
rate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
91,400
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
of
approximately
2
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
also
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
45,600
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
particulate
matter
standard
of
2.3
mg/
dscm
(
0.0099
gr/
dscf)
for
new
sources.
D.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
(
cadmium
and
lead,
combined)
to
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
250
ug/
dscm.
The
proposed
standard
for
new
sources
is
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
43
ug/
dscm.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Semivolatile
metals
emissions
from
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
250
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1205(
a)(
3).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
control
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
with
baghouses
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Semivolatile
metal
stack
emissions
range
from
approximately
1
to
over
1,600
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
semivolatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
range
from
3.0
x
10­
6
to
1.1
x
10­
3
lbs
per
million
Btu.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
represent
the
mass
of
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
For
most
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
lead
was
the
major
contributor
to
semivolatile
emissions.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

16
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

152
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
71%
of
sources,
and
would
reduce
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
30
pounds
per
year.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
gets
90%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
300
ug/
dscm.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
semivolatile
metals­
containing
materials
such
as
raw
materials
and
fossil
fuels.
The
additional
contribution
to
stack
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
in
an
average
raw
material
is
estimated
to
range
as
high
as
20
to
50
ug/
dscm.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
less
than
350
ug/
dscm,
which
is
higher
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
250
ug/
dscm.
Given
that
comparing
the
proposed
floor
level
to
the
interim
standard
requires
numerous
assumptions
(
as
just
illustrated)
including
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rates,
heat
input
requirements
per
ton
of
clinker,
concentrations
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
and
fuels,
and
system
removal
efficiency,
we
have
included
a
more
detailed
analysis
in
the
background
document.
16
Our
detailed
analysis
indicates
the
proposed
floor
level
could
be
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
for
some
sources.
In
order
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
the
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
we
propose
a
dual
standard:
the
semivolatile
metals
standard
as
both
the
calculated
floor
level,
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
level,
and
the
current
interim
standard.
This
would
ensure
that
all
sources
are
complying
with
a
limit
that
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
interim
standard.
In
the
September
1999
final
rule,
we
acknowledged
that
a
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
using
properly
designed
and
operated
MACT
control
technologies,
including
controlling
the
levels
of
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste,
may
not
be
capable
of
achieving
a
given
emission
standard
because
of
mineral
and
process
raw
material
contributions
that
might
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
emission
standard.
To
address
this
concern,
we
promulgated
a
provision
that
allows
kilns
to
petition
for
alternative
standards
provided
that
they
submit
site­
specific
information
that
shows
raw
material
hazardous
air
pollutant
contributions
to
the
emissions
prevent
the
source
from
complying
with
the
emission
standard
even
though
the
kiln
is
using
MACT
control.
See
§
63.1206(
b)(
9).
If
we
were
to
adopt
the
proposed
dual
semivolatile
(
and
low
volatile)
metals
standards
approach,
we
propose
to
retain
the
alternative
standard
provisions
under
§
63.1206(
b)(
9)
for
semivolatile
metals
(
and
low
volatile
metals).
We
invite
comment
on
this
approach.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

153
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals.
Our
data
show
that
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
already
achieving
greater
than
99.7%
system
removal
efficiency
for
semivolatile
metals,
with
many
attaining
99.9%
removal.
Thus,
additional
control
of
particulate
matter
are
likely
to
result
in
only
modest
additional
reductions
of
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.5
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
50%
reduction
in
emissions
from
MACT
floor
levels.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
to
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
84,200
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
20
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
less
than
10
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
2,000
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
The
costs
associated
with
these
impacts
are
accounted
for
in
the
national
annualized
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
7.6
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
2.5
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
representing
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
hazardous
waste
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
appreciable
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
6,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
less
than
one
pound
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
national
compliance
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
20
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
semivolatile
metal
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
cadmium
and/
or
lead
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
higher
levels
of
these
metals.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
even
be
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above,
however.
Given
that
facilities
are
sited
near
the
primary
raw
material
supply,
acquiring
and
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive.
Therefore,
we
are
not
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

154
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
feed.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Two
facilities
typically
burn
hazardous
waste
at
a
fuel
replacement
rate
of
100%,
while
one
facility
has
burned
a
combination
of
fuel
oil
and
natural
gas
in
addition
to
the
hazardous
waste.
We
considered
switching
only
to
natural
gas
as
the
auxiliary
fuel
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
We
do
not
believe
that
switching
to
natural
gas
is
a
viable
control
option
for
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
cement
kilns.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
3.1
x
10­
4
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
250
ug/
dscm.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Semivolatile
metals
emissions
from
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
43
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1205(
b)(
3).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
semivolatile
metals
would
be
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
in
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
gets
90%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
can
equate
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
as
high
as
60
ug/
dscm,
including
contributions
from
typical
raw
materials.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
as
high
as
60
ug/
dscm,
which
is
higher
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
43
ug/
dscm.
In
order
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
the
current
level
of
performance
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
source,
we
propose
a
dual
standard:
the
semivolatile
metals
standard
as
both
the
calculated
floor
level,
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
level,
and
the
current
interim
standard.
This
would
ensure
that
all
sources
are
complying
with
a
limit
that
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
interim
standard.
Thus,
the
proposed
MACT
floor
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
43
ug/
dscm.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
the
same
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

155
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals.
We
evaluated
improved
control
of
particulate
matter
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.2
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
to
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.11
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
13
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
3
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
0.3
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
18
million
per
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
further
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
semivolatile
metals
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.9
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
compliance
cost
estimates.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
levels
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
and
estimated
emission
reductions.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
cadmium
and
lead
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
facility,
we
believe
that
this
beyondthe
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
material
to
the
facility.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
semivolatile
metals­
containing
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
greenfield
site,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
inherently
lower
in
semivolatile
metals
that
would
consistently
achieve
reduced
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using,
if
it
exists,
a
lower
semivolatile
metals­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
metals
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyondthe
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

156
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
semivolatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Two
facilities
typically
burn
hazardous
waste
at
a
fuel
replacement
rate
of
100%,
while
one
facility
has
burned
a
combination
of
fuel
oil
and
natural
gas
in
addition
to
the
hazardous
waste.
We
considered
switching
only
to
natural
gas
as
the
auxiliary
fuel
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
We
do
not
believe
that
switching
to
natural
gas
is
a
viable
control
option
for
the
same
reasons
discussed
above
for
cement
kilns.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
2.4
x
10­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
content
in
the
hazardous
waste
and
43
ug/
dscm.
E.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
limit
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium)
to
9.5
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
110
ug/
dscm.
The
proposed
standard
for
new
sources
is
3.2
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
110
ug/
dscm.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Low
volatile
metals
emissions
from
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
110
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1205(
a)(
4).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
control
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
with
baghouses
and/
or
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
all
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Low
volatile
metal
stack
emissions
range
from
approximately
16
to
200
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
low
volatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
volume
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
range
from
9.7
x
10­
6
to
1.8
x
10­
4
lbs
per
million
Btu.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
represent
the
mass
of
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
For
most
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
chromium
was
the
major
contributor
to
low
volatile
emissions.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
9.5
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
57%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
low
volatile
metals
emissions
by
30
pounds
per
year.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
gets
90%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
9.5
x
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

17
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

157
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
90
ug/
dscm.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
low
volatile
metals­
containing
materials
such
as
raw
materials.
The
additional
contribution
to
stack
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
in
an
average
raw
material
is
estimated
to
be
50
ug/
dscm.
Thus,
for
the
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
the
thermal
emissions
floor
level
of
9.5
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
is
estimated
to
be
150
ug/
dscm,
which
is
higher
than
the
current
interim
standard
of
110
ug/
dscm.
Given
that
comparing
the
proposed
floor
level
to
the
interim
standard
requires
numerous
assumptions
including
hazardous
waste
fuel
replacement
rates,
heat
input
requirements
per
ton
of
clinker,
concentrations
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
and
fuels,
and
system
removal
efficiency,
we
have
included
a
more
detailed
analysis
in
the
background
document.
17
Our
detailed
analysis
indicates
the
proposed
floor
level
could
be
less
stringent
than
the
interim
standard
for
some
sources.
In
order
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
the
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
we
propose
a
dual
standard:
the
low
volatile
metals
standard
as
both
the
calculated
floor
level,
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
level,
and
the
current
interim
standard.
This
would
ensure
that
all
sources
are
complying
with
a
limit
that
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
interim
standard.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
low
volatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals.
Our
data
show
that
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
already
achieving
greater
than
99.8%
system
removal
efficiency
for
low
volatile
metals,
with
many
attaining
99.9%
or
greater
removal.
Thus,
additional
control
of
particulate
matter
emissions
is
likely
to
result
in
only
a
small
increment
in
reduction
of
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
4.7
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.24
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
28
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
impacts
between
further
improvements
to
control
particulate
matter
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
less
than
30
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
46,000
kW­
hours
of
energy
per
year.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
17
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

158
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
7.6
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
We
chose
a
20%
reduction
as
a
level
representing
the
practicable
extent
that
additional
feedrate
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
hazardous
waste
(
beyond
feedrate
control
that
may
be
necessary
to
achieve
the
floor
level)
can
be
used
and
still
achieve
modest
emissions
reductions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
150,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
14
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
considered
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
22
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
low
volatile
metal
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and/
or
chromium
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
higher
levels
of
these
metals.
We
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
even
be
less
cost­
effective
than
either
of
the
options
discussed
above,
however.
Given
that
facilities
are
sited
near
the
primary
raw
material
supply,
acquiring
and
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
materials
is
likely
to
be
cost­
prohibitive.
Therefore,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
limiting
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
material
feed.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Two
facilities
typically
burn
hazardous
waste
at
a
fuel
replacement
rate
of
100%,
while
one
facility
has
burned
a
combination
of
fuel
oil
and
natural
gas
in
addition
to
the
hazardous
waste.
We
considered
switching
only
to
natural
gas
as
the
auxiliary
fuel
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
We
do
not
believe
that
switching
to
natural
gas
is
a
viable
control
option
for
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
cement
kilns.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
9.5
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
110
ug/
dscm.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Low
volatile
metals
emissions
from
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
110
ug/
dscm
by
§
63.1205(
b)(
4).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
low
volatile
metals
would
be
3.2
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
in
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

159
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
As
discussed
for
existing
sources,
in
order
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
the
current
level
of
performance
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
source,
we
propose
a
dual
standard:
the
low
volatile
metals
standard
as
both
the
calculated
floor
level,
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
level,
and
the
current
interim
standard.
This
would
ensure
that
all
sources
are
complying
with
a
limit
that
is
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
interim
standard.
Thus,
the
proposed
MACT
floor
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
3.2
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
and
110
ug/
dscm.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
considered
three
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
low
volatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
control
of
the
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
and
fuels.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals.
We
evaluated
improved
control
of
particulate
matter
based
on
a
state­
of­
the­
art
baghouse
using
a
high
quality
fabric
filter
bag
material
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.6
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
to
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.11
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
16
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
3
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
0.3
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
nearly
$
14
million
per
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
believe
that
the
expense
for
further
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
based
on
further
control
of
low
volatile
metals
concentrations
in
the
hazardous
waste
is
not
warranted.
We
considered
a
beyondthe
floor
level
of
2.6
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
compliance
cost
estimates.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
levels
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
justified
because
of
the
costs
and
estimated
emission
reductions.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Raw
Materials
and
Auxiliary
Fuels.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

160
Lightweight
aggregate
kilns
could
achieve
a
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
by
substituting
a
raw
material
containing
lower
levels
of
arsenic,
beryllium,
and/
or
chromium
for
a
primary
raw
material
with
a
higher
level.
For
a
new
source
at
an
existing
facility,
we
believe
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
not
be
cost­
effective
due
to
the
costs
of
transporting
large
quantities
of
an
alternate
source
of
raw
material
to
the
facility.
Given
that
the
plant
site
already
exists
and
sited
near
the
source
of
raw
material,
replacing
the
raw
materials
at
the
plant
site
with
lower
low
volatile
metals­
containing
materials
would
be
the
source's
only
option.
For
a
kiln
constructed
at
a
new
greenfield
site,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
information
and
data
from
a
source
that
has
undertaken
or
is
currently
located
at
a
site
whose
raw
materials
are
inherently
lower
in
low
volatile
metals
that
would
consistently
achieve
reduced
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
Further,
we
are
uncertain
as
to
what
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
achievable
using,
if
it
exists,
a
lower
low
volatile
metals­
containing
raw
material.
Although
we
are
doubtful
that
selecting
a
new
plant
site
based
on
the
content
of
metals
in
the
raw
material
is
a
realistic
beyondthe
floor
option
considering
the
numerous
additional
factors
that
go
into
such
a
decision,
we
solicit
comment
on
whether
and
what
level
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
level
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
raw
materials
is
appropriate.
We
also
considered
whether
fuel
switching
to
an
auxiliary
fuel
containing
a
lower
concentration
of
low
volatile
metals
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources.
Two
facilities
typically
burn
hazardous
waste
at
a
fuel
replacement
rate
of
100%,
while
one
facility
has
burned
a
combination
of
fuel
oil
and
natural
gas
in
addition
to
the
hazardous
waste.
We
considered
switching
only
to
natural
gas
as
the
auxiliary
fuel
as
a
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
We
do
not
believe
that
switching
to
natural
gas
is
a
viable
control
option
for
the
same
reasons
discussed
above
for
cement
kilns.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
3.2
x
10­
5
lbs
low
volatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
content
in
the
hazardous
waste
and
110
ug/
dscm.
F.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
that
limit
total
chlorine
emissions
(
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas,
combined,
reported
as
a
chloride
equivalent)
to
150
ppmv.
However,
we
are
also
proposing
to
invoke
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
establish
alternative
risk­
based
standards
in
lieu
of
the
MACT
emission
standards
for
total
chlorine.
The
emission
limits
would
be
based
on
national
exposure
standards
that
ensure
protection
of
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
See
Part
Two,
Section
XIII
for
additional
details.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Total
chlorine
emissions
from
existing
cement
kilns
are
limited
to
600
ppmv
by
§
63.1205(
a)(
6).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
One
of
the
three
lightweight
aggregate
facilities
uses
a
venturi
scrubber
to
remove
total
chlorine
from
the
gas
stream.
The
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
achieved
by
this
facility
during
compliance
testing
shows
removal
efficiencies
ranging
from
96
to
99%.
Sources
at
the
other
two
facilities
do
not
use
air
pollution
control
equipment
to
capture
emissions
of
total
chlorine,
and,
therefore,
SREs
are
negligible.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

18
We
also
considered
controlling
the
chlorine
levels
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
and
controlling
the
chlorine
levels
in
the
raw
materials
as
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques;
however,
it
is
our
judgment
that
they
are
not
likely
to
be
as
cost­
effective
as
dry
lime
scrubbing.

161
The
majority
of
the
chlorine
fed
to
the
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
during
a
compliance
test
comes
from
the
hazardous
waste.
In
all
but
a
few
cases
the
hazardous
waste
contribution
to
the
total
amount
of
chlorine
fed
to
the
kiln
represented
at
least
80%
of
the
total
loading
to
the
kiln.
The
proposed
MACT
floor
control
for
total
chlorine
is,
in
part,
based
on
controlling
the
concentration
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste.
The
chlorine
concentration
in
the
hazardous
waste
will
affect
emissions
of
total
chlorine
at
a
given
SRE
because
emissions
will
increase
as
the
chlorine
loading
increases.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
allowed
emissions
for
all
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
sources.
For
most
sources,
we
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
more
than
one
compliance
test
campaign.
Total
chlorine
emissions
range
from
14
to
116
ppmv
for
the
source
using
a
venturi
scrubber
and
range
from
500
to
2,400
ppmv
at
sources
without
scrubbing
control
equipment.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
3.0
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
gets
90%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
3.0
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
1,970
ppmv.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
chlorinecontaining
materials
such
as
raw
materials.
Given
that
the
calculated
floor
level
is
less
stringent
than
the
current
interim
emission
standard
of
600
ppmv.
In
order
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
the
current
level
of
performance
achieved
by
all
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
standard
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
600
ppmv.
This
emission
level
is
currently
being
achieved
by
all
sources.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
150
ppmv
based
on
the
assumption
that
dry
lime
scrubbing
will
provide
75%
control
of
hydrogen
chloride.
18
In
addition,
for
costing
purposes
we
assumed
that
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
needing
total
chlorine
reductions
to
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
level
would
install
the
dry
scrubbing
system
after
the
existing
particulate
matter
control
device
and
add
a
new,
smaller
baghouse
to
remove
the
products
of
the
reaction
and
any
unreacted
lime.
We
chose
this
conservative
costing
approach
to
address
potential
concerns
that
unreacted
lime
and
collected
chloride
and
sulfur
salts
may
interfere
with
lightweight
aggregate
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

162
dust
use
practices.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
incinerators
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.9
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
275
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
to
estimate
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
between
dry
scrubbing
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
thefloor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
12,700
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
175,000
kW­
hours
per
year
and
31
million
gallons
of
water
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
6,800
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
dry
scrubbing.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
Total
chlorine
emissions
from
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
are
currently
limited
to
600
ppmv
by
§
63.1205(
b)(
6).
This
standard
was
promulgated
in
the
Interim
Standards
Rule
(
See
67
FR
at
6797).
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
total
chlorine
would
be
0.93
lbs
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
in
the
hazardous
waste,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
To
put
the
proposed
floor
level
in
context
for
a
hypothetical
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
that
gets
90%
of
its
required
heat
input
from
hazardous
waste,
a
thermal
emissions
level
of
0.93
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste
equates
approximately
to
a
stack
gas
concentration
of
610
ppmv.
This
estimated
stack
gas
concentration
does
not
include
contributions
to
emission
from
other
chlorine­
containing
materials
such
as
raw
materials.
Given
that
the
calculated
floor
level
is
less
stringent
than
the
current
interim
emission
standard
of
600
ppmv.
In
order
to
avoid
any
backsliding
from
the
current
standard
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
standard
as
the
current
emission
standard
of
600
ppmv.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
Similar
to
existing
sources,
we
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
150
ppmv
based
on
the
assumption
that
dry
lime
scrubbing
will
provide
75%
control
of
hydrogen
chloride.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
lightweight
aggregate
kiln
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
to
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.42
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
of
approximately
118
pounds
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
were
evaluated
and
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
solid
waste
generated
by
23
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
0.3
million
kW­
hours
per
year
and
2
million
gallons
of
water
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
2,800
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
dry
scrubbing.
G.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Hydrocarbons
and
Carbon
Monoxide?
Hydrocarbon
and
carbon
monoxide
standards
are
surrogates
to
control
emissions
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
standards
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

163
limit
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
concentrations
to
20
ppmv
or
100
ppmv.
See
§
§
63.1205(
a)(
5)
and
(
b)(
5).
Existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
can
elect
to
comply
with
either
the
hydrocarbon
limit
or
the
carbon
monoxide
limit
on
a
continuous
basis.
Sources
that
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
limit
on
a
continuous
basis
must
also
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
hydrocarbon
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
However,
continuous
hydrocarbon
monitoring
following
the
performance
test
is
not
required.
The
rationale
for
these
decisions
are
discussed
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
64
FR
at
52900).
We
view
the
standards
for
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide
as
unaffected
by
the
Court's
vacature
of
the
challenged
regulations
in
its
decision
of
July
24,
2001.
We
therefore
are
not
proposing
these
standards
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
but
rather
are
mentioning
them
here
for
the
reader's
convenience.
H.
What
Are
the
Standards
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
The
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard
is
a
surrogate
to
control
emissions
of
organic
hazardous
air
pollutants
other
than
dioxin/
furans.
The
standard
for
existing
and
new
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
requires
99.99%
DRE
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent,
except
that
99.9999%
DRE
is
required
if
specified
dioxin­
listed
hazardous
wastes
are
burned.
See
§
§
63.1205(
c).
The
rationale
for
these
decisions
are
discussed
in
the
September
1999
final
rule
(
64
FR
at
52902).
We
view
the
standards
for
DRE
as
unaffected
by
the
Court's
vacature
of
the
challenged
regulations
in
its
decision
of
July
24,
2001.
We
therefore
are
not
proposing
these
standards
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
but
rather
are
mentioning
them
here
for
the
reader's
convenience.

X.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Solid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers?
The
proposed
standards
for
existing
and
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.
See
proposed
§
63.1216.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

164
PROPOSED
STANDARDS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
SOLID
FUEL­
FIRED
BOILERS
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
or
Surrogate
Emission
Standard1
Existing
Sources
New
Sources
Dioxin
and
furan
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons.
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons.

Mercury
10
ug/
dscm
10
ug/
dscm
Particulate
matter
69
mg/
dscm
(
0.030
gr/
dscf)
34
mg/
dscm
(
0.015
gr/
dscf)

Semivolatile
metals
170
ug/
dscm
170
ug/
dscm
Low
volatile
metals
210
ug/
dscm
190
ug/
dscm
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas2
110
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
73
ppmv
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
Carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons3
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons.
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons.

Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
For
existing
and
new
sources,
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
POHC.

1
All
emission
standards
are
corrected
to
7%
oxygen,
dry
basis.
2
Combined
standard,
reported
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent.
3
Hourly
rolling
average.
Hydrocarbons
reported
as
propane.

We
considered
whether
fuel
switching
could
be
considered
a
control
technology
to
achieve
MACT
floor
control.
We
investigated
whether
fuel
switching
would
achieve
lower
HAP
emissions
and
whether
it
could
be
technically
achieved
considering
the
existing
design
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
We
also
considered
the
availability
of
various
types
of
fuel.
After
considering
these
factors,
we
determined
that
fuel
switching
is
not
an
appropriate
control
technology
for
purposes
of
determining
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control.
This
decision
is
based
on
the
overall
effect
of
fuel
switching
on
HAP
emissions,
technical
and
design
considerations,
and
concerns
about
fuel
availability.
We
determined
that
while
fuel
switching
from
coal
to
natural
gas
or
oil
would
decrease
particulate
matter
and
some
metal
HAP
emissions,
emissions
of
some
organic
HAP
would
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

19
C.
Leatherwood,
ERG,
to
J.
Eddinger,
OAQPS,
EPA,
Memorandum:
Development
of
Fuel
Switching
Costs
and
Emission
Reductions
for
Industrial/
Commercial/
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants,
October
2002.

165
increase,
resulting
in
uncertain
benefits.
19
We
believe
that
it
is
inappropriate
in
a
MACT
rulemaking
to
consider
as
MACT
a
control
option
that
potentially
will
decrease
emissions
of
one
HAP
while
increasing
emissions
of
another
HAP.
In
order
to
adopt
such
a
strategy,
we
would
need
to
assess
the
relative
risk
associated
with
each
HAP
emitted,
and
determine
whether
requiring
the
control
in
question
would
result
in
overall
lower
risk.
Such
an
analysis
is
not
appropriate
at
this
stage
in
the
regulatory
process.
For
example,
the
term
  
clean
coal''
refers
to
coal
that
is
lower
in
sulfur
content
and
not
necessarily
lower
in
HAP
content.
Data
gathered
by
EPA
also
indicates
that
within
specific
coal
types
HAP
content
can
vary
significantly.
Switching
to
a
low
sulfur
coal
may
actually
increase
emissions
of
some
HAP.
Therefore,
it
is
not
appropriate
for
EPA
to
include
fuel
switching
to
a
low
sulfur
coal
as
part
of
the
MACT
standards
for
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
We
also
considered
the
availability
of
alternative
fuel
types.
Natural
gas
pipelines
are
not
available
in
all
regions
of
the
U.
S.,
and
natural
gas
is
simply
not
available
as
a
fuel
for
many
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Moreover,
even
where
pipelines
provide
access
to
natural
gas,
supplies
of
natural
gas
may
not
be
adequate.
For
example,
it
is
common
practice
in
cities
during
winter
months
(
or
periods
of
peak
demand)
to
prioritize
natural
gas
usage
for
residential
areas
before
industrial
usage.
Requiring
EPA
regulated
combustion
units
to
switch
to
natural
gas
would
place
an
even
greater
strain
on
natural
gas
resources.
Consequently,
even
where
pipelines
exist,
some
units
would
not
be
able
to
run
at
normal
or
full
capacity
during
these
times
if
shortages
were
to
occur.
Therefore,
under
any
circumstances,
there
would
be
some
units
that
could
not
comply
with
a
requirement
to
switch
to
natural
gas.
In
addition,
we
have
significant
concern
that
switching
fuels
would
be
infeasible
for
sources
designed
and
operated
to
burn
specific
fuel
types.
Changes
in
the
type
of
fuel
burned
by
a
boiler
may
require
extensive
changes
to
the
fuel
handling
and
feeding
system
(
e.
g.,
a
stoker­
fired
boiler
using
coal
as
primary
fuel
would
need
to
be
redesigned
to
handle
fuel
oil
or
gaseous
fuel
as
the
primary
fuel).
Additionally,
burners
and
combustion
chamber
designs
are
generally
not
capable
of
handling
different
fuel
types,
and
generally
cannot
accommodate
increases
or
decreases
in
the
fuel
volume
and
shape.
Design
changes
to
allow
different
fuel
use,
in
some
cases,
may
reduce
the
capacity
and
efficiency
of
the
boiler.
Reduced
efficiency
may
result
in
less
complete
combustion
and,
thus,
an
increase
in
organic
HAP
emissions.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
conclude
that
fuel
switching
to
cleaner
solid
fuels
or
to
liquid
or
gaseous
fuels
is
not
an
appropriate
criteria
for
identifying
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
The
proposed
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
for
existing
and
new
sources
is
compliance
with
the
proposed
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
(
CO/
HC)
emission
standard
and
compliance
with
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

20
Uncontrolled
hydrogen
chloride
in
combustion
gas
was
approximately
700
ppmv.

21
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

166
the
proposed
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
standard.
The
CO/
HC
and
DRE
standards
control
emissions
of
organic
HAPs
in
general,
and
are
discussed
in
Sections
G
and
H
below.
This
standard
ensures
that
boilers
operate
under
good
combustion
practices
as
a
surrogate
for
dioxin/
furan
control.
Operating
under
good
combustion
practices
minimizes
levels
of
products
of
incomplete
combustion,
including
potentially
dioxin/
furan,
and
organic
compounds
that
could
be
precursors
for
post­
combustion
formation
of
dioxin/
furan.
The
rationale
for
the
dioxin/
furan
standard
is
discussed
below.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
The
proposed
MACT
floor
control
for
existing
sources
is
compliance
with
the
proposed
CO/
HC
emission
standard
and
compliance
with
the
proposed
DRE
standard.
Solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
cofire
the
hazardous
waste
with
coal
at
firing
rates
of
6­
33%
of
total
heat
input.
We
have
dioxin/
furan
emission
data
for
one
source,
and
those
emissions
are
0.07
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Although
dioxin/
furan
can
be
formed
post­
combustion
in
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
baghouse
that
is
operated
at
temperatures
within
the
range
of
400

to
750

F,
the
boiler
for
which
we
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
that
operated
at
500

F
during
the
emissions
test.
Although
this
is
well
within
the
optimum
temperature
range
for
formation
of
dioxin/
furan,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
were
low.
In
addition,
this
boiler
fed
chlorine
at
levels
four
times
greater
than
any
other
solid
fuel
boiler.
20
We
also
have
emissions
data
from
16
nonhazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
and
baghouses
operated
at
temperatures
up
to
480

F,
all
of
which
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
below
0.3
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
21
We
conclude
from
these
data
and
the
information
discussed
below
that
rapid
quench
of
post­
combustion
gas
temperatures
to
below
400

F­­
the
control
technique
that
is
the
basis
for
the
MACT
standards
for
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
and
cement
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns­­
is
not
the
dominant
dioxin/
furan
control
mechanism
for
coal­
fired
boilers.
We
believe
that
sulfur
contributed
by
the
coal
fuel
is
a
dominant
control
mechanism
by
inhibiting
formation
of
dioxin/
furan.
Coal
generally
contributes
from
65%
to
95%
percent
of
the
boiler's
heat
input
with
the
remainder
provided
by
hazardous
waste
fuel.
The
presence
of
sulfur
in
combustor
feedstocks
has
been
shown
to
dramatically
inhibit
the
catalytic
formation
of
dioxin/
furan
in
downstream
temperature
zones
from
400

F
to
750

F.
High
sulfur
coals
tend
to
inhibit
dioxin/
furan
formation
better
than
low
sulfur
coals.
Id.
Adsorption
of
any
dioxin/
furan
that
may
be
formed
on
coal
fly
ash,
and
subsequent
capture
in
the
electrostatic
precipitator
or
baghouse,
also
may
contribute
to
the
low
dioxin/
furan
emissions
despite
some
boilers
operating
at
relatively
high
back­
end
gas
temperatures.
This
effect
is
similar
to
that
of
using
activated
carbon
injection
to
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Adsorption
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

22
Section
266.104
requires
compliance
with
a
CO
limit
of
100
ppmv
or
a
HC
limit
of
20
ppmv,
while
we
are
proposing
today
a
CO
limit
of
100
ppmv
or
a
HC
limit
of
10
ppmv
(
see
Section
X.
H
in
the
text).
Although
today's
proposed
HC
limit
is
more
stringent
than
the
current
limit
for
boilers,
all
solid
fuel
boilers
chose
to
comply
with
the
100
ppmv
CO
limit.
Moreover,
for
those
liquid­
fuel
fired
boilers
that
chose
to
comply
with
the
20
ppmv
HC
limit,
their
HC
emissions
are
below
10
ppmv.

167
of
dioxin/
furan
on
fly
ash
is
related
to
the
carbon
content
of
the
fly
ash,
and,
thus,
the
type
of
coal
burned.
Id.
Operating
under
good
combustion
conditions
to
minimize
emissions
of
organic
compounds
such
as
polychlorinated
biphenols,
benzene,
and
phenol
that
can
be
precursors
to
dioxin/
furan
formation
is
an
important
requisite
to
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Although
sulfur­
induced
inhibition
may
be
the
dominant
mechanism
to
control
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
coal­
fired
boilers,
minimizing
dioxin/
furan
precursors
by
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
certainly
plays
a
part
in
controlling
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
We
propose
to
use
the
CO/
HC
and
DRE
standards
as
surrogates
to
ensure
that
boilers
operate
under
good
combustion
conditions
because
quantified
levels
of
control
provided
by
sulfur
in
the
coal
and
adsorption
onto
collected
fly
ash
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources.
Although
coal
sulfur
content
may
be
a
dominant
factor
affecting
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
we
do
not
know
what
minimum
level
of
sulfur
provides
significant
control.
Moreover,
sulfur
in
coal
causes
emissions
of
sulfur
oxides,
a
major
criteria
pollutant,
and
particulate
sulfates.
Similarly,
we
cannot
quantify
a
minimum
carbon
content
of
coal
that
would
form
carbonaceous
fly
ash
with
superior
dioxin/
furan
adsorptive
properties.
In
addition,
restricting
coal
types
that
may
be
burned
based
on
carbon
content
may
have
an
adverse
impact
on
energy
production
at
sources
burning
hazardous
waste
as
fuel.
(
These
considerations
raise
the
question
of
whether
boilers
operating
under
these
conditions
would
still
be
"
best"
performers
when
these
adverse
impacts
are
taken
into
account.)
For
these
reasons,
and
because
we
have
emissions
data
from
only
one
source,
we
cannot
establish
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard.
Operating
under
good
combustion
practices
is
floor
control
because
all
hazardous
waste
burning
boilers
are
required
by
existing
RCRA
regulations
to
operate
under
good
combustion
conditions
to
minimize
emissions
of
toxic
organic
compounds.
See
§
266.104
requiring
compliance
with
DRE
and
CO/
HC
emission
standards.
22
We
also
find,
as
required
by
CAA
Section
112(
h)(
1),
that
these
proposed
standards
are
consistent
with
Section
112(
d)'
s
objective
of
reducing
emissions
of
these
HAPs
to
the
extent
achievable.
We
request
comment
on
an
alternative
floor
that
would
be
established
as
the
highest
dioxin/
furan
emission
level
in
our
data
base.
Because
we
have
dioxin/
furan
emission
data
from
only
one
coal­
fired
boiler
that
burns
hazardous
waste,
we
would
combine
that
data
point
with
emissions
data
from
coal­
fired
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
since
the
factors
that
affect
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
these
boilers
are
not
significantly
influenced
by
hazardous
waste.
These
additional
data
would
better
represent
the
range
of
emissions
from
coal­
fired
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

23
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
but
determined
that
it
may
not
result
in
emissions
reductions
because
the
majority
of
sources
(
the
hazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boiler
and
the
nonhazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boilers)
appear
to
emit
dioxin/
furan
at
levels
below
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.

24
To
estimate
the
cost
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
conservatively,
we
assumed
the
solid
waste
generated
would
be
subject
to
regulation
as
hazardous
waste.
These
costs
are
likely
over­
estimated,
however,
because
these
residues
are
not
likely
to
fail
the
criteria
for
retaining
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112.

168
boilers.
Under
this
approach,
the
dioxin/
furan
floor
would
be
an
emission
level
of
0.30
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
We
would
also
use
this
approach
to
establish
the
same
floor
for
new
sources.
Finally,
we
note
that
we
propose
to
require
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emission
test
for
sources
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard,
such
as
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
B
below,
the
testing
would
assist
in
developing
both
Section
112(
d)(
6)
standards
and
Section
112(
f)
residual
risk
standards.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
As
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
use
the
CO/
HC
and
DRE
standards
as
surrogates
to
ensure
good
combustion
conditions,
and
thus,
control
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
We
are
not
proposing
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
CO/
HC
and
DRE,
as
discussion
in
Sections
G
and
H
below..
We
investigated
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
or,
for
sources
equipped
with
baghouses,
catalytically
impregnated
fabric
felt/
membrane
filter
materials
to
achieve
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
of
0.10
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
23
To
estimate
the
cost­
effectiveness
of
these
beyond­
thefloor
control
techniques,
we
imputed
dioxin/
furan
emissions
levels
for
the
six
sources
for
which
we
don't
have
measured
emissions
data.
To
impute
the
missing
emissions
levels,
we
used
the
emissions
data
from
the
hazardous
waste
burning
boiler
as
well
as
the
emissions
data
from
nonhazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boilers.
It
may
be
appropriate
to
meld
these
emissions
data
because
hazardous
waste
burning
should
not
affect
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
coal­
fired
boilers.
In
fact,
the
nonhazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boilers
had
somewhat
higher
emissions
than
the
hazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boiler.
(
The
emissions
from
the
nonhazardous
waste
coal­
fired
boilers
may
simply
represent
the
range
of
emissions
that
could
be
expected
from
hazardous
waste
coalfired
boilers,
as
well,
given
that
we
have
emissions
data
from
only
one
hazardous
waste
boiler.)
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.4
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.26
grams
TEQ
tons
per
year.
We
also
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
between
activated
carbon
injection
and
controls
likely
to
be
used
to
meet
the
floor
level.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste24
generated
by
3,300
tons
per
year
and
would
also
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
1.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Based
on
these
impacts
and
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

25
We
note
that
we
propose
to
require
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
(
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
are
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard)
to
conduct
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emission
test
to
provide
data
to
assist
in
developing
both
Section
112(
d)(
6)
standards
and
Section
112(
f)
residual
risk
standards.
See
discussion
in
Section
XIV.
B
of
the
preamble.

169
costs
of
approximately
$
13
million
per
additional
grams
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
for
existing
sources
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
CO/
HC
emission
standard
and
compliance
with
the
proposed
DRE
standard.
25
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
As
discussed
above,
we
propose
to
use
the
CO/
HC
and
DRE
standards
as
surrogates
to
ensure
good
combustion
conditions,
and
thus,
control
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Because
we
are
proposing
the
same
DRE
and
CO/
HC
standards
for
existing
sources
and
new
sources
as
discussion
in
Sections
G
and
H
below,
we
are
proposing
the
same
dioxin/
furan
floor
for
new
and
existing
sources.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
are
not
proposing
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
CO/
HC
for
dioxin/
furan
for
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
because
we
are
not
proposing
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
CO/
HC
and
DRE
for
new
sources.
See
discussion
in
Sections
G
and
H
below.
In
addition,
we
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
or,
for
sources
equipped
with
baghouses,
use
of
catalytically
impregnated
fabric
felt/
membrane
filter
materials
as
beyond­
thefloor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.15
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.28
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
approximately
0.21
grams
TEQ
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
1.3
million
per
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
waste
if
the
source
retains
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
by
270
tons
per
year
and
would
require
a
source
to
use
an
additional
0.1
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
After
considering
these
impacts
and
a
cost
of
$
1.3
million
per
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
or
catalytically
impregnated
fabric
felt/
membrane
filter
is
not
warranted
for
new
sources.
Consequently,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
for
new
sources:
compliance
with
the
proposed
CO/
HC
and
DRE
emissions
standards.
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
The
proposed
standard
for
mercury
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
10
ug/
dscm
for
both
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

26
As
information,
EPA
proposed
MACT
standards
for
mercury
for
solid
fuel­
fired
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
of
5.3
ug/
dscm
for
existing
sources
and
3.4
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
See
68
FR
1660
(
Jan.
13,
2003).
These
standards
are
based
on
use
of
fabric
filters
to
control
mercury
emissions.

27
Owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
data
from
the
three
boilers
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
other,
identical
boilers
at
the
same
facility.
One
of
the
three
boilers
as
two
such
sister
identical
boilers,
and
the
other
two
boilers
each
have
a
sister
identical
boiler.
Thus,
emissions
from
these
three
boilers
represent
emissions
from
seven
of
the
12
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.

28
Memo
from
Frank
Princiotta,
USEPA,
to
John
Seitz,
USEPA,
entitled
"
Control
of
Mercury
Emissions
from
Coal­
fired
Utility
Boilers,"
dated
October
25,
2000.

170
existing
sources
and
new
sources.
26
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
The
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
10
ug/
dscm
based
on
adsorption
of
mercury
onto
coal
fly
ash
and
removal
of
fly
ash
by
the
electrostatic
precipitator
or
baghouse.
All
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
or
baghouses.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
for
three
sources
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
which
document
maximum
mercury
emissions
ranging
from
3
ug/
dscm
to
11
ug/
dscm
and
system
removal
efficiencies
of
83%
to
96%.
These
three
sources
represent
seven
of
the
12
solid
fuelfired
boilers.
27
The
Agency
has
also
determined
that
coal­
fired
utility
boilers
can
achieve
significant
control
of
mercury
by
adsorption
on
fly
ash
and
particulate
matter
control.
28
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
10
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
67%
of
sources
and
would
provide
a
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
of
0.015
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
activated
carbon
injection;
and
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
mercury.
a.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
mercury
from
waste
combustion
systems
and
has
achieved
efficiencies
ranging
from
80%
to
greater
than
90%
depending
on
factors
such
as:
activated
carbon
type/
impregnation;
injection
rate;
mercury
speciation
in
the
flue
gas;
and
flue
gas
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

171
temperature.
We
made
a
conservative
assumption
that
the
use
of
activated
carbon
will
provide
70%
mercury
control
for
coal­
fired
boilers
given
the
low
mercury
levels
at
the
floor.
Applying
this
activated
carbon
removal
efficiency
to
the
mercury
floor
level
of
10
ug/
dscm
would
provide
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
3.0
ug/
dscm.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.1
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.03
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
waste
if
the
source
retains
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
by
1,000
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
0.35
million
kWhours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
35
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
b.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
thefloor
level
of
8
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.11
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.005
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors
for
feedrate
control.
We
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
because
it
would
not
be
cost­
effective
at
approximately
$
23
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed.
Consequently,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
mercury
for
existing
sources
of
10
ug/
dscm.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
10
ug/
dscm,
the
same
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
identified
the
same
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
use
of
activated
carbon
injection;
and
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
We
evaluated
use
of
carbon
injection
for
new
sources
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
5.0
ug/
dscm.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.28
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
of
approximately
0.008
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
37
million
per
ton
of
mercury
removed.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
waste
if
the
source
retains
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
by
270
tons
per
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

29
As
information,
EPA
proposed
MACT
standards
for
particulate
matter
for
solid
fuel­
fired
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
of
0.035
gr/
dscf
for
existing
sources
and
0.013
gr/
dscf
for
new
sources.
See
68
FR
1660
(
Jan.
13,
2003).
These
standards
are
based
on
control
of
particulate
matter
emissions
using
a
fabric
filter.

30
Owners
and
operators
have
determined
that
emissions
from
these
seven
boilers
represent
emissions
from
five
other
identical,
sister
boilers.
Owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
from
these
seven
boilers
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
the
other
five
identical
boilers.

31
Although
particulate
matter
emissions
are
predominantly
attributable
to
coal
ash
rather
than
ash
from
hazardous
waste
fuel,
we
did
not
combine
emissions
data
for
coal­
fired
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
with
the
data
for
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
because:
(
1)
we
have
particulate
emissions
data
for
all
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste;
and
(
2)
the
best
performing
sources
for
the
two
categories
of
boilers
may
be
achieving
different
emission
levels
given
that
they
are
subject
to
different
emission
standards
(
e.
g.,
hazardous
waste
burning
coal­
fired
boilers
are
subject
to
the
RCRA
particulate
matter
emission
standard
of
0.08
gr/
dscf).

172
year
and
would
require
a
source
to
use
an
additional
0.1
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
After
considering
these
impacts
and,
primarily,
costeffectiveness
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
for
new
sources.
Consequently,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
mercury
of
10
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
The
proposed
standards
for
particulate
matter
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
69
mg/
dscm
(
0.030
gr/
dscf)
for
existing
sources
and
34
mg/
dscm
(
0.015
gr/
dscf)
for
new
sources.
29
The
particulate
matter
standard
serves
as
a
surrogate
for
nonmercury
HAP
metals
in
emissions
from
the
coal
burned
in
the
boiler,
and
for
nonenumerated
HAP
metal
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
fuel
burned
in
the
boiler.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
All
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
or
baghouses.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
allowable
emissions
for
seven
boilers.
Emissions
from
these
seven
boilers
represent
emissions
from
all
12
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
30
Particulate
emissions
range
from
0.021
gr/
dscf
to
0.037
gr/
dscf.
31
To
identify
the
floor
level,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
air
pollution
control
device
approach.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
VI.
A.
2.
a.
The
calculated
floor
is
140
mg/
dscm
(
0.063
gr/
dscf),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
75%
of
sources.
Compliance
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

32
Note
that
we
are
not
proposing
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standards
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
because
those
standards
would
have
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
12,000
to
$
80,000
per
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
substantially
higher
than
the
$
3,600
per
ton
cost­
effectiveness
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.

173
with
the
floor
level
would
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions
by
33
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
the
existing
electrostatic
precipitators
(
e.
g.,
humidification
to
improve
gas
conditioning)
and
baghouses
(
e.
g.,
improved
bags)
for
these
boilers
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
69
mg/
dscm
(
0.030
gr/
dscf).
We
also
evaluated
a
more
stringent
standard
based
on
adding
a
polishing
fabric
filter
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
0.015
gr/
dscf.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
69
mg/
dscm
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
1.5
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
400
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
waste
is
the
source
retains
its
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
by
380
tons
per
year
and
would
require
sources
to
use
an
additional
3.3
million
kW­
hours
per
year
and
to
use
an
additional
160
million
gallons
of
water
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Notwithstanding
these
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects,
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
69
mg/
dscm
(
0.030
gr/
dscf)
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
is
warranted
because
it
is
cost­
effective
at
a
cost
of
approximately
$
3,600
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
the
average
incremental
annualized
cost
would
be
only
$
120,000
per
facility,
and
it
would
remove
additional
nonenumerated
metal
HAP.
32
We
also
note
that,
although
Section
112(
d)
only
authorizes
control
of
HAPs,
and
particulate
matter
is
not
itself
a
HAP
but
a
surrogate
for
HAP
metals,
Congress
expected
the
MACT
program
to
result
in
significant
emissions
reductions
of
criteria
air
pollutants
(
of
which
particulate
matter
is
one),
and
viewed
this
as
an
important
benefit
of
the
MACT
(
and
residual
risk)
provisions.
See
5
Legislative
History
at
8512
(
Senate
Committee
Report).
Finally,
we
note
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
0.030
gr/
dscf
would
be
comparable
to
the
floor­
based
standard
the
Agency
recently
proposed
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste:
0.07
lb/
MM
Btu
(
approximately
0.034
gr/
dscf).
See
68
FR
at
1660
(
January
13,
2003).
A
34
mg/
dscm
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
existing
sources
based
on
use
of
a
polishing
fabric
filter
would
remove
an
additional
570
tons
per
year
of
particulate
matter
beyond
the
floor
level
at
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
9,800
per
ton
removed.
We
conclude
that
this
standard
would
not
be
as
cost­
effective
as
a
69
mg/
dscm
standard
and
would
result
in
greater
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
of
0.030
gr/
dscf
(
69
mg/
dscm)
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

33
As
information,
EPA
proposed
to
control
nonmercury
metal
HAP
emissions
for
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
with
a
particulate
matter
emission
standard
only.
See
68
FR
1660
(
Jan.
13,
2003).
For
hazardous
waste
combustors,
we
propose
to
control
specific,
enumerated
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
with
separate
emission
standards
because
hazardous
waste
can
have
a
wide
range
of
concentrations
of
these
metals,
and,
thus,
particulate
matter
may
contain
a
wide
range
of
metal
concentrations.
Thus,
particulate
matter
may
not
be
an
effective
surrogate
for
particular
metal
HAP.
Nonetheless,
for
practical
reasons,
we
rely
on
particulate
matter
to
control
nonenumerated
metal
HAP.

174
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
90
mg/
dscm
(
0.040
gr/
dscf),
considering
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
APCD
Approach
(
i.
e.,
the
source
using
a
fabric
filter
with
the
lowest
emissions)
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
a
fabric
filter
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
34
mg/
dscm
(
0.015
gr/
dscf).
The
incremental
annualized
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
280,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
emissions
of
approximately
44
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
6,400
per
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
waste
if
the
source
retains
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
by
44
tons
per
year
and
would
require
a
source
to
use
an
additional
1.1
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Notwithstanding
these
impacts,
a
standard
of
34
mg/
dscm
(
0.015
gr/
dscf)
is
warranted
because
it
would
be
cost­
effective
and
it
would
remove
additional
nonenumerated
metal
HAP.
We
also
note
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
0.015
gr/
dscf
for
new
sources
would
be
comparable
to
the
floor­
based
standard
the
Agency
recently
proposed
for
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste:
0.026
lb/
MM
Btu
(
approximately
0.013
gr/
dscf).
See
68
FR
at
1660
(
January
13,
2003).
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
of
34
mg/
dscm
(
0.015
gr/
dscf)
for
new
sources.
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
The
proposed
standard
for
semivolatile
metals
(
lead
and
cadmium,
combined)
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
170
ug/
dscm
for
both
existing
and
new
sources.
33
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
allowed
emissions
for
four
boilers.
Emissions
from
these
four
boilers
represent
emissions
from
nine
of
the
12
solid
fuel­
fired
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

34
Owners
and
operators
have
determined
that
emissions
from
these
four
boilers
represent
emissions
from
five
other
identical,
sister
boilers.
Owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
from
these
four
boilers
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
the
other
five
identical
boilers.

175
boilers.
34
Semivolatile
metal
emissions
range
from
62
ug/
dscm
to
170
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
semivolatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
of
stack
gas.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
170
ug/
dcm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
floor
level
is
being
achieved
by
42%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
0.22
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
three
beyond­
the­
floor
approaches
for
semivolatile
metals
for
existing
sources:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
a
no­
cost
standard
derived
from
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals.
a.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals.
Consequently,
we
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
85
ug/
dscm
,
a
50
percent
reduction
in
semivolatile
metal
emissions,
that
would
be
achieved
by
reducing
particulate
matter
emissions.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.29
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.29
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
approximately
133
tons
per
year,
an
additional
61
million
gallons
per
year
of
water
would
be
used,
and
an
additional
1.3
million
kW­
hours
per
year
of
electricity
would
be
used.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
1
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
b.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
140
ug/
dscm
based
on
additional
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
This
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
36,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.046
tons
per
year.
Although
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

176
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
because
it
is
not
cost­
effective
at
approximately
$
0.78
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed.
c.
No­
cost
Standard
Derived
from
the
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Particulate
Matter
Standard.
The
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
particulate
matter
would
also
provide
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
semivolatile
metals
if
sources
were
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
using
improved
particulate
matter
control
rather
than
by
reducing
the
feedrate
of
ash.
To
identify
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
for
semivolatile
metals
that
would
derive
from
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard,
we
assumed
that
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
would
be
reduced
by
the
same
percentage
that
sources
would
need
to
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions.
We
then
developed
a
revised
semivolatile
metal
emission
data
base
considering
these
particulate
matter
standard­
derived
reductions
and
reductions
needed
to
meet
the
semivolatile
metal
floor
level.
We
analyzed
these
revised
emissions
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
and
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performers
could
achieve
99
out
of
100
future
tests.
This
emission
level­­
82
ug/
dscm­­
is
a
beyond­
the­
floor
semivolatile
metal
standard
that
can
be
achieved
at
no
cost
because
the
costs
have
been
allocated
to
the
particulate
matter
beyond­
thefloor
standard.
We
are
concerned,
however,
that
sources
may
choose
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
thefloor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
which
may
or
may
not
reduce
the
feedrate
and
emissions
of
metal
HAP.
If
so,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
consider
the
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals
discussed
above
as
a
no­
cost
standard.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
whether
sources
may
comply
with
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash..
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals
of
170
ug/
dscm
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
170
ug/
dscm,
considering
emissions
variability.
This
is
the
same
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
three
beyond­
the­
floor
approaches
for
semivolatile
metals
for
new
sources:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
controls;
(
2)
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
a
no­
cost
standard
derived
from
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard.
a.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Controls.
We
evaluated
improved
control
of
particulate
matter
using
a
fabric
filter
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
71
ug/
dscm.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
thefloor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.28
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
0.15
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
1.8
million
per
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

35
Owners
and
operators
have
determined
that
emissions
from
these
four
boilers
represent
emissions
from
five
other
identical,
sister
boilers.
Owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
from
these
four
boilers
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
the
other
five
identical
boilers.

177
waste
if
the
source
retains
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
by
44
tons
per
year
and
would
require
the
source
to
use
an
additional
1.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
After
considering
these
impacts
and
cost­
effectiveness,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
for
new
sources
based
on
use
of
a
fabric
filter
to
improve
control
of
particulate
matter
is
not
warranted.
b.
Feedrate
Control.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
cost­
effective.
c.
No­
cost
Standard
Derived
from
the
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Particulate
Matter
Standard.
As
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
existing
sources,
the
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
particulate
matter
would
also
provide
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
semivolatile
metals
if
sources
were
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
using
improved
particulate
matter
control
rather
than
by
reducing
the
feedrate
of
ash.
Under
this
approach,
the
no­
cost
beyond­
thefloor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals
for
new
sources
would
be
44
ug/
dscm.
As
discussed
above,
however,
we
are
concerned
that
sources
may
choose
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
which
may
or
may
not
reduce
the
feedrate
and
emissions
of
metal
HAP.
If
so,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
consider
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
as
a
no­
cost
standard.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
whether
sources
may
comply
with
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
semivolatile
metals
standard
of
170
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
E.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Low
Volatile
Metals?
The
proposed
standards
for
low
volatile
metals
(
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium)
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
210
ug/
dscm
for
existing
sources
and
190
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
allowed
emissions
for
four
boilers.
Emissions
from
these
four
boilers
represent
emissions
from
10
of
the
12
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
35
Low
volatile
metal
emissions
range
from
41
ug/
dscm
to
230
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
low
volatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
of
stack
gas.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
210
ug/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

178
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
67%
of
sources
and
that
it
would
reduce
low
volatile
metals
emissions
by
0.45
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
three
beyond­
the­
floor
approaches
for
low
volatile
metals
for
existing
sources:
(
1)
improved
control
of
particulate
matter;
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
a
no­
cost
standard
derived
from
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
low
volatile
metals.
a.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
Controlling
particulate
matter
also
controls
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
105
ug/
dscm.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
thefloor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.32
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.37
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
approximately
83
tons
per
year,
an
additional
54
million
gallons
of
water
per
year
would
be
used,
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
1.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Considering
these
impacts
and
a
cost
of
approximately
$
0.87
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
b.
Feed
Control
of
Low
Volatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
170
ug/
dscm,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel
boilers
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
98,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.13
tons
per
year.
Although
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feedrate
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
because
it
would
not
be
costeffective
at
approximately
$
0.78
million
per
additional
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed.
c.
No­
cost
Standard
Derived
from
the
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Particulate
Matter
Standard.
As
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
semivolatile
metals,
the
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
particulate
matter
would
also
provide
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
low
volatile
metals
if
sources
were
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
using
improved
particulate
matter
control
rather
than
by
reducing
the
feedrate
of
ash.
To
identify
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
for
low
volatile
metals
that
would
derive
from
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard,
we
assumed
that
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
would
be
reduced
by
the
same
percentage
that
sources
would
need
to
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions.
We
then
developed
a
revised
low
volatile
metal
emission
data
base
considering
these
particulate
matter
standardderived
reductions
and
reductions
needed
to
meet
the
low
volatile
metal
floor
level.
We
analyzed
these
revised
emissions
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
and
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performers
could
achieve
99
out
of
100
future
tests.
This
emission
level­­
110
ug/
dscm­­
is
a
beyond­
the­
floor
low
volatile
metal
standard
that
can
be
achieved
at
no
cost
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

179
because
the
costs
have
been
allocated
to
the
particulate
matter
beyond­
the­
floor
standard.
We
are
concerned,
however,
that
sources
may
choose
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
thefloor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
which
may
or
may
not
reduce
the
feedrate
and
emissions
of
metal
HAP.
If
so,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
consider
the
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
low
volatile
metals
discussed
above
as
a
no­
cost
standard.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
whether
sources
may
comply
with
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
low
volatile
metals
of
210
ug/
dscm
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
low
volatile
metals
for
new
sources
would
be
190
ug/
dscm,
considering
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
three
beyond­
the­
floor
approaches
for
low
volatile
metals
for
new
sources:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
(
2)
control
of
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed;
and
(
3)
a
no­
cost
standard
derived
from
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard.
a.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
We
evaluated
improved
control
of
particulate
matter
using
a
fabric
filter
to
achieve
an
emission
level
of
79
ug/
dscm
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
low
volatile
metals
emissions.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel
boiler
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.28
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
low
volatile
metals
emissions
of
approximately
0.17
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
1.7
million
per
ton
of
low
volatile
metals
removed.
We
estimate
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
(
or
solid
waste
if
the
source
retains
the
Bevill
exclusion
under
40
CFR
266.112)
generated
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
by
44
tons
per
year
and
would
require
the
source
to
use
an
additional
1.2
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
After
considering
these
impacts
and
cost­
effectiveness,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control
using
a
fabric
filter
for
new
sources
is
not
warranted.
b.
Feedrate
Control.
For
similar
reasons
discussed
above
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
controlling
the
low
volatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed
would
not
be
cost­
effective.
c.
No­
cost
Standard
Derived
from
the
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Particulate
Matter
Standard.
As
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
existing
sources,
the
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
particulate
matter
would
also
provide
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
low
volatile
metals
if
sources
were
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
using
improved
particulate
matter
control
rather
than
by
reducing
the
feedrate
of
ash.
Under
this
approach,
the
no­
cost
beyond­
thefloor
standard
for
low
volatile
metals
for
new
sources
would
be
34
ug/
dscm.
As
discussed
above,
however,
we
are
concerned
that
sources
may
choose
to
comply
with
the
beyond­
the­
floor
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

36
As
information,
EPA
proposed
MACT
standards
for
hydrogen
chloride
for
solid
fuel­
fired
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
of
68
ppmv
for
existing
sources
and
15
ppmv
for
new
sources.
See
68
FR
1660
(
Jan.
13,
2003).
These
standards
are
based
on
use
of
wet
scrubbers
to
control
hydrogen
chloride.

37
Owners
and
operators
have
determined
that
emissions
from
these
five
boilers
represent
emissions
from
five
other
identical,
sister
boilers.
Owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
from
these
five
boilers
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
the
other
five
identical
boilers.

180
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
which
may
or
may
not
reduce
the
feedrate
and
emissions
of
metal
HAP.
If
so,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
consider
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
as
a
no­
cost
standard.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
whether
sources
may
comply
with
beyond­
the­
floor
particulate
matter
standard
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
ash.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
low
volatile
metals
standard
of
190
ug/
dscm
for
new
sources.
F.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Total
Chlorine?
The
proposed
standards
for
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
(
i.
e.,
total
chlorine,
reported
as
a
hydrogen
chloride
equivalents)
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
110
ppmv
for
existing
sources
and
73
ppmv
for
new
sources.
36
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
equipped
with
electrostatic
precipitators
or
baghouses
and
do
not
have
back­
end
controls
for
total
chlorine.
Total
chlorine
emissions
are
controlled
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
allowable
emissions
for
five
boilers.
Emissions
from
these
five
boilers
represent
emissions
from
10
of
the
12
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
37
Total
chlorine
emissions
range
from
60
ppmv
to
700
ppmv.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
440
ppmv,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
best
performing
feed
control
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
83%
of
sources
and
that
it
would
reduce
total
chlorine
emissions
by
420
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
dry
scrubbing
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
110
ppmv
for
total
chlorine
for
existing
sources,
assuming
conservatively
a
75%
removal
efficiency.
The
national
annualized
compliance
cost
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
comply
with
this
beyond­
thefloor
standard
would
be
$
3.7
million,
and
emissions
of
total
chlorine
would
be
reduced
by
790
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

38
Note
that
we
are
not
proposing
beyond­
the­
floor
total
chlorine
standards
for
incinerators
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
because
those
standards
would
have
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
290,000
and
$
18,000
per
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
respectively,
which
is
substantially
higher
than
the
$
4,700
per
ton
cost­
effectiveness
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
Also,
we
note
that
we
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
total
chlorine
for
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
at
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
6,800
per
ton,
and
request
comment
on
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
cement
kilns
with
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
9,300.

39
Although
we
assumed
dry
scrubbing
can
readily
achieve
75%
removal
of
total
chlorine
for
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
existing
sources,
assuming
50%
removal
for
beyond­
thefloor
control
for
new
sources
is
appropriate.
This
is
because
the
floor
for
new
sources­­
73
ppmv­
­
is
substantially
lower
than
the
floor
for
existing
sources­­
440
ppmv­­
and
dry
scrubbing
is
less
efficient
at
lower
uncontrolled
emission
levels.

181
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
18,000
tons
per
year,
an
additional
27
million
gallons
of
water
per
year
would
be
used,
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.11
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Notwithstanding
these
impacts,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
is
warranted
because
it
is
cost­
effective
at
$
4,700
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed.
38
We
also
evaluated
use
of
feedrate
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
350
ppmv,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
Because
this
standard
would
achieve
emission
reductions
of
only
44
tons
of
total
chlorine
per
year,
we
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
110
ppmv
based
on
dry
scrubbing
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
73
ppmv.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
Emissions
Approach
(
i.
e.,
the
source
with
the
lowest
emissions)
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
dry
lime
scrubbing
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
37
ppmv
for
total
chlorine
for
new
sources,
assuming
conservatively
a
50%
removal
efficiency.
39
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
610,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
of
approximately
42
tons
per
year.
Although
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
37
ppmv
is
not
warranted
because
it
would
not
be
cost­
effective
at
approximately
$
14,000
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
total
chlorine
of
73
ppmv
for
new
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

40
As
information,
EPA
proposed
MACT
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
for
new
solid
fuel­
fired
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
of
400
ppmv
corrected
to
3%
oxygen.
See
68
FR
1660
(
Jan.
13,
2003).

182
sources.
G.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Carbon
Monoxide
or
Hydrocarbons?
To
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP,
existing
and
new
sources
would
be
required
to
comply
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
10
ppmv.
40
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
standards
that
require
compliance
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv,
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
20
ppmv.
Compliance
is
based
on
an
hourly
rolling
average
as
measured
with
a
CEMS.
See
§
266.104(
a).
We
are
proposing
today
floor
standards
of
100
ppmv
for
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
for
hydrocarbons.
Floor
control
for
existing
sources
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
including:
(
1)
providing
adequate
excess
air
with
use
of
oxygen
CEMS
and
feedback
air
input
control;
(
2)
providing
adequate
fuel/
air
mixing;
(
3)
homogenizing
hazardous
waste
fuels
(
such
as
by
blending
or
size
reduction)
to
control
combustion
upsets
due
to
very
high
or
very
low
volatile
content
wastes;
(
4)
regulating
waste
and
air
feedrates
to
ensure
proper
combustion
temperature
and
residence
time;
(
5)
characterizing
waste
prior
to
burning
for
combustion­
related
composition
(
including
parameters
such
as
heating
value,
volatile
content,
liquid
waste
viscosity,
etc.);
(
6)
ensuring
the
source
is
operated
by
qualified,
experienced
operators;
and
(
7)
periodic
inspection
and
maintenance
of
combustion
system
components
such
as
burners,
fuel
and
air
supply
lines,
injection
nozzles,
etc.
Given
that
there
are
many
interdependent
parameters
that
affect
combustion
efficiency
and
thus
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
emissions,
we
are
not
able
to
quantify
"
good
combustion
practices."
Ten
of
12
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
currently
complying
with
the
RCRA
carbon
monoxide
limit
of
100
ppmv
on
an
hourly
rolling
average.
The
remaining
two
boilers
are
complying
with
the
RCRA
hydrocarbon
limit
of
20
ppmv
on
an
hourly
rolling
average.
Those
boilers
have
hydrocarbon
levels
below
5
ppmv,
however,
indicative
of
operating
under
good
combustion
practices.
We
propose
a
floor
level
for
carbon
monoxide
level
of
100
ppmv
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
Although
the
best
performing
sources
are
achieving
carbon
monoxide
levels
below
100
ppmv,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
establish
a
lower
floor
level
because
carbon
monoxide
is
a
surrogate
for
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
As
such,
lowering
the
carbon
monoxide
floor
may
not
significantly
reduce
organic
HAP
emissions.
In
addition,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
apply
a
MACT
methodology
to
the
carbon
monoxide
emissions
from
the
best
performing
sources
because
those
sources
may
not
be
able
to
replicate
their
emission
levels.
This
is
because
there
are
myriad
factors
that
affect
combustion
efficiency
and,
subsequently,
carbon
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

183
monoxide
emissions.
Extremely
low
carbon
monoxide
emissions
cannot
be
assured
by
controlling
only
one
or
two
operating
parameters
We
note
also
that
we
used
this
rationale
to
establish
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv
for
Phase
I
sources
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule.
We
propose
a
floor
level
for
hydrocarbons
of
10
ppmv
even
though
the
currently
enforceable
standard
is
20
ppmv
because:
(
1)
the
two
sources
that
comply
with
the
RCRA
hydrocarbon
standard
can
readily
achieve
10
ppmv;
and
(
2)
reducing
hydrocarbon
emissions
within
the
range
of
20
ppmv
to
10
ppmv
should
reduce
emissions
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
We
do
not
apply
a
prescriptive
MACT
methodology
to
establish
a
hydrocarbon
floor
below
10
ppmv,
however,
because
we
have
data
from
only
two
sources.
In
addition,
we
note
that
the
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
for
Phase
I
sources
established
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
is
10
ppmv
also.
There
would
be
no
incremental
emission
reductions
associated
with
these
floors
because
all
sources
are
currently
achieving
the
floor
levels.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
considered
beyond­
the­
floor
levels
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices
but
conclude
that
they
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
good
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
we
cannot
ensure
that
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
levels
lower
than
the
floors
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
This
is
because
the
portion
of
hydrocarbons
that
is
comprised
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP
is
likely
to
become
lower
as
combustion
efficiency
improves
and
hydrocarbon
levels
decrease.
Thus,
at
beyond­
the­
floor
hydrocarbon
levels,
we
would
expect
a
larger
portion
of
residual
hydrocarbons
to
be
compounds
that
are
not
organic
HAP.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements
are
not
significant
factors
for
use
of
better
combustion
practices
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control.
For
these
reasons,
we
conclude
that
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
are
not
warranted
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
the
same
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources­­
100
ppmv
for
carbon
monoxide
and
10
ppmv
for
hydrocarbons­­
and
based
on
the
same
rationale.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
As
discussed
in
the
context
of
beyond­
the­
floor
considerations
for
existing
sources,
we
considered
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
for
new
sources
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices.
But,
we
conclude
that
beyond
the
floor
standards
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
good
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
we
cannot
ensure
that
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
levels
lower
than
the
floors
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements
are
not
significant
factors
for
use
of
better
combustion
practices
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control.
For
these
reasons,
we
conclude
that
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
are
not
warranted
for
new
sources.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

41
The
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
would
control
organic
HAP
that
are
products
of
incomplete
combustion
by
also
ensuring
use
of
good
combustion
practices.

184
H.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
To
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP,
existing
and
new
sources
would
be
required
to
comply
with
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
organic
HAP.
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
the
DRE
standard
is
99.9999%
for
organic
HAP.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
DRE
standards
that
require
99.99%
destruction
of
designated
principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
For
sources
that
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
the
DRE
standard
is
99.9999%
destruction
of
designated
POHCs.
See
§
266.104(
a).
The
DRE
standard
helps
ensure
that
a
combustor
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
and
thus
minimizing
emissions
of
organic
HAP.
Under
the
MACT
compliance
regime,
sources
would
designate
POHCs
that
are
organic
HAP
or
that
are
surrogates
for
organic
HAP.
We
propose
to
establish
the
RCRA
DRE
standard
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
There
would
be
no
incremental
emission
reductions
associated
with
this
floor
because
sources
are
currently
complying
with
the
standard.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
for
DRE
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices
but
conclude
that
it
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
better
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
we
cannot
ensure
that
a
higher
DRE
standard
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
organic
HAP
given
that
DRE
measures
the
destruction
of
organic
HAP
present
in
the
boiler
feed
rather
than
gross
emissions
of
organic
HAP.
Although
a
source's
combustion
practices
may
be
adequate
to
destroy
particular
organic
HAP
in
the
feed,
other
organic
HAP
that
may
be
emitted
as
products
of
incomplete
combustion
may
not
be
controlled
by
the
DRE
standard.
41
For
these
reasons,
and
after
considering
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
We
propose
to
establish
the
RCRA
DRE
standard
as
the
floor
for
new
sources
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
Using
the
same
rationale
as
we
used
to
consider
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
new
sources
is
not
warranted.
Consequently,
after
considering
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
DRE
standard
for
new
sources.

XI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

185
Burning
Liquid
Fuel­
Fired
Boilers?

The
proposed
standards
for
existing
and
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.
See
proposed
§
63.1217.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

186
PROPOSED
STANDARDS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
LIQUID
FUEL­
FIRED
BOILERS
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
or
Surrogate
Emission
Standard1
Existing
Sources
New
Sources
Dioxin
and
furan:
sources
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
system2
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
0.015
ng
TEQ/
dscm
Dioxin
and
furan:
sources
equipped
with
wet
or
with
no
air
pollution
control
systems2
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons
Mercury3
3.7E­
6
lbs/
MM
Btu
3.8E­
7
lbs/
MM
BTU
Particulate
matter
72
mg/
dscm
(
0.032
gr/
dscf)
17
mg/
dscm
(
0.0076
gr/
dscf)

Semivolatile
metals3
1.1E­
5
lbs/
MM
BTU
4.3E­
6
lbs/
MM
BTU
Low
volatile
metals:
chromium
only
3,
4
1.1E­
4
lbs/
MM
BTU
3.6E­
5
lbs/
MM
BTU
Hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas3,
5
2.5E­
2
lbs/
MM
BTU
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
7.2E­
4
lbs/
MM
BTU
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
Carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons6
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons.
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons.

Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
For
existing
and
new
sources,
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
POHC.

1
All
emission
standards
are
corrected
to
7%
oxygen,
dry
basis.
2
A
wet
air
pollution
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard.
A
dry
air
pollution
systems
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard.
3
Standards
are
expressed
as
mass
of
pollutant
emissions
contributed
by
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
4
Standard
is
for
chromium
only
and
does
not
include
arsenic
and
beryllium.
5
Combined
standard,
reported
as
a
chloride
(
Cl(­))
equivalent.
6
Hourly
rolling
average.
Hydrocarbons
reported
as
propane.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

42
Sources
with
a
wet
air
pollution
system
followed
by
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
is
not
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard.
Sources
with
a
dry
air
pollution
systems
followed
a
wet
air
pollution
control
system
is
considered
to
be
a
dry
air
pollution
control
system
for
purposes
of
this
standard.

187
We
considered
whether
fuel
switching
could
be
considered
a
MACT
floor
control
technology
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
achieve
lower
HAP
emissions.
We
conclude
that
HAP
emissions
from
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
attributable
primarily
to
the
hazardous
waste
fuels
rather
than
the
natural
gas
or
fuel
oil
that
these
boilers
burn.
Consequently,
we
conclude
that
fuel
switching
is
not
an
effective
MACT
floor
control
technology
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
A.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
We
propose
to
establish
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
that
limit
emissions
of
dioxin/
furan
to
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
(
for
existing
sources)
and
0.015
ng
TEQ/
dscm
(
for
new
sources).
We
also
propose
to
establish
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
either
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems
or
with
no
air
pollution
systems
as
compliance
with
the
proposed
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
and
compliance
with
the
proposed
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
I.
B.
5,
we
used
a
statistical
analysis
to
conclude
that
liquid
boilers
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
devices
have
different
dioxin/
furan
emission
characteristics
compared
to
sources
with
either
wet
air
pollution
control
or
no
air
pollution
control
devices.
42
Note
that
we
consider
the
type
of
emission
control
device
as
a
basis
for
subcategorization
because
the
type
of
control
device
affects
formation
of
dioxin/
furan:
dioxin/
furan
can
form
in
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices
while
it
cannot
form
in
wet
(
or
no)
control
devices.
We
therefore
believe
subcategorization
is
warranted
and
we
propose
to
identify
separate
floor
levels
for
sources
equipped
with
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices
versus
sources
with
wet
or
no
emission
control
device.
To
identify
the
floor
level
for
liquid
fuel
boilers
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
systems,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
using
the
Emissions
Approach.
A
numerical
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
is
appropriate
for
these
sources
because
dioxin/
furan
emissions
can
be
controlled
by
controlling
the
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
particulate
matter
control
device.
Thus,
the
floor
level
can
be
replicated
by
the
best
performing
sources
and
duplicated
by
other
sources.
In
contrast,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
could
not
be
replicated
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicated
by
other
sources,
even
though
all
sources
are
equipped
with
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices,
because
dioxin/
furan
emissions
are
governed
by
other
factors,
principally
the
inhibiting
effect
on
dioxin/
furan
formation
of
sulfur
in
the
coal,
but
also
including
operating
under
good
combustion
practices.
The
calculated
floor
for
sources
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
would
be
3.0
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
We
estimate
that
this
emission
level
is
being
achieved
by
99%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
dioxin/
furan
emissions
by
0.14
grams/
year.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

43
The
fact
that
we
determined
floor
control
for
existing
sources
as
good
combustion
practices
does
not
mean
that
all
sources
using
floor
control
will
have
low
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
B.,
we
are
proposing
to
require
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
to
perform
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emissions
test
to
quantify
the
effectiveness
of
today's
proposed
surrogate
for
dioxin/
furan
emission
control.

188
As
previously
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
VII.
A,
we
believe
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
establish
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
floor
level
for
sources
using
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
systems
based
on
the
emissions
achieved
by
the
best
performing
sources
because
a
numerical
floor
level
would
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources.
As
a
result,
we
propose
to
define
floor
control
for
sources
with
wet
or
no
emission
control
devices
as
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
by
complying
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standards.
43
There
would
be
no
emissions
reductions
for
these
existing
boilers
to
comply
with
the
floor
level
because
they
are
currently
complying
with
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standard
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
pursuant
to
RCRA
requirements.
We
also
request
comment
on
an
alternative
MACT
floor
expressed
as
a
dioxin/
furan
emission
concentration
for
sources
with
wet
or
no
emission
control
device.
Although
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
identify
a
floor
concentration
based
on
the
average
emissions
of
the
best
performing
sources
as
discussed
above,
we
possibly
could
identify
the
floor
as
the
highest
emission
concentration
from
any
source
in
our
data
base,
after
considering
emissions
variability.
Dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
those
liquid
fuel
boilers
in
our
data
base
range
from
less
than
0.001
to
1.6
ng
TEQ/
dscm
with
all
except
one
source
emitting
at
levels
below
0.44
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Finally,
we
note
that
we
propose
to
require
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emission
test
for
sources
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard,
including
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
with
wet
or
no
emission
control
device.
As
discussed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
B
below,
the
testing
would
assist
in
developing
both
Section
112(
d)(
6)
standards
and
Section
112(
f)
residual
risk
standards.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
systems
or
carbon
beds
as
beyond­
thefloor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
dioxin/
furans
in
various
combustion
applications.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
using
dry
air
pollution
control
equipment,
we
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
sources
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
80,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.06
grams
TEQ
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
100
tons
per
year,
an
additional
25
trillion
Btu
per
year
of
natural
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

189
gas
would
be
consumed,
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.50
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Notwithstanding
these
impacts
and
although
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
reduce
dioxin/
furan
emissions
by
only
0.06
grams
TEQ
per
year,
it
would
be
cost­
effective
at
$
1.3
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furans
removed.
Given
the
particular
health
hazard
that
dioxin/
furan
pose,
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
is
warranted
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
using
dry
air
pollution
control
systems.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
wet
or
with
no
air
pollution
control
systems,
we
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
these
sources
to
meet
this
beyond­
thefloor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
550,000
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.12
grams
TEQ
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
100
tons
per
year,
an
additional
25
trillion
Btu
per
year
of
natural
gas
would
be
consumed,
an
additional
4
million
gallons
per
year
of
water
would
be
used,
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.50
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
We
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
liquid
boilers
that
use
a
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
system
because
it
would
not
be
cost­
effective
at
$
4.6
million
per
gram
of
TEQ
removed.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
The
calculated
floor
level
for
new
liquid
fuel
boilers
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
systems
is
0.015
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
which
we
identified
using
the
Emissions
Approach.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
out
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
As
previously
discussed,
we
believe
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
establish
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
floors
for
liquid
boilers
with
wet
or
with
no
air
pollution
control
systems.
Therefore,
we
propose
floor
control
for
these
units
as
good
combustion
practices
provided
by
complying
with
the
proposed
destruction
removal
efficiency
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standards.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
activated
carbon
injection
systems
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
dioxin/
furan
in
various
combustion
applications.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.01
ng
TEQ/
dscm
using
activated
carbon
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
dry
air
pollution
control
systems.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
source
with
an
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
thefloor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.005
grams
TEQ
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that,
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate,
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

44
As
information,
EPA
did
not
propose
MACT
emission
standards
for
mercury
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.
See
68
FR
1660
(
Jan.
13,2003).
Note
that,
in
today's
rule,
we
propose
to
control
mercury
only
in
hazardous
waste
fuels,
an
option
obviously
not
available
to
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste.

45
Several
owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
data
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
other,
identical
boilers
at
the
same
facility.
For
purposes
of
identifying
the
number
of
boilers
represented
in
this
paragraph,
the
percentage
includes
the
data­
in­
lieu
sources.

190
increase
by
120
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.1
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
After
considering
these
impacts
and
costs
of
approximately
$
32
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
0.01
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
using
dry
air
pollution
control
systems.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
wet
or
with
no
air
pollution
control
systems
based
on
use
of
activated
carbon
injection.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
source
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.06
grams
TEQ
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that,
for
a
source
with
average
gas
flowrate,
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
120
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.1
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
After
considering
these
impacts
and
costs
of
approximately
$
2.4
million
per
additional
gram
of
dioxin/
furan
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
using
a
wet
or
no
air
pollution
control
system.
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury?
We
propose
to
establish
standards
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
limit
emissions
of
mercury
to
3.7E­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
proposed
standards
for
new
sources
would
be
3.8E­
7
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
44
These
standards
are
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentrations
because
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
burn
hazardous
waste
for
energy
recovery.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
IV.
B
of
the
preamble.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
3.7E­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
which
is
based
primarily
by
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
Approximately
11%
of
liquid
boilers
also
use
wet
scrubbers
that
can
control
emissions
of
mercury.
We
have
normal
emissions
data
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions
for
32%
of
the
sources.
45
The
normal
mercury
stack
emissions
in
our
data
base
are
all
less
than
7
ug/
dscm.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

191
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
mercury
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
available
for
12%
of
sources,
range
from
1.0E­
7
to
1.0E­
5
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
represent
the
mass
of
mercury
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
contributed
by
the
hazardous
waste.
To
identify
the
MACT
floor,
we
evaluated
all
normal
emissions
data
using
the
Emissions
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
3.7E­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
floor
level
is
being
achieved
by
40%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
mercury
emissions
by
0.68
tons
per
year.
Because
the
floor
level
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data,
compliance
would
be
documented
by
complying
with
a
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
feed
concentration
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
F
below.
We
did
not
use
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
to
identify
the
floor
level
because
the
vast
majority
of
mercury
feed
levels
in
the
hazardous
waste
and
the
emissions
measurements
did
not
have
detectable
concentrations
of
mercury.
Given
that
a
system
removal
efficiency,
or
SRE,
is
the
percentage
of
mercury
emitted
compared
to
the
amount
fed,
we
concluded
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
base
this
analysis
on
SREs
that
were
derived
from
measurements
below
detectable
levels.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
mercury:
(
1)
activated
carbon
injection;
and
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
mercury.
a.
Use
of
Activated
Carbon
Injection.
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
mercury
emissions.
Activated
carbon
has
been
demonstrated
for
controlling
mercury
in
several
combustion
applications;
however,
currently
no
liquid
fuel
boilers
burning
hazardous
waste
uses
activated
carbon
injection.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.1E­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
12
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.097
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
using
activated
carbon
injection
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
4,800
tons
per
year
and
that
sources
would
consume
an
additional
44
trillion
Btu
per
year
of
natural
gas
and
use
an
additional
9.6
million
kW­
hours
per
year
beyond
the
requirements
to
achieve
the
floor
level.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
124
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

46
We
note
that
the
beyond­
the­
floor
dioxin/
furan
standard
we
propose
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
dry
particulate
matter
control
devices
would
also
provide
no­
cost
beyond­
the­
floor
mercury
control
for
sources
that
use
activated
carbon
injection
to
control
dioxin/
furan.
If
such
sources
achieve
the
beyond­
the­
floor
dioxin/
furan
standard
by
other
means
(
control
of
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
control
device;
control
of
feedrate
of
metals
that
may
catalyze
formation
of
dioxin/
furan),
however,
collateral
reductions
in
mercury
emissions
would
not
be
realized.

192
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection.
46
b.
Feed
Control
of
Mercury
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
thefloor
level
of
3.0E­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyondthe
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
4.2
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.036
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors
for
feedrate
control.
Therefore,
based
on
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
115
million
per
additional
ton
of
mercury
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
do
not
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
mercury
for
existing
sources.
We
propose
a
standard
based
on
the
floor
level:
3.7E­
6
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
mercury
would
be
3.8E­
7
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
and
would
be
implemented
as
an
annual
average
because
it
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
Emissions
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
activated
carbon
injection
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
to
achieve
an
emission
level
of
2.0E­
7
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
of
less
than
0.0002
tons
per
year,
for
a
costeffectiveness
of
$
1
billion
per
ton
of
mercury
removed.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that,
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate,
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
120
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.1
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

47
As
information,
EPA
proposed
MACT
standards
for
particulate
matter
for
solid
fuel­
fired
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
that
do
not
burn
hazardous
waste
of
0.035
gr/
dscf
for
existing
sources
and
0.013
gr/
dscf
for
new
sources.

193
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Although
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
activated
carbon
injection
for
new
sources
because
it
would
not
be
cost­
effective.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
mercury
standard
based
on
the
floor
level:
3.8E­
7
lbs
mercury
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter?
The
proposed
standards
for
particulate
matter
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
59
mg/
dscm
(
0.026
gr/
dscf)
for
existing
sources
and
17
mg/
dscm
(
0.0076
gr/
dscf)
for
new
sources.
47
The
particulate
matter
standard
serves
as
a
surrogate
for
nonenumerated
HAP
metal
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
fuel
burned
in
the
boiler.
Although
the
particulate
matter
standard
would
also
control
nonmercury
HAP
metal
from
nonhazardous
waste
fuels,
the
natural
gas
or
fuel
oil
these
boilers
burn
as
primary
or
auxiliary
fuel
do
not
contain
significant
levels
of
metal
HAP.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Few
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
equipped
particulate
matter
control
equipment
such
as
electrostatic
precipitators
and
baghouses,
and,
therefore,
many
sources
control
particulate
matter
emissions
by
limiting
the
ash
content
of
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
from
nearly
all
liquid
boilers
representing
maximum
allowable
emissions.
Particulate
emissions
range
from
0.0008
to
0.078
gr/
dscf.
To
identify
the
floor
level,
we
evaluated
the
compliance
test
emissions
data
associated
with
the
most
recent
test
campaign
using
the
APCD
Approach.
The
calculated
floor
is
72
mg/
dscm
(
0.032
gr/
dscf),
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
floor
level
is
being
achieved
by
44%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions
by
1,200
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
fabric
filters
to
improve
particulate
matter
control
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
36
mg/
dscm
(
0.016
gr/
dscf).
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
16
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
matter
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
520
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
520
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
13
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
After
considering
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
30,000
per
additional
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

48
The
source
also
is
equipped
with
a
high
efficiency
particulate
air
(
HEPA)
filter.

49
Several
owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
data
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
other,
identical
boilers
at
the
same
facility.
For
purposes
of
identifying
194
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
standard
for
particulate
matter
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
based
on
the
floor
level:
72
mg/
dscm
(
0.032
gr/
dscf).
3.
What
Is
the
Rational
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
17
mg/
dscm
(
0.0076
gr/
dscf),
considering
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
by
the
APCD
Approach
(
i.
e.,
the
source
using
a
fabric
filter48
with
the
lowest
emissions)
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
an
advanced
fabric
filter
using
high
efficiency
membrane
bag
material
and
a
low
air
to
cloth
ratio
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
9
mg/
dscm
(
0.0040
gr/
dscf).
The
incremental
annualized
cost
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
particulate
emissions
of
approximately
2.9
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
53,000
per
ton
of
particulate
matter
removed.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that,
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate,
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
3
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.54
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Considering
these
factors
and
cost­
effectiveness,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
9
mg/
dscm
is
not
warranted.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
floor­
based
standard
for
particulate
matter
for
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers:
9.8
mg/
dscm
(
0.0043
gr/
dscf)
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Semivolatile
Metals?
We
propose
a
standard
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
limits
emissions
of
semivolatile
metals
(
cadmium
and
lead,
combined)
to
1.1E­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
proposed
standard
for
new
sources
is
4.3E­
6
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
1.1E­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste,
which
is
based
on
particulate
matter
control
(
for
those
few
sources
using
a
control
device)
and
controlling
the
feedrate
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
emissions
data
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions
for
nearly
40%
of
the
sources.
49
The
normal
semivolatile
stack
emissions
in
our
database
range
from
less
than
1
to
46
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

the
number
of
boilers
represented
in
this
paragraph,
the
percentages
include
the
data­
in­
lieu
sources.

50
We
propose
to
use
the
Emissions
Approach
rather
than
the
SRE/
Feed
approach
because
our
data
base
is
comprised
of
emissions
obtained
during
normal
rather
than
compliance
test
operations.
Because
of
the
relatively
low
semivolatile
metal
feedrates
during
normal
operations,
we
are
concerned
that
the
system
removal
efficiencies
that
we
would
calculate
may
be
inaccurate
(
e.
g.,
sampling
and
analysis
imprecision
at
low
feed
rates
can
have
a
substantial
impact
on
calculated
system
removal
efficiencies).

195
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
conventionally
as
mass
of
semivolatile
metals
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
available
for
25%
of
sources,
range
from
1.2E­
6
to
4.8E­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
of
the
hazardous
waste.
We
identified
a
MACT
floor
of
1.1E­
5
expressed
as
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
by
applying
the
Emissions
Approach
to
the
normal
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
data.
50
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
floor
level
is
being
achieved
by
33%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
semivolatile
metals
emissions
by
1.7
tons
per
year.
Because
the
floor
level
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data,
compliance
would
be
documented
by
complying
with
a
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
feed
concentration
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
F
below.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
semivolatile
metals:
(
1)
improved
particulate
matter
control;
and
(
2)
control
of
mercury
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals.
a.
Improved
Particulate
Matter
Control.
We
evaluated
installation
of
a
new
fabric
filter
or
improved
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
the
existing
electrostatic
precipitator
and
fabric
filter
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
semivolatile
metals
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
5.5E­
6
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
6.5
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.06
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
approximately
45
tons
per
year
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
0.8
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
After
considering
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
100
million
per
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

51
We
use
the
Emissions
Approach
rather
than
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
when
we
use
normal
rather
than
compliance
test
data
to
establish
the
standard,
as
discussed
previously.

196
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
b.
Feed
Control
of
Semivolatile
Metals
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
also
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
8.8E­
6
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
which
represents
a
20%
reduction
from
the
floor
level.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
4.8
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.06
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors
for
feedrate
control.
Therefore,
considering
these
factors
and
costs
of
approximately
$
81
million
per
additional
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
feed
control
of
semivolatile
metals
in
the
hazardous
waste.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
floor
standard
for
semivolatile
metals
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
of
1.1E­
5
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
semivolatile
metals
would
be
4.3E­
6
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
Emissions
Approach51
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
Because
the
floor
level
is
based
on
normal
emissions
data,
compliance
would
be
documented
by
complying
with
a
hazardous
waste
mercury
thermal
feed
concentration
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
XIV.
F
below.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
2.1E­
6
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
based
on
an
advanced
fabric
filter
using
high
efficiency
membrane
bag
material
and
a
low
air
to
cloth
ratio.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
semivolatile
metals
emissions
of
less
than
0.002
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
87
million
per
ton
of
semivolatile
metals
removed.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that,
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate,
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
2
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.54
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

52
Several
owners
and
operators
have
used
the
emissions
data
as
"
data
in
lieu
of
testing"
emissions
from
other,
identical
boilers
at
the
same
facility.
For
purposes
of
identifying
the
number
of
boilers
represented
in
this
paragraph,
the
percentages
include
the
data­
in­
lieu
sources.

197
Considering
these
factors
and
cost­
effectiveness,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
is
not
warranted.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
semivolatile
metals
standard
based
on
the
floor
level:
4.3E­
6
lbs
semivolatile
metals
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
for
new
sources.
E.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Chromium?
We
propose
to
establish
standards
for
existing
and
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
limit
emissions
of
chromium
to
1.1E­
4
lbs
and
3.6E­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
respectively.
We
propose
to
establish
emission
standards
on
chromium­
only
because
our
data
base
has
very
limited
compliance
test
data
on
emissions
of
total
low
volatile
metals:
arsenic,
beryllium,
and
chromium.
We
have
compliance
test
data
on
only
two
sources
for
total
low
volatile
metals
emissions
while
we
have
compliance
test
data
for
12
sources
for
chromium­
only.
Although
we
have
total
low
volatile
metals
emissions
for
12
sources
when
operating
under
normal
operations,
we
prefer
to
use
compliance
test
data
to
establish
the
floor
because
they
better
address
emissions
variability.
By
establishing
a
low
volatile
metal
floor
based
on
chromium
emissions
only
we
are
relying
on
the
particulate
matter
standard
to
control
the
other
enumerated
low
volatile
metals­­
arsenic
and
beryllium­­
as
well
as
nonenumerated
metal
HAP.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach
and
note
that,
as
discussed
below,
an
alternative
approach
would
be
to
establish
a
MACT
floor
based
on
normal
emissions
data
for
all
three
enumerated
low
volatile
metals.
We
request
comment
on
whether
the
compliance
test
data
for
chromium­
only
are
appropriate
for
establishing
a
MACT
floor
for
chromium.
We
are
concerned
that
some
sources
in
our
data
base
may
have
used
chromium
as
a
surrogate
for
arsenic
and
beryllium
during
RCRA
compliance
testing
such
that
their
chromium
emissions
may
be
more
representative
of
their
total
low
volatile
metals
emissions
than
only
chromium.
If
we
determine
this
to
be
the
case,
we
could
apply
the
floor
we
calculate
using
chromium
emissions
to
total
low
volatile
metal
emissions.
Alternatively,
we
could
use
the
normal
emissions
data
we
have
on
12
sources
and
our
MACT
methodology
to
establish
a
total
low
volatile
metals
floor.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
1.1E­
4
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste,
which
is
based
on
particulate
matter
control
(
for
those
few
sources
using
a
control
device)
and
controlling
the
feed
concentration
of
chromium
in
the
hazardous
waste.
We
have
compliance
test
emissions
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
approximately
17%
of
the
sources.
52
The
compliance
test
chromium
stack
emissions
in
our
database
range
from
2
to
900
ug/
dscm.
These
emissions
are
expressed
as
mass
of
chromium
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

198
(
from
all
feedstocks)
per
unit
of
stack
gas.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
available
for
13%
of
sources,
range
from
3.2E­
6
to
8.8E­
4
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
To
identify
the
floor
level,
we
evaluated
all
compliance
test
thermal
emissions
data
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
(
see
discussion
in
Section
VI.
C
above).
The
calculated
floor
is
1.1E­
4
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
feed,
which
considers
emissions
variability.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
floor
level
is
being
achieved
by
36%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
chromium
emissions
by
9.4
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
chromium
emissions:
(
1)
use
of
a
fabric
filter
to
improve
particulate
matter
control;
and
(
2)
control
of
chromium
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
chromium.
a.
Use
of
a
Fabric
Filter
to
Improve
Particulate
Matter
Control.
We
evaluated
use
of
a
fabric
filter
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reduction
of
chromium
emissions.
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
5.5E­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
5.9
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
chromium
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
0.50
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
approximately
160
tons
per
year
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
3.0
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Based
on
these
impacts
and
a
cost
of
approximately
$
12
million
per
additional
ton
of
chromium
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
improved
particulate
matter
control.
b.
Feed
Control
of
Chromium
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
evaluated
additional
feed
control
of
chromium
in
the
hazardous
waste
as
a
beyond­
the­
floor
control
technique
to
reduce
floor
emission
levels
by
25%
to
achieve
a
standard
of
8.8E­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
This
beyond­
thefloor
level
of
control
would
reduce
chromium
by
an
additional
0.20
tons
per
year
at
a
costeffectiveness
of
$
22
million
per
ton
of
chromium
removed.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors
for
feedrate
control.
We
conclude
that
use
of
additional
hazardous
waste
chromium
feedrate
control
would
not
be
costeffective
and
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
this
control
technique.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
do
not
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
chromium.
Consequently,
we
propose
to
establish
the
emission
standard
for
existing
liquid
fuelfired
boilers
at
the
floor
level:
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standard
of
1.1E­
4
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
feed.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

199
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
chromium
would
be
3.6E­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
an
advanced
fabric
filter
using
high
efficiency
membrane
bag
material
and
a
low
air
to
cloth
ratio
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
to
reduce
chromium
emissions
to
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
1.8E­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
chromium
emissions
of
0.014
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
11
million
per
ton
of
chromium
removed.
We
evaluated
the
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
and
estimate
that,
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate,
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
would
increase
by
2
tons
per
year
and
electricity
consumption
would
increase
by
0.54
million
kWhours
per
year.
Considering
these
factors
and
cost­
effectiveness,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
is
not
warranted.
Therefore,
we
propose
a
chromium
emission
standard
for
new
sources
based
on
the
floor
level:
3.6E­
5
lbs
chromium
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
F.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Total
Chlorine?
We
are
proposing
to
establish
a
standard
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
limit
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
(
i.
e.,
total
chlorine)
to
2.5E­
2
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
proposed
standard
for
new
sources
would
be
7.2E­
4
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Most
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
do
not
have
back­
end
controls
such
as
wet
scrubbers
for
total
chlorine
control.
For
these
sources,
total
chlorine
emissions
are
controlled
by
most
sources
by
controlling
the
feedrate
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
Approximately
15%
of
sources
use
wet
scrubbing
systems
to
control
total
chlorine
emissions.
We
have
compliance
test
data
representing
maximum
emissions
for
40%
of
the
boilers.
Total
chlorine
emissions
range
from
less
than
1
to
900
ppmv.
Hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
available
for
27%
of
boilers,
range
from
1.00E­
4
to
1.4
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
calculated
floor
is
2.5E­
2
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
using
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources
(
see
discussion
in
Section
VI.
C
above).
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
average
of
the
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

200
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
floor
level
is
being
achieved
by
70%
of
sources
and
would
reduce
total
chlorine
emissions
by
660
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
identified
two
potential
beyond­
the­
floor
techniques
for
control
of
total
chlorine
emissions:
(
1)
use
of
a
wet
scrubber;
and
(
2)
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
feed.
For
reasons
discussed
below,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
total
chlorine.
a.
Use
of
Wet
Scrubbing.
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
of
1.3E­
2
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste
based
on
wet
scrubbing
to
reduce
emissions
beyond
the
floor
level
by
50
percent.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
7.8
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
430
tons
per
year.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
both
the
amount
of
hazardous
wastewater
generated
and
water
usage
by
approximately
3.2
billion
gallons
per
year
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
30
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Considering
these
impacts
and
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
approximately
$
18,000
per
additional
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
wet
scrubbing.
b.
Feed
Control
of
Chromium
in
the
Hazardous
Waste.
We
evaluated
additional
feed
control
of
chlorine
in
the
hazardous
waste
as
a
beyond­
the­
floor
control
technique
to
reduce
floor
emission
levels
by
20%
to
achieve
a
standard
of
2.0E­
2
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
national
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
controls
would
be
approximately
$
3.9
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
beyond
the
MACT
floor
controls
of
170
tons
per
year.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
are
not
significant
factors
for
feedrate
control.
We
conclude
that
use
of
additional
hazardous
waste
chlorine
feedrate
control
would
not
be
cost­
effective
at
$
23,000
per
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed
and
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
this
control
technique.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
total
chlorine
standard
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
based
on
the
floor
level:
2.5E­
2
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
for
total
chlorine
would
be
7.2E­
4
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
This
is
an
emission
level
that
the
single
best
performing
source
identified
with
the
SRE/
Feed
Approach
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
operating
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

201
We
evaluated
wet
scrubbing
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
further
reductions
in
total
chlorine
emissions
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
3.6E­
4
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
The
incremental
annualized
compliance
cost
for
a
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
an
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
this
beyond­
the­
floor
level,
rather
than
comply
with
the
floor
level,
would
be
approximately
$
0.44
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
of
approximately
0.13
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
3.3
million
per
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that,
for
a
new
source
with
average
an
average
gas
flowrate,
this
beyondthe
floor
option
would
increase
both
the
amount
of
hazardous
wastewater
generated
and
water
usage
by
approximately
140
million
gallons
per
year
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
1.3
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
After
considering
these
impacts
and
cost­
effectiveness,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
based
on
wet
scrubbing
for
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
not
warranted.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
total
chlorine
standard
for
new
sources
based
on
the
floor
level:
7.2E­
4
lbs
total
chlorine
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
per
million
Btu
heat
input
from
the
hazardous
waste.
G.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Carbon
Monoxide
or
Hydrocarbons?
To
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP,
existing
and
new
sources
would
be
required
to
comply
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
10
ppmv.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
standards
that
require
compliance
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv,
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
20
ppmv.
Compliance
is
based
on
an
hourly
rolling
average
as
measured
with
a
CEMS.
See
§
266.104(
a).
We
are
proposing
today
floor
standards
of
100
ppmv
for
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
for
hydrocarbons.
Floor
control
for
existing
sources
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
including:
(
1)
providing
adequate
excess
air
with
use
of
oxygen
CEMS
and
feedback
air
input
control;
(
2)
providing
adequate
fuel/
air
mixing;
(
3)
homogenizing
hazardous
waste
fuels
(
such
as
by
blending
or
size
reduction)
to
control
combustion
upsets
due
to
very
high
or
very
low
volatile
content
wastes;
(
4)
regulating
waste
and
air
feedrates
to
ensure
proper
combustion
temperature
and
residence
time;
(
5)
characterizing
waste
prior
to
burning
for
combustion­
related
composition
(
including
parameters
such
as
heating
value,
volatile
content,
liquid
waste
viscosity,
etc.);
(
6)
ensuring
the
source
is
operated
by
qualified,
experienced
operators;
and
(
7)
periodic
inspection
and
maintenance
of
combustion
system
components
such
as
burners,
fuel
and
air
supply
lines,
injection
nozzles,
etc.
Given
that
there
are
many
interdependent
parameters
that
affect
combustion
efficiency
and
thus
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbon
emissions,
we
are
not
able
to
quantify
"
good
combustion
practices."
All
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
currently
complying
with
the
RCRA
carbon
monoxide
limit
of
100
ppmv
on
an
hourly
rolling
average.
No
boilers
are
complying
with
the
RCRA
hydrocarbon
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

202
limit
of
20
ppmv
on
an
hourly
rolling
average.
We
propose
a
floor
level
for
carbon
monoxide
level
of
100
ppmv
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
Although
the
best
performing
sources
are
achieving
carbon
monoxide
levels
below
100
ppmv,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
establish
a
lower
floor
level
because
carbon
monoxide
is
a
surrogate
for
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
As
such,
lowering
the
carbon
monoxide
floor
may
not
significantly
reduce
organic
HAP
emissions.
In
addition,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
apply
a
MACT
methodology
to
the
carbon
monoxide
emissions
from
the
best
performing
sources
because
those
sources
may
not
be
able
to
replicate
their
emission
levels.
This
is
because
there
are
myriad
factors
that
affect
combustion
efficiency
and,
subsequently,
carbon
monoxide
emissions.
Extremely
low
carbon
monoxide
emissions
cannot
be
assured
by
controlling
only
one
or
two
operating
parameters
We
note
also
that
we
used
this
rationale
to
establish
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv
for
Phase
I
sources
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule.
We
propose
a
floor
level
for
hydrocarbons
of
10
ppmv
even
though
the
currently
enforceable
standard
is
20
ppmv
because:
(
1)
the
two
sources
that
comply
with
the
RCRA
hydrocarbon
standard
can
readily
achieve
10
ppmv;
and
(
2)
reducing
hydrocarbon
emissions
within
the
range
of
20
ppmv
to
10
ppmv
should
reduce
emissions
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
We
do
not
apply
a
prescriptive
MACT
methodology
to
establish
a
hydrocarbon
floor
below
10
ppmv,
however,
because
we
have
data
from
only
two
sources.
In
addition,
we
note
that
the
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
for
Phase
I
sources
established
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
is
10
ppmv
also.
There
would
be
no
incremental
emission
reductions
associated
with
these
floors
because
all
sources
are
currently
achieving
the
floor
levels.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
considered
beyond­
the­
floor
levels
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices
but
conclude
that
they
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
good
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
as
discussed
above,
we
cannot
ensure
that
lower
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
levels
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements
are
not
significant
factors
for
use
of
better
combustion
practices
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control.
For
these
reasons,
we
conclude
that
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
are
not
warranted
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
the
same
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources­­
100
ppmv
for
carbon
monoxide
and
10
ppmv
for
hydrocarbons­­
and
based
on
the
same
rationale.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
As
discussed
in
the
context
of
beyond­
the­
floor
considerations
for
existing
sources,
we
considered
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
for
new
sources
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices.
But
we
conclude
that
beyond
the
floor
standards
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
good
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
we
cannot
ensure
that
lower
carbon
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

53
The
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
would
control
organic
HAP
that
are
products
of
incomplete
combustion
by
also
ensuring
use
of
good
combustion
practices.

203
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
levels
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
nondioxin/
furan
organic
HAP.
Nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements
are
not
significant
factors
for
use
of
better
combustion
practices
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons.
H.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
To
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP,
existing
and
new
sources
would
be
required
to
comply
with
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
organic
HAP.
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
the
DRE
standard
is
99.9999%
for
organic
HAP.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
DRE
standards
that
require
99.99%
destruction
of
designated
principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
For
sources
that
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
the
DRE
standard
is
99.9999%
destruction
of
designated
POHCs.
See
§
266.104(
a).
The
DRE
standard
helps
ensure
that
a
combustor
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
and
thus
minimizing
emissions
of
organic
HAP.
Under
the
MACT
compliance
regime,
sources
would
designate
POHCs
that
are
organic
HAP
or
that
are
surrogates
for
organic
HAP.
We
propose
to
establish
the
RCRA
DRE
standard
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
There
would
be
no
incremental
costs
or
emission
reductions
associated
with
this
floor
because
sources
are
currently
complying
with
the
standard.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
for
DRE
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices
but
conclude
that
it
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
better
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
we
cannot
ensure
that
a
higher
DRE
standard
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
organic
HAP
given
that
DRE
measures
the
destruction
of
organic
HAP
present
in
the
boiler
feed
rather
than
gross
emissions
of
organic
HAP.
Although
a
source's
combustion
practices
may
be
adequate
to
destroy
particular
organic
HAP
in
the
feed,
other
organic
HAP
that
may
be
emitted
as
products
of
incomplete
combustion
may
not
be
controlled
by
the
DRE
standard.
53
For
these
reasons,
and
after
considering
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
We
propose
to
establish
the
RCRA
DRE
standard
as
the
floor
for
new
sources
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

204
Using
the
same
rationale
as
we
used
to
consider
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
new
sources
is
not
warranted.
Consequently,
after
considering
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
DRE
standard
for
new
sources.

XII.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Waste
Burning
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces?
The
proposed
standards
for
existing
and
new
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.
See
proposed
§
63.1218.

PROPOSED
STANDARDS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID
PRODUCTION
FURNACES
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
or
Surrogate
Emission
Standard1
Existing
Sources
New
Sources
Dioxin
and
furan
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
Hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine
gas2
14
ppmv
or
99.9927%
System
Removal
Efficiency
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
1.2
ppmv
or
99.99937%
System
Removal
Efficiency
or
the
alternative
emission
limits
under
§
63.1215
Carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons3
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
hydrocarbons
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency
For
existing
and
new
sources,
99.99%
for
each
principal
organic
hazardous
constituent
(
POHC).
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
99.9999%
for
each
POHC.

1
All
emission
standards
are
corrected
to
7%
oxygen,
dry
basis.
2
Combined
standard,
reported
as
a
hydrogen
chloride
equivalent.
3
Hourly
rolling
average.
Hydrocarbons
reported
as
propane.

A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Dioxin
and
Furan?
The
proposed
standard
for
doixin/
furan
for
existing
and
new
sources
is
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
The
proposed
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
compliance
with
the
proposed
CO/
HC
emission
standard
and
compliance
with
the
proposed
DRE
standard.
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
use
wet
scrubbers
to
remove
hydrochloric
acid
from
combustion
gases
to
produce
the
hydrochloric
acid
product
and
to
minimize
residual
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

54
Section
266.104
requires
compliance
with
a
carbon
monoxide
limit
of
100
ppmv
or
a
hydrocarbon
limit
of
20
ppmv,
while
we
are
proposing
today
a
carbon
monoxide
limit
of
100
ppmv
or
a
hydrocarbon
limit
of
10
ppmv
(
see
Section
XII.
H
in
the
text).
Although
today's
proposed
hydrocarbon
limit
is
more
stringent
than
the
current
limit
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
all
sources
chose
to
comply
with
the
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
limit.

205
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine
gas.
Thus,
dioxin/
furan
cannot
be
formed
on
particulate
surfaces
in
the
emission
control
device
as
can
happen
with
electrostatic
precipitators
and
fabric
filters.
Nonetheless,
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
can
be
very
high.
We
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
18
test
conditions
representing
14
of
the
17
sources.
Dioxin/
furan
emissions
range
from
0.02
ng
TEQ/
dscm
to
6.8
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
We
investigated
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
establish
separate
dioxin/
furan
standards
for
furnaces
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
versus
those
without
boilers.
Ten
of
the
17
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
equipped
with
boilers.
We
considered
whether
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
may
be
causing
the
elevated
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
as
appeared
to
be
the
case
for
incinerators
equipped
with
boilers.
See
62
FR
at
24220
(
May
2,
1997)
where
we
explain
that
heat
recovery
boilers
preclude
rapid
temperature
quench
of
combustion
gases,
thus
allowing
particle­
catalyzed
formation
of
dioxin/
furan.
The
dioxin/
furan
data
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
indicate,
however,
that
furnaces
with
boilers
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
ranging
from
0.05
to
6.8
ng
TEQ/
dscm,
while
furnaces
without
boilers
have
dioxin/
furan
emissions
ranging
from
0.02
to
1.7
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
Based
on
a
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
sets
(
see
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Section
II.
E),
we
conclude
that
the
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
furnaces
equipped
with
boilers
are
not
significantly
different
from
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
furnaces
without
boilers.
Thus,
we
conclude
that
separate
dioxin/
furan
emission
standards
are
not
warranted.
We
cannot
or
identify
or
quantify
a
dioxin/
furan
control
mechanism
for
these
furnaces.
Consequently,
we
conclude
that
establishing
a
floor
emission
level
based
on
emissions
from
the
best
performing
sources
would
not
be
appropriate
because
the
best
performing
sources
may
not
be
able
to
replicate
their
emission
levels,
and
other
sources
may
not
be
able
to
duplicate
those
emission
levels.
We
note,
however,
that
dioxin/
furan
emissions
can
be
affected
by
the
furnace's
combustion
efficiency.
Operating
under
poor
combustion
conditions
can
generate
dioxin/
furan
and
organic
precursors
that
may
contribute
to
post­
combustion
dioxin/
furan
formation.
Because
we
cannot
quantify
a
dioxin/
furan
floor
level
and
because
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
currently
required
to
operate
under
good
combustion
practices
by
RCRA
standards
for
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency,
we
identify
those
RCRA
standards
as
the
proposed
MACT
floor.
See
§
266.104
requiring
compliance
with
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
and
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standards.
54
We
also
find,
as
required
by
CAA
Section
112(
h)(
1),
that
these
proposed
standards
are
consistent
with
Section
112(
d)'
s
objective
of
reducing
emissions
of
these
HAP
to
the
extent
achievable.
We
also
request
comment
on
an
alternative
MACT
floor
expressed
as
a
dioxin/
furan
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

55
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

56
Please
note
that,
under
the
proposed
floor
level,
sources
would
not
incur
retrofit
costs
or
achieve
dioxin/
furan
emissions
reductions
because
they
currently
comply
with
the
floor
controls
under
current
RCRA
regulations
at
40
CFR
266.104.

206
emission
concentration.
Although
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
identify
a
floor
concentration
based
on
the
average
emissions
of
the
best
performing
sources
as
discussed
above,
we
could
identify
the
floor
as
the
highest
emission
concentration
from
any
source
in
our
data
base,
after
considering
emissions
variability.
Under
this
approach,
the
highest
emitting
source
could
be
expected
to
achieve
the
floor
99
out
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
the
same
conditions
as
it
did
when
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
A
floor
that
is
expressed
as
a
dioxin/
furan
emission
level
would
prevent
sources
from
emitting
at
levels
higher
than
the
(
currently)
worstcase
source
(
actually,
the
worst­
case
performance
test
result)
currently
emits.
We
specifically
request
comment
on
this
alternative
MACT
floor.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
use
of
an
activated
carbon
bed
(
preceded
by
gas
reheating
to
above
the
dewpoint)
as
beyond­
the­
floor
control
for
dioxin/
furan.
Carbon
beds
can
achieve
greater
than
99%
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
55
We
considered
alternative
beyond­
the­
floor
levels
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
and
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
The
incremental
annualized
cost
of
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
be
$
1.9
million
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
2.3
grams
TEQ
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
0.82
million
per
gram
TEQ
removed.
56
A
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
0.20
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
provide
very
little
incremental
emissions
reduction­­
0.1
grams
TEQ
per
year­­
at
additional
costs.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
wastewater
generated
by
210
tons
per
year,
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
1.8
million
kW­
hours
per
year
and
natural
gas
consumption
by
96
trillion
Btu
per
year.
Notwithstanding
these
impacts,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
be
warranted
considering
the
special
hazard
dioxin/
furan
emissions
pose.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
are
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
for
existing
sources.
Thirty­
five
percent
of
sources
are
currently
meeting
this
standard.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
is
the
same
as
for
existing
sources
under
the
same
rationale:
compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
and
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
As
for
existing
sources,
we
evaluated
use
of
an
activated
carbon
bed
as
beyond­
the­
floor
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

57
We
estimate
beyond­
the­
floor
control
costs
assuming
a
new
source
emits
the
highest
levels
likely
under
floor
control
based
on
compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standards.

58
USEPA,
"
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
for
HWC
MACT
Replacement
Standards,
Volume
III:
Selection
of
MACT
Standards
and
Technologies,"
March
2004.

59
Except
that
one
source
emitted
330
ug/
dscm
low
volatile
metals
and
0.043
gr/
dscf
particulate
matter
during
compliance
testing.
This
source
apparently
detuned
the
acid
gas
absorber
and
other
acid
gas
control
equipment
given
that
it
achieved
less
than
99%
system
removal
efficiency
for
total
chlorine
and
had
total
chlorine
emissions
of
500
ppmv.
This
source
207
control
for
new
sources
to
achieve
an
emission
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
We
estimate
that
the
incremental
annualized
cost
for
a
new
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnace
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
reduce
dioxin/
furan
emissions
at
the
floor
of
0.68
ng
TEQ/
dscm57
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
be
$
0.15
million.
These
controls
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
dioxin/
furan
emissions
of
0.66
grams
TEQ
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
230,000
per
gram
TEQ
removed.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that,
for
a
new
source
with
average
an
average
gas
flowrate,
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
the
amount
of
hazardous
wastewater
generated
by
9
tons
per
year,
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
0.14
million
kW­
hours
per
year
and
natural
gas
consumption
by
9.2
trillion
Btu
per
year.
Notwithstanding
these
impacts,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm
would
be
costeffective
considering
the
special
hazard
dioxin/
furan
emissions
pose.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
dioxin/
furan
for
new
sources
of
0.40
ng
TEQ/
dscm.
B.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Mercury,
Semivolatile
Metals,
and
Low
Volatile
Metals?
We
propose
to
require
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
standard
as
a
surrogate
for
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals
standards.
As
discussed
above,
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
use
wet
scrubbers
to
remove
hydrochloric
acid
from
combustion
gases
to
produce
the
hydrochloric
acid
product
and
to
minimize
residual
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine
gas.
Wet
scrubbers
also
remove
metal
HAP,
including
mercury,
from
combustion
gases.
To
minimize
contamination
of
hydrochloric
acid
product
with
metals,
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
generally
feed
hazardous
waste
with
low
levels
of
metal
HAP.
Moreover,
the
wet
scrubbers
used
to
recover
the
hydrochloric
acid
product
and
minimize
residual
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine
gas
also
control
emissions
of
metal
HAP
to
very
low
levels.
Based
on
emissions
testing
within
the
range
of
normal
emissions
(
i.
e.,
not
compliance
test,
maximum
allowed
emissions),
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
emit
mercury
at
levels
from
0.1
to
0.4
ug/
dscm,
semivolatile
metals
at
levels
from
0.1
to
4.1
ug/
dscm,
and
low
volatile
metals
at
levels
from
0.1
to
43
ug/
dscm.
58,59
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

would
be
not
be
allowed
to
operate
under
these
conditions
under
today's
proposed
rule:
14
ppmv
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
or
99.9927
system
removal
efficiency.
Thus,
under
the
proposed
rule,
emissions
of
low
volatile
metals
and
particulate
matter
would
be
substantially
lower.

208
We
also
note
that
these
sources
emit
low
levels
of
particulate
matter.
Compliance
test,
maximum
allowable
emissions
of
particulate
matter
range
from
0.001
to
0.013
gr/
dscf.
Because
wet
scrubbers
designed
to
recover
the
hydrochloric
acid
product
and
control
residual
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
gas
also
control
emissions
of
mercury,
and
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
(
including
nonenumerated
metals),
use
of
MACT
wet
scrubbers
to
comply
with
the
proposed
total
chlorine
standard
discussed
below
will
also
ensure
MACT
control
of
metal
HAP.
Accordingly,
we
propose
to
use
the
total
chlorine
standard
as
a
surrogate
for
the
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals
standards.
C.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Total
Chlorine?
The
proposed
standards
for
total
chlorine
are
14
ppmv
or
99.9927
percent
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiency
(
SRE)
for
existing
sources
and
1.2
ppmv
or
99.99937
percent
total
chlorine
SRE
for
new
sources.
A
source
may
elect
to
comply
with
either
standard.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
The
proposed
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
compliance
with
either
a
total
chlorine
emission
level
of
14
ppmv
or
a
total
chlorine
SRE
of
99.9927
percent.
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
use
wet
scrubbers
to
remove
hydrochloric
acid
from
combustion
gases
to
produce
the
hydrochloric
acid
product
and
to
minimize
residual
emissions
of
hydrochloric
acid
and
chlorine
gas.
We
have
compliance
test,
maximum
allowable
total
chlorine
emissions
data
for
all
17
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
Total
chlorine
emissions
range
from
0.4
to
500
ppmv,
and
total
chlorine
system
removal
efficiencies
(
SRE)
range
from
98.967
to
99.9995
percent.
As
discussed
in
Section
VI.
C
above,
control
of
the
feedrate
of
chlorine
in
hazardous
waste
fed
to
the
furnace
is
not
an
appropriate
MACT
emission
control
technique
because
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
designed
to
produce
hydrochloric
acid
from
chlorinated
feedstocks.
Consequently,
the
approaches
we
normally
use
to
identify
the
best
performing
sources­­
SRE/
Feed
Approach
or
Emissions
Approach­­
are
not
appropriate
because
they
directly
or
indirectly
consider
chlorine
feedrate.
More
simply,
limiting
feedrate
means
not
producing
the
intended
product,
a
result
inconsistent
with
MACT.
See
2
Legislative
History
at
3352
(
House
Report)
("
MACT
is
not
intended
to
...
drive
sources
to
the
brink
of
shutdown").
To
avoid
this
concern,
we
identify
a
floor
SRE,
and
provide
an
alternative
floor
as
a
total
chlorine
emission
limit
based
on
floor
SRE
and
the
highest
chlorine
feedrate
for
any
source
in
the
data
base.
By
using
the
highest
chlorine
feedrate
to
calculate
the
alternative
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
we
ensure
that
feedrate
control
(
i.
e.
nonproduction
of
product)
is
not
a
factor
in
identifying
the
proposed
MACT
floor.
The
alternative
total
chlorine
emission
limit
would
require
a
source
that
may
not
be
achieving
floor
SRE
to
achieve
total
chlorine
emission
levels
no
greater
than
the
level
that
would
be
emitted
by
any
source
achieving
floor
SRE.
The
floor
SRE
is
99.9927
percent.
It
is
calculated
from
the
five
best
SREs,
and
considers
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

209
emissions
variability.
Floor
SRE
is
an
SRE
that
the
average
of
the
performing
sources
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
We
estimate
that
this
SRE
is
being
achieved
by
29%
of
sources.
The
alternative
floor
emission
limit
is
14
ppmv,
and
is
the
emission
level
that
the
source
with
the
highest
chlorine
feedrate­­
2.9E+
8
ug/
dscm
 
would
achieve
when
achieving
99.9927
percent
SRE.
Approximately
24%
of
sources
are
achieving
the
alternative
floor
levels,
and
these
floor
levels
would
reduce
total
chlorine
emissions
by
145
tons
per
year.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
evaluated
improved
design,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
existing
scrubbers
to
achieve
a
beyond­
the­
floor
emission
level
of
7
ppmv
for
total
chlorine
for
existing
sources,
assuming
a
50%
reduction
in
emissions
from
the
floor
level.
The
national
annualized
compliance
cost
for
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
to
comply
with
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
$
0.25
million,
and
emissions
of
total
chlorine
would
be
reduced
by
3
tons
per
year.
The
cost­
effectiveness
of
this
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
would
be
$
76,000
per
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
both
the
amount
of
hazardous
wastewater
generated
and
water
usage
by
approximately
82
million
gallons
per
year
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
0.34
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Generation
of
nonwastewater
hazardous
waste
would
decrease
by
7
tons
per
year.
Considering
these
impacts
and
costeffectiveness
as
well,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
existing
sources
would
not
be
warranted.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
a
floor
total
chlorine
standard
of
14
ppmv
or
99.9927%
SRE
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
The
proposed
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
is
compliance
with
either
a
total
chlorine
emission
level
of
1.2
ppmv
or
a
total
chlorine
SRE
of
99.99937
percent.
We
use
the
same
rationale
for
identifying
alternative
floors
for
new
sources
as
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
existing
sources.
The
new
source
floor
SRE
is
the
SRE
that
the
single
best
performing
source
(
i.
e,
source
with
the
best
SRE)
could
be
expected
to
achieve
in
99
of
100
future
tests
when
operating
under
conditions
identical
to
the
compliance
test
conditions
during
which
the
emissions
data
were
obtained.
The
new
source
floor
alternative
emission
limit
is
an
emission
level
that
the
source
with
the
highest
chlorine
feedrate­­
2.9E+
8
ug/
dscm
 
would
achieve
when
achieving
99.99937
percent
SRE.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
We
evaluated
a
beyond­
the­
floor
standard
for
new
sources
of
0.60
ppmv
based
on
achieving
a
50
percent
reduction
in
emissions
by
improving
the
design/
operation/
maintenance
of
the
wet
scrubber.
The
incremental
annualized
cost
for
a
new
solid
fuel­
fired
boiler
with
average
gas
flowrate
to
meet
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
of
0.60
ppmv
would
be
approximately
$
0.15
million
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

210
and
would
provide
an
incremental
reduction
in
total
chlorine
emissions
of
0.07
tons
per
year,
for
a
cost­
effectiveness
of
$
2.1
million
per
ton
of
total
chlorine
removed.
We
evaluated
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
effects
and
determined
that,
for
a
new
source
with
average
gas
flowrate,
this
beyond­
the­
floor
option
would
increase
both
the
amount
of
hazardous
wastewater
generated
and
water
usage
by
approximately
26
million
gallons
per
year
and
would
increase
electricity
usage
by
0.25
million
kW­
hours
per
year.
Considering
these
impacts
and
cost­
effectiveness
as
well,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
thefloor
standard
for
new
sources
would
not
be
warranted.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
we
propose
a
total
chlorine
standard
of
1.2
ppmv
or
a
total
chlorine
SRE
of
99.99937
percent
for
new
sources.
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Carbon
Monoxide
or
Hydrocarbons?
To
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP,
existing
and
new
sources
would
be
required
to
comply
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
10
ppmv.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
standards
that
require
compliance
with
either
a
carbon
monoxide
standard
of
100
ppmv,
or
a
hydrocarbon
standard
of
20
ppmv.
Compliance
is
based
on
an
hourly
rolling
average
as
measured
with
a
CEMS.
See
§
266.104(
a).
All
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
have
elected
to
comply
with
the
100
ppmv
carbon
monoxide
standard.
We
propose
floor
standards
of
100
ppmv
for
carbon
monoxide
or
10
ppmv
for
hydrocarbons
for
the
same
reasons
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
There
would
be
no
incremental
emission
reductions
associated
with
these
floors
because
sources
are
currently
achieving
the
carbon
monoxide
standard..
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
Our
considerations
for
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
existing
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
identical
to
those
discussed
above
for
existing
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
we
conclude
that
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
for
existing
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
not
warranted.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
would
be
the
same
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources­­
100
ppmv
for
carbon
monoxide
and
10
ppmv
for
hydrocarbons­­
and
based
on
the
same
rationale.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
Our
considerations
for
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
new
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
identical
to
those
discussed
above
for
new
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
we
conclude
that
beyond­
the­
floor
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
and
hydrocarbons
for
new
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
not
warranted.
E.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Destruction
and
Removal
Efficiency?
To
control
emissions
of
organic
HAP,
existing
and
new
sources
would
be
required
to
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

211
comply
with
a
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
(
DRE)
of
99.99%
for
organic
HAP.
For
sources
burning
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
the
DRE
standard
is
99.9999%
for
organic
HAP.
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
Existing
Sources?
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
burn
hazardous
waste
are
currently
subject
to
RCRA
DRE
standards
that
require
99.99%
destruction
of
designated
principal
organic
hazardous
constituents
(
POHCs).
For
sources
that
burn
hazardous
wastes
F020,
F021,
F022,
F023,
F026,
or
F027,
however,
the
DRE
standard
is
99.9999%
destruction
of
designated
POHCs.
See
§
266.104(
a).
The
DRE
standard
helps
ensure
that
a
combustor
is
operating
under
good
combustion
practices
and
thus
minimizing
emissions
of
organic
HAP.
Under
the
MACT
compliance
regime,
sources
would
designate
POHCs
that
are
organic
HAPs
or
that
are
surrogates
for
organic
HAPs.
We
propose
to
establish
the
RCRA
DRE
standard
as
the
floor
for
existing
sources
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
There
would
be
no
incremental
emission
reductions
associated
with
this
floor
because
sources
are
currently
complying
with
the
standard.
2.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
We
considered
a
beyond­
the­
floor
level
for
DRE
based
on
use
of
better
combustion
practices
but
conclude
that
it
may
not
be
replicable
by
the
best
performing
sources
nor
duplicable
by
other
sources
given
that
we
cannot
quantify
better
combustion
practices.
Moreover,
we
cannot
ensure
that
a
higher
DRE
standard
would
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
organic
HAP
given
that
DRE
measures
the
destruction
of
organic
HAP
present
in
the
boiler
feed
rather
than
gross
emissions
of
organic
HAP.
Although
a
source's
combustion
practices
may
be
adequate
to
destroy
particular
organic
HAP
in
the
feed,
other
organic
HAP
may
be
emitted
as
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
For
these
reasons,
and
after
considering
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
we
are
not
proposing
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
existing
sources.
3.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
MACT
Floor
for
New
Sources?
We
propose
to
establish
the
RCRA
DRE
standard
as
the
floor
for
new
sources
because
it
is
a
currently
enforceable
Federal
standard.
4.
EPA's
Evaluation
of
Beyond­
the­
Floor
Standards
for
New
Sources
Using
the
same
rationale
as
we
used
to
consider
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
existing
sources,
we
conclude
that
a
beyond­
the­
floor
DRE
standard
for
new
sources
is
not
warranted.
Consequently,
after
considering
nonair
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements,
we
are
proposing
the
floor
DRE
standard
for
new
sources.

XIII.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Proposing
Alternative
Risk­
Based
Standards
for
Hydrogen
Chloride
and
Chlorine
Gas
in
Lieu
of
the
MACT
Standard
for
Total
Chlorine?

[
Discussion
to
be
inserted
after
discussions
with
OAQPS]
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

60
Please
note
that
we
also
propose
to
revise
the
existing
schedule
for
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Under
the
proposed
revised
schedule,
owners
and
operators
of
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
would
be
required
to
conduct
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
to
document
compliance
with
the
replacement
standards
proposed
today
(
§
§
63.1203A,
63.1204A,
and
63.1205A)
within
12
months
of
the
compliance
date.
See
discussion
in
Part
Three,
Section
I.
F.

61
For
this
reason,
in
the
technical
support
documents
for
today's
proposed
rule
we
also
refer
extensively
to
the
technical
support
documents
for
the
Phase
I
rule.

212
XIV.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
Testing
and
Monitoring
Requirements
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
The
CAA
requires
us
to
develop
regulations
that
include
monitoring
and
testing
requirements.
CAA
section
114
(
a)
(
3).
The
purpose
of
these
requirements
is
to
allow
us
to
determine
whether
an
affected
source
is
operating
in
compliance
with
the
rule.
We
propose
testing
and
monitoring
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuelfired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
under
§
§
63.1207,
63.1208,
and
63.120960
Please
note,
however,
that
we
discuss
below
a
proposed
requirement
for
boilers
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
to
conduct
a
one­
time
test
for
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
In
addition,
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble,
we
request
comment
on,
or
propose
revisions
to,
several
compliance
requirements.
Any
amendments
to
the
compliance
requirements
that
we
promulgate
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
In
addition,
we
discuss
below
in
this
section
proposed
compliance
procedures
for
emission
standards
that
would
be
based
on
normal
rather
than
compliance
test
data
and
that
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
subject
to
such
a
standard.
Finally,
we
discuss
below
in
this
section
proposed
compliance
procedures
for
emission
standards
based
on
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
that
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.
The
rationale
for
the
testing
and
monitoring
requirements,
and
implementation
of
the
requirements,
is
the
same
as
discussed
in
the
rulemakings
promulgating
those
requirements
for
hazardous
waste­
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
as
discussed
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble.
See
61
FR
43501
(
August
23,
1996),
62
FR
24212
(
May
2,
1997),
67
FR
6791
(
February
13,
2002),
and
67
FR
6967
(
February
14,
2002).
For
this
reason,
we
only
summarize
those
identical
requirements
and
our
rationale
for
them
in
today's
notice.
61
A.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Testing
Requirements?
The
proposed
rule
requires
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
to
perform
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

62
Those
boilers
that
would
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard
(
i.
e.,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter)
would
be
required
to
conduct
periodic
comprehensive
and
confirmatory
testing.
Other
boilers
would
be
required
to
conduct
a
one­
time
test
for
dioxin/
furan
emissions
under
the
conditions
discussed
below
in
the
text.

63
Because
the
dioxin/
furan
confirmatory
test
is
conducted
under
operating
conditions
that
are
within
the
range
of
normal
operations
rather
than
at
the
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations
as
during
a
comprehensive
performance
test,
you
would
not
reestablish
operating
conditions
for
dioxin/
furan
based
on
the
confirmatory
performance
test.

213
an
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
for
dioxin/
furan62,
mercury,
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
and
total
chloride
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
standards.
Hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
perform
an
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
for
dioxin/
furan
and
total
chloride
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
standards.
All
three
source
categories
are
also
subject
to
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
Compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard,
however,
is
based
on
a
one­
time
emissions
test,
and
previous
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
testing
under
RCRA
requirements
may
be
used
for
that
demonstration
if
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
of
the
source
has
not
changed
in
a
manner
that
could
adversely
affect
combustion
efficiency
and,
thus,
destruction
and
removal
efficiency.
Finally,
all
three
source
categories
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
(
and
at
all
other
times).
The
comprehensive
performance
test
would
be
conducted
every
five
years
to
ensure
that
the
performance
of
the
air
pollution
control
device
has
not
deteriorated
and
that
other
factors
that
may
affect
emissions
have
not
caused
an
increase
in
emissions
above
the
standards.
The
proposed
rule
also
requires
confirmatory
testing
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
standards,
the
test
to
be
conducted
mid­
way
between
comprehensive
performance
tests
when
operating
under
typical
conditions
rather
than
at
performance
test
conditions.
More
frequent
confirmatory
testing
for
dioxin/
furan
is
needed
because
dioxin/
furan
emissions
can
be
affected
by
various
and
interrelated
factors,
some
of
which
are
not
fully
understood,
and
because
of
the
particular
health
hazard
posed
by
emissions
of
dioxin/
furan.
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
emissions
standards,
you
would
be
required
to
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters
susceptible
to
continuous
monitoring.
The
limits
would
be
based
on
operating
values
achieved
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
when
the
source
successfully
demonstrates
compliance.
63
Because
operating
limits
are
calibrated
based
on
operations
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
sources
generally
operate
at
the
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations
during
these
tests.
These
proposed
requirements
are
discussed
below
in
Section
XII.
C.
B.
What
Are
the
Dioxin/
Furan
Testing
Requirements
for
Boilers
that
Would
Not
Be
Subject
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

64
Incinerators
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
are
know
to
emit
high
levels
of
dioxin/
furan,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
can
also
emit
high
levels
of
dioxin/
furan.
Because
the
mechanisms
that
affect
formation
and
control
of
dioxin/
furan
are
complex
and
not
fully
understood,
we
are
concerned
that
some
of
the
factors
that
cause
high
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
incinerators
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
214
to
a
Numerical
Dioxin/
Furan
Emission
Standard?
As
explained
earlier,
we
are
not
proposing
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standards
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
for
those
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
are
equipped
with
wet
scrubbers
or
no
particulate
control
device.
Rather,
those
boilers
would
be
subject
to
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
emission
standard
and
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
to
help
minimize
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
See
discussion
in
Part
Two,
Sections
X.
A
and
XI.
A.
We
propose
that
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
those
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
that
would
not
be
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
emission
standard
conduct
a
one­
time
dioxin/
furan
emission
test
to
quantify
the
effectiveness
of
today's
proposed
surrogate
dioxin/
furan
emission
controls.
This
test
would
be
performed
no
later
than
the
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
required
under
the
proposed
standards.
The
results
of
this
one­
time
test
would
be
reported
with
the
test
results
for
the
first
comprehensive
performance
test.
See
proposed
§
63.1207(
b)(
3).
1.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
Requiring
the
Test?
We
are
adopting
this
provision
pursuant
to
our
authority
in
CAA
Section
114
(
a)(
1)(
D),
which
allows
EPA
to
require
"
any
person
...
who
is
subject
to
any
requirement
of
this
chapter"
(
which
includes
Section
112)
on
a
one­
time,
periodic
or
continuous
basis,
to
"
sample
such
emissions
(
in
accordance
with
such
procedures
or
methods,
at
such
locations,
at
such
intervals,
during
such
periods
and
in
such
manner
as
the
Administrator
shall
prescribe)".
The
purpose
of
such
monitoring
is
"
developing
or
assisting
in
the
development
of"
standards
under
various
provisions
of
the
Act,
including
Section
112.
In
this
case,
monitoring
will
assist
in
making
determinations
under
both
Section
112(
d)(
6)
and
Section
112(
f),
which
could
lead
to
development
of
standards
under
either
or
both
of
these
provisions.
Section
112(
d)(
6)
of
the
Act
requires
us
to
"
review,
and
revise
as
necessary
emission
standards
promulgated
under
this
section
no
less
than
every
eight
years."
We
believe
testing
that
results
from
compliance
with
today's
proposed
standards
will,
in
nearly
all
cases,
establish
an
adequate
database
for
us
to
perform
this
review.
However,
we
would
not
have
sufficient
dioxin/
furan
emissions
data
for
those
boilers
that
are
subject
to
the
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbon
standard
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard
in
lieu
of
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard.
We
have
data
from
approximately
one­
third
of
the
boilers
that
are
not
subject
to
a
numerical
dioxin/
furan
standard.
Although
those
data
indicate
that
these
sources
emit
low
concentrations
of
dioxin/
furan
despite
the
absence
of
any
dioxin/
furan
control
equipment,
we
are
concerned
about
extrapolating
this
performance
to
the
entire
universe
of
the
subject
boilers
because
our
data
set
may
not
be
statistically
random
and
the
potential
hazard
posed
by
dioxin/
furan
is
high.
In
fact,
the
design
of
these
sources
would
seem
to
have
the
potential
for
formation
of
significant
dioxin/
furan
concentrations.
64
We
think
this
proposed
testing
would
add
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

furnaces
equipped
with
waste
heat
recovery
boilers
may
also
affect
dioxin/
furan
emissions
from
boilers.

65
Lee,
C.
W.;
Kilgroe,
J.
D.;
Raghunathan,
K.
Environ.
Eng.
Sci.
1998,
15(
1),
71­
84.

66
Gullett,
B.
K.;
Touati,
A.;
Lee,
C.
W.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
2000,
34,
2069­
2074.

215
a
one­
time
cost
of
approximately
$
10,000
for
each
source
for
which
dioxin/
furan
test
data
are
not
already
available,
and
the
cost
appears
reasonable
to
enable
us
to
meet
our
Section
112(
d)(
6)
and
112(
f)
mandates.
Section
112
(
d)
(
6)
requires
EPA,
at
specified
times,
to
determine
if
further
technology­
based
emission
reductions
are
warranted.
Quantified
dioxin/
furan
emission
information
from
these
sources
will
assist
in
this
determination.
Section
112(
f)
requires
EPA
(
among
other
things)
to
determine
if
emissions
from
all
sources
subject
to
Section
112(
d)
standards
must
be
further
reduced
in
order
to
assure
an
ample
margin
of
safety
to
protect
public
health.
Having
actual
emission
data
from
these
sources
obviously
will
assist
in
making
the
required
Section
112(
f)
determinations
for
these
sources.
2.
What
Are
the
Operating
Requirements
for
the
Test?
You
must
perform
the
dioxin
/
furan
test
under
feed
and
operating
conditions
that
are
most
likely
to
maximize
dioxin/
furan
emissions,
similar
to
a
dioxin/
furan
comprehensive
performance
test.
Based
on
currently
available
research,
the
following
factors
should
be
considered
for
the
testing:
(
1)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
conducted
at
the
point
in
the
maintenance
cycle
for
the
boiler
when
the
boiler
tubes
are
more
fouled
and
soot­
laden,
and
not
after
maintenance
involving
soot
or
ash
removal
from
the
tubes;
(
2)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
performed
following
(
or
during)
a
period
of
feeding
normal
or
greater
quantities
of
metals;
(
3)
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
be
performed
while
feeding
normal
or
greater
quantities
of
chlorine;
(
4)
the
flue
gas
temperature
in
some
portion
of
the
heat
recovery
section
of
the
boiler
should
be
within
the
dioxin
formation
temperature
window
of
750
to
400

F
during
the
testing;
(
5)
the
testing
should
not
be
conducted
under
optimal
combustion
conditions;
(
6)
for
units
equipped
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems,
the
testing
should
be
conducted
after
a
high
solids
loading
has
developed
in
the
scrubber
system;
and
(
7)
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
the
sulfur
content
of
the
coal
should
be
equivalent
to
or
lower
than
normal
coal
sulfur
levels,
and
the
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
electrostatic
precipitator
or
fabric
filter
should
be
close
to
the
operating
limit.
In
addition,
unless
sulfur
compounds
are
routinely
fed
to
the
unit,
dioxin/
furan
testing
should
not
be
performed
after
a
period
of
firing
high
sulfur
fuel
or
injection
of
sulfur
additives.
The
majority
of
these
recommendations
are
based
on
research
demonstrating
that
soot
deposits
can
enhance
dioxin/
furan
formation
in
the
presence
of
chlorine
and
catalytic
metal
contaminants,
with
formation
continuing
even
after
cessation
of
those
contaminant
feeds
to
the
system.
65,66
The
boiler
tube
deposits
serve
as
a
sink
and
source
for
dioxin/
furan
reactants
(
catalytic
metals
and
chlorine),
and
combined
soot­
copper
deposits
have
been
shown
to
cause
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

67
Takaoka,
M.;
Liao,
P.;
Takeda,
N.;
Fujiwara,
T.;
Oshita,
K.
Chemosphere
2003,
53,
153­
161.

68
Please
note
that
we
discuss
in
Section
XIII
of
the
preamble
above
concerns
with
the
accuracy
of
M26/
26A
for
measuring
emissions
of
total
chlorine
for
cement
kilns.
As
we
explain
there,
although
M26/
26A
is
appropriate
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
MACT
216
more
dioxin/
furan
formation
than
a
deposit
of
soot
or
copper
alone.
From
analysis
of
soot
deposits
taken
from
different
sections
of
a
firetube
boiler,
the
highest
measured
dioxin/
furan
concentrations
were
found
in
those
deposits
containing
the
highest
concentrations
of
copper
and
chloride.
Those
same
deposits
were
removed
from
the
boiler
passages
where
flue
gas
temperatures
ranged
from
600­
300

C,
which
is
within
the
often­
cited
optimal
temperature
region
for
dioxin/
furan
formation.
Tube
deposits
have
also
been
shown
to
have
a
negative
effect
on
dioxin
emissions
when
those
deposits
have
been
affected
by
sulfur
dioxide,
which
is
why
dioxin/
furan
testing
is
not
recommended
following
a
period
of
feeding
higher­
than­
normal
levels
of
sulfur
to
the
boiler.
The
recommendation
not
to
test
under
optimal
combustion
conditions
has
been
explained
previously
in
the
September
1999
Final
Rule
preamble
discussion.
See
64
FR
at
52937.
Good
combustion
practices
minimize
dioxin/
furan
emissions
by:
(
1)
destroying
trace
dioxins/
furans
that
may
be
present
in
feed
streams;
(
2)
minimizing
gas­
phase
formation
of
dioxins/
furans;
and
(
3)
minimizing
dioxin/
furan
precursors
that
may
enhance
post­
combustion
formation.
For
units
equipped
with
wet
air
pollution
control
systems,
it
is
also
recommended
that
testing
be
conducted
after
a
high
solids
loading
has
developed
in
the
scrubber
system.
Research
conducted
to
explore
the
phenomenon
of
increased
dioxin/
furan
flue
gas
concentrations
across
some
wet
scrubber
systems
has
shown
differing
flue
gas
outlet
dioxin/
furan
homologue
profiles
than
flue
gas
inlet
profiles
to
the
scrubber,
but
similar
flue
gas
outlet
homologue
profiles
to
scrubber
suspended
solids
and
sludge
profiles.
67
This
result
suggests
that
some
type
of
memory
effect
may
be
associated
with
suspended
solids
in
a
scrubber
system
which
can
cause
higher
dioxin/
furans
emissions.
You
may
use
data­
in­
lieu
of
testing
to
document
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
similar
on­
site
boilers.
In
addition,
dioxin/
furan
emission
data
from
previous
testing
would
be
acceptable,
provided
the
test
was
performed
in
a
manner
likely
to
maximize
dioxin/
furan
emissions.
C.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Test
Methods?
The
proposed
emission
standards
are
method­
based
standards,
meaning
that
the
stack
test
methods
used
for
compliance
must
be
the
same
as
those
used
to
generate
the
emissions
data
we
used
to
calculate
the
standards.
Because
alternative
stack
methods
may
report
lower
emissions,
it
is
appropriate
to
require
use
of
the
same
methods
for
compliance
as
sources
used
to
generate
the
emissions
data
in
our
data
base.
For
this
reason,
you
would
be
required
to
use
the
following
stack
test
methods
for
compliance:
(
1)
Method
29
for
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
and
low
volatile
metals;
and
(
2)
Method
26/
26A
for
total
chlorine.
68
For
dioxin/
furan,
the
rule
would
require
use
of
Method
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

standards
for
cement
kilns,
it
is
not
acceptable
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
risk­
based
standards
developed
under
authority
of
Section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
Act.

69
Method
0023A,
however,
is
included
in
"
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Waste,
Physical/
Chemical
Methods,"
EPA
Publication
sw­
846
Third
Edition
(
November
1986),
as
amended.

70
Except
that
some
parameters
are
limited
based
on
the
recommendations/
specifications
of
the
manufacturer
of
the
control
device.

71
If
you
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
rather
than
the
hydrocarbon
standard,
you
would
be
required
to
document
that
hydrocarbon
emissions
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
meet
the
standard.

217
0023A
unless
you
receive
approval
to
use
Method
23.
We
discuss
the
rationale
for
allowing
sitespecific
approvals
to
use
Method
23
in
Part
Three,
Section
II.
D
of
today's
preamble.
In
addition,
for
particulate
matter,
you
would
be
required
to
use
either
Method
5,
the
method
used
to
generate
the
data
in
our
data
base
or
Method
5i.
We
allow
use
of
Method
5i
because
it
is
more
precise
than
Method
5
at
lower
particulate
matter
loadings.
These
test
methods
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
60,
Appendix
A.
69
D.
What
Is
the
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Continuous
Monitoring
Requirements?
The
most
direct
means
of
ensuring
compliance
with
emissions
limits
is
the
use
of
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS).
We
consider
other
options
when
CEMS
are
not
available
or
when
we
consider
the
impacts
of
including
such
requirements
unreasonable.
When
monitoring
options
other
than
CEMS
are
considered,
it
is
often
necessary
for
us
to
balance
more
reasonable
costs
against
the
quality
or
accuracy
of
the
emissions
monitoring
data.
Although
monitoring
operating
parameters
cannot
provide
a
direct
measurement
of
emissions,
it
is
often
a
suitable
substitute
for
CEMS.
The
information
provided
can
be
used
to
ensure
that
air
pollution
control
equipment
is
operating
properly.
Because
most
parameter
requirements
are
calibrated
during
comprehensive
performance
testing,
70
they
provide
a
reasonable
surrogate
for
direct
monitoring
of
emissions.
This
information
reasonably
assures
the
public
that
the
reductions
envisioned
by
the
proposed
rule
are
being
achieved.
1.
What
CEMS
Requirements
Did
EPA
Consider?
To
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
use
a
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
CEMS
as
well
as
an
oxygen
CEMS
to
correct
the
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbon
values
to
7%
oxygen.
See
§
63.1209(
a).
Because
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
are
currently
required
to
use
these
CEMS
to
comply
with
existing
RCRA
emission
standards
for
carbon
monoxide
or
hydrocarbons,
there
would
be
a
minimal
incremental
compliance
cost.
71
We
also
evaluated
the
cost
of
applying
hydrogen
chloride
CEMS
to
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces.
We
estimate
the
capital
costs
for
hydrogen
chloride
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

218
CEMS
to
be
$
88,000
per
unit
and
annualized
costs
to
be
$
33,000
per
unit.
We
determined
these
costs
would
be
unreasonably
high
considering:
(
1)
the
CEMS
detects
hydrogen
chloride
but
not
chlorine
gas,
so
that
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
could
not
be
monitored;
(
2)
the
effectiveness
of
operating
parameter
limits
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
for
total
chlorine;
and
(
3)
the
relatively
low
level
of
hazard
posed
by
emissions
of
total
chlorine.
Finally,
we
conclude
that
toxic
metals
are
not
directly
measurable
with
CEMS,
and
that
CEMS
for
particulate
matter
have
not
been
demonstrated
in
the
United
States
for
the
purpose
of
determining
compliance.
2.
What
Operating
Parameter
Limits
Would
Be
Required?
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
proposed
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters
and
continuously
monitor
the
parameters
including:
feedrate
of
metals,
chlorine,
and,
for
some
source
categories,
ash;
key
combustor
operating
parameters;
and
key
operating
parameters
of
the
control
device.
See
§
63.1209(
j­
o).
You
would
also
be
required
to
document
monitoring
by
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
We
selected
the
following
requirements
based
on
reasonable
cost,
ease
of
execution,
and
usefulness
of
the
resulting
data
to
both
owners
and
operators
and
EPA
for
ensuring
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
dioxin/
furan
emission
limit,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
maximum
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
a
dry
particulate
matter
control
device;
(
2)
a
limit
on
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature;
(
3)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
(
4)
a
limit
on
maximum
waste
feedrate;
(
5)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
injection
system:
limits
on
the
particulate
matter
control
device,
as
discussed
below;
a
limit
on
minimum
carbon
injection
rate;
a
limit
on
minimum
carrier
fluid
flowrate
or
pressure
drop;
and
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
carbon
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
adsorption
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
carbon
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test;
(
6)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
carbon
bed:
you
must
monitor
the
bed
life
to
ensure
that
it
has
not
reached
the
end
of
its
useful
life
to
minimize
dioxin/
furan
(
and
mercury)
emissions
at
least
to
the
levels
required
by
the
emission
standards;
you
must
replace
the
bed
or
bed
segment
before
it
has
reached
the
end
of
its
useful
life;
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
carbon
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
adsorption
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
carbon
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test;
and
you
must
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
gas
temperature
either
at
the
bed
inlet
or
outlet;
(
7)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
catalytic
oxidizer:
limits
on
minimum
and
maximum
gas
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
catalyst;
you
must
replace
the
oxidizer
when
it
has
reached
the
maximum
service
time
specified
by
the
manufacturer;
and
when
replacing
the
catalyst,
the
new
catalyst
must
be
equivalent
to
or
better
than
the
one
used
during
the
previous
comprehensive
performance
test
as
measured
by
catalytic
metal
loading
for
each
metal,
space
time,
and
substrate
construction;
(
8)
if
you
feed
a
dioxin/
furan
inhibitor
into
the
combustion
system:
a
limit
on
minimum
inhibitor
feedrate;
and
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

72
This
is
because
the
mercury
emission
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.
Liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
the
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste
feeds
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.

73
The
mercury
feedrate
limit
would
be
based
on
levels
fed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
unless
the
regulatory
authority
approves
a
request
for
you
to
extrapolate
to
a
higher
allowable
feedrate
(
and
emission
rate)
limit.

219
manufacturer)
and
type
of
inhibitor
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
the
effectiveness
of
the
inhibitor
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
inhibitor
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
See
§
63.1209(
k).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
limit,
owners
and
operators
of
boilers
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
the
total
feedrate
of
mercury
in
all
feedstreams
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
a
limit
on
mercury
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fired
for
liquid­
fuel­
fired
boilers;
72,73
(
2)
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber,
limits
prescribed
for
control
of
total
chlorine
with
a
wet
scrubber,
except
for
a
limit
on
minimum
pH
of
the
scrubber
water;
(
3)
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
injection
system,
limits
on
the
particulate
matter
control
device
as
discussed
below,
and
limits
on
the
activated
carbon
injection
system
as
discussed
above
for
dioxin/
furan;
and
(
4)
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
activated
carbon
bed,
limits
on
the
carbon
bed
as
discussed
above
for
dioxin/
furan.
You
may
comply
with
mercury
feedrate
limits
only,
however,
if
you
elect
to
assume
that
all
mercury
in
the
feed
is
emitted.
For
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
would
assume
that
all
mercury
in
all
feedstreams
is
emitted
under
this
alternative
approach.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
the
mercury
emission
standard
is
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
you
would
assume
that
all
mercury
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
is
emitted.
Under
this
alternative
compliance
approach,
you
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
mercury
emission
standard.
Also,
please
note
that
these
compliance
requirements
would
not
apply
to
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
,
because
(
as
explained
earlier)
we
propose
to
use
the
total
chlorine
standard
as
a
surrogate
for
the
mercury,
particulate
matter,
semivolatile
metal,
and
low
volatile
metal
standards
for
these
sources.
See
§
63.1209(
l).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
emission
limit,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
limits
on
the
control
device
operating
parameters;
(
2)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
and
a
limit
on
maximum
ash
feedrate.
If
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
wet
scrubber,
you
would
establish
limits
on:
(
1)
for
high
energy
scrubbers
only,
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
either
minimum
liquid
to
gas
ratio
or
minimum
scrubber
water
flowrate
and
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate;
and
(
2)
for
all
scrubbers,
the
solids
content
of
the
scrubber
liquid
or
a
minimum
blowdown
rate.
If
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator,
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
or
fabric
filter,
please
note
that
we
discuss
in
Part
Three,
Section
II.
I.
below
proposed
compliance
parameters
for
these
control
devices.
Briefly,
if
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
a
fabric
filter,
you
must
comply
with
bag
leak
detection
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

74
This
is
because
the
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standards
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentrations.
You
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
the
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.

75
The
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits
would
be
based
on
levels
fed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
unless
the
regulatory
authority
approves
a
request
for
you
to
extrapolate
to
higher
allowable
feedrate
(
and
emission
rate)
limits.
Please
note
that
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feed
limits
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
are
hazardous
waste
thermal
concentration
limits
(
pounds
of
metal
per
million
Btu),
not
mass
feedrate
limits,
given
that
the
emission
standards
are
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions.

220
system
requirements.
If
your
boiler
is
equipped
with
an
electrostatic
precipitator
or
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
you
must
either:
(
1)
install
and
operate
a
particulate
matter
loading
detector
as
a
process
monitor
to
indicate
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures;
or
(
2)
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters,
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
that
are
representative
and
reliable
indicators
that
the
control
device
is
operating
within
the
same
range
of
conditions
as
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
and
link
those
operating
limits
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
Please
note
that
the
particulate
matter
compliance
requirements
would
not
apply
to
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
as
discussed
above.
See
§
63.1209(
m).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
limits,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
the
maximum
inlet
temperature
to
the
primary
dry
particulate
matter
control
device;
(
2)
a
limit
on
maximum
feedrate
of
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
from
all
feedstreams
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
a
limit
on
semivolatile
metals
and
low
volatile
metals
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fired
for
liquid­
fuel­
fired
boilers;
74,75;
(
3)
limits
(
or
process
monitors)
on
the
particulate
matter
control
device
as
discussed
above;
(
4)
a
limit
on
maximum
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
or
chloride
in
all
feedstreams;
and
(
5)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate.
You
may
comply
with
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
feedrate
limits
only,
however,
if
you
elect
to
assume
that
all
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
the
feed
is
emitted.
For
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
would
assume
that
all
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
all
feedstreams
are
emitted
under
this
alternative
approach.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
emission
standards
are
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
you
would
assume
that
all
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metals
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
are
emitted.
Under
this
alternative
compliance
approach,
you
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
semivolatile
and
low
volatile
metal
emission
standards.
Also,
please
note
that
the
semivolatile
metal
and
low
volatile
metal
compliance
requirements
would
not
apply
to
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces,
as
discussed
above.
See
§
63.1209(
n).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
emission
limit,
you
would
be
required
to
establish:
(
1)
a
limit
on
maximum
feedrate
of
total
chlorine
and
chloride
from
all
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

76
This
is
because
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
is
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
concentration.
You
would
also
be
required
to
monitor
the
heating
value
of
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standard.

221
feedstreams
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
a
limit
on
total
chlorine
and
chloride
in
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fired
for
liquid­
fuel­
fired
boilers;
76
(
2)
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
(
3)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
high
or
low
energy
wet
scrubber:
a
limit
on
minimum
pH
of
the
scrubber
water;
a
limit
on
either
the
minimum
liquid
to
gas
ratio
or
the
minimum
scrubber
water
flowrate
and
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate;
(
4)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
high
energy
wet
scrubber,
a
limit
on
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber;
(
5)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
low
energy
wet
scrubber:
a
limit
on
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber;
and
a
limit
on
minimum
liquid
feed
pressure
to
the
scrubber;
and
(
6)
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
a
dry
scrubber:
a
limit
on
minimum
sorbent
feedrate;
a
limit
on
minimum
carrier
fluid
flowrate
or
nozzle
pressure
drop;
and
you
must
specify
and
use
the
brand
(
i.
e.,
manufacturer)
and
type
of
sorbent
used
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
unless
you
document
key
parameters
that
affect
the
effectiveness
of
the
sorbent
and
establish
limits
on
those
parameters
based
on
the
sorbent
used
in
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
If
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
please
note
that
we
discuss
in
Part
Three,
Section
II.
I.
below
proposed
compliance
parameters
for
this
control
device.
Briefly,
if
your
combustor
is
equipped
with
an
ionizing
wet
scrubber,
you
must
either:
(
1)
install
and
operate
a
particulate
matter
loading
detector
as
a
process
monitor
to
indicate
when
you
must
take
corrective
measures;
or
(
2)
establish
limits
on
key
operating
parameters,
on
a
site­
specific
basis,
that
are
representative
and
reliable
indicators
that
the
control
device
is
operating
within
the
same
range
of
conditions
as
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
and
link
those
operating
limits
to
the
automatic
waste
feed
cutoff
system.
You
may
comply
with
a
total
chlorine
and
chloride
feedrate
limit
only,
however,
if
you
elect
to
assume
that
all
chlorine
in
the
feed
is
emitted.
For
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
you
would
assume
that
all
chlorine
in
all
feedstreams
is
emitted
under
this
alternative
approach.
For
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
where
the
total
chlorine
emission
standard
is
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions,
you
would
assume
that
all
chlorine
in
all
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
is
emitted.
Under
this
alternative
compliance
approach,
you
would
also
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
flue
gas
flowrate
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
total
chlorine
standard.
See
§
63.1209(
o).
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard,
you
would
be
required
to:
(
1)
establish
a
limit
on
minimum
combustion
chamber
temperature;
(
2)
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
flue
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate;
(
3)
establish
a
limit
on
maximum
hazardous
waste
feedrate;
and
(
4)
specify
operating
parameters
and
limits
to
ensure
that
good
operation
of
each
hazardous
waste
firing
system
is
maintained.
See
§
63.1209(
j).
E.
What
Are
the
Averaging
Periods
for
the
Operating
Parameter
Limits,
and
How
Are
Performance
Test
Data
Averaged
to
Calculate
the
Limits?
Except
as
discussed
in
Section
XIV.
F
below,
we
propose
that
owners
and
operators
of
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

77
Please
note,
however,
that
we
request
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
these
combustion
system
leak
requirements
in
Part
Three
of
today's
preamble.

78
Manual
method
emission
test
results
for
each
run
represent
average
emissions
over
the
entire
run.

222
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
establish
averaging
periods
for
the
operating
parameter
limits
and
calculate
the
limits
from
comprehensive
performance
test
data
under
the
same
approaches
required
currently
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
A
detailed
discussion
of
how
those
approaches
work,
and
the
rationale
for
them,
are
provided
at
64
FR
at
52919­
22
(
September
30,
1999).
That
discussion
is
summarized
below.
We
propose
the
following
averaging
periods:
(
1)
no
averaging
period
(
i.
e.,
instantaneous
monitoring)
for
maximum
combustion
chamber
pressure
to
control
combustion
system
leaks77;
(
2)
12­
hour
rolling
averages
for
maximum
feedrate
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
total
chlorine
and
chloride,
and
ash;
and
(
3)
one­
hour
rolling
averages
for
all
other
operating
parameters.
We
propose
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
for
metal,
total
chlorine
and
chloride,
and
ash
feedrate
limits
to
correspond
to
the
potential
duration
of
three
runs
of
a
comprehensive
performance
test,
considering
that
feedrate
and
emissions,
are,
for
the
most
part,
linearly
related.
We
propose
an
hourly
rolling
average
limit
for
all
parameters
that
are
based
on
operating
data
from
the
comprehensive
performance
test,
except
combustion
chamber
pressure
and
metal,
chlorine,
and
ash
feedrate
limits.
Hourly
rolling
averages
are
appropriate
for
these
parameters
rather
than
averaging
periods
based
on
the
duration
of
the
performance
test
because
we
are
concerned
that
there
may
be
a
nonlinear
relationship
between
operating
parameter
levels
and
emission
levels
of
HAP
or
HAP
surrogates.
We
propose
two
approaches
to
calculate
limits
for
operating
parameters:
(
1)
calculate
the
limit
as
the
average
of
the
maximum
(
or
minimum,
as
specified)
rolling
averages
for
each
run
of
the
test;
or
(
2)
calculate
the
limit
as
the
average
of
the
test
run
averages
for
each
run
of
the
test.
Hourly
rolling
averages
for
two
parameters­­
combustion
gas
flowrate
or
production
rate
and
hazardous
waste
feedrate­­
would
be
based
on
the
average
of
the
maximum
hourly
rolling
averages
for
each
run.
Hourly
rolling
average
and
12­
hour
rolling
average
limits
for
all
other
parameters,
however,
would
be
based
on
the
average
level
occurring
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
We
conclude
that
this
more
conservative
approach
is
appropriate
for
these
parameters
because
they
can
have
a
greater
effect
on
emissions,
and
because
it
is
consistent
with
how
manual
emissions
results
are
determined.
78
We
also
conclude
that
limits
based
on
the
average
level
occurring
during
the
comprehensive
performance
are
readily
achievable.
This
is
because
sources
generally
conduct
performance
testing
at
the
extreme
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
operations
to
provide
the
operating
flexibility
needed
after
establishing
operating
parameter
limits.
Because
sources
can
readily
control
(
during
the
performance
test
and
thereafter)
the
parameters
for
which
limits
are
established,
the
operating
limits
based
on
the
average
of
the
performance
test
runs
should
be
readily
achievable
under
routine
operations.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

79
These
are
maximum
emissions
because
operating
parameter
limits
for
the
HAP
or
HAP
surrogate
are
established
based
on
this
compliance
test.

223
F.
How
Would
Sources
Comply
with
Emissions
Standards
Based
on
Normal
Emissions?
Several
proposed
emission
standards
would
be
based
on
emissions
that
are
within
the
normal
range
of
operations
for
the
source
rather
than
on
compliance
test
emissions
that
represent
the
extreme
upper
end
of
the
range
of
normal
emissions:
79
mercury
standards
for
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
semivolatile
metal
emissions
for
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers.
To
ensure
compliance
with
emission
standards
based
on
normal
emissions
data,
you
would
document
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
a
system
removal
efficiency
for
the
metals
and
back­
calculate
from
the
emission
standard
a
maximum
metal
feedrate
limit
that
must
not
be
exceeded
on
an
annual
rolling
average.
If
your
source
is
not
equipped
with
an
emission
control
system
(
such
as
activated
carbon
to
control
mercury)
for
the
metals
in
question,
however,
you
must
assume
zero
system
removal
efficiency.
This
is
because
a
source
that
is
not
equipped
with
an
emission
control
system
may
be
able
to
document
a
positive
system
removal
efficiency,
but
it
is
not
likely
to
be
reproducible.
It
is
likely
to
be
an
artifact
of
the
calculation
of
emissions
and
feeds
rather
than
a
removal
efficiency
that
is
reliable
and
reproducible.
To
ensure
that
you
can
calculate
a
valid,
reproducible
system
removal
efficiency
for
sources
equipped
with
a
control
system
that
effectively
controls
the
metal
in
question,
you
may
need
to
spike
metals
in
the
feed
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test
at
levels
that
may
result
in
emissions
that
are
higher
than
the
standard.
This
would
be
acceptable
because
compliance
with
an
emission
standard
derived
from
normal
emissions
data
is
based
on
compliance
with
an
annual
average
feedrate
limit
calculated
as
prescribed
here,
rather
than
compliance
with
the
emission
standard
during
the
comprehensive
performance
test.
We
propose
a
one­
year
averaging
period
for
the
metal
feedrate
limit
because
the
emission
standard
represents
normal,
average
emissions.
Although
the
averaging
period
could
be
substantially
shorter
or
longer,
a
one­
year
averaging
period
is
within
the
range
of
reasonable
averaging
periods
and
would
be
readily
achievable
for
a
standard
based
on
normal
emissions.
The
annual
rolling
average
metal
feedrate
would
be
updated
each
hour
based
on
the
average
of
the
60
previous
1­
minute
averages.
We
propose
to
retain
the
hourly
rolling
average
requirement
for
the
other
operating
parameter
limits,
however,
for
the
reasons
discussed
above
(
i.
e.,
to
be
conservative
given
the
nonlinear
relationship
between
the
operating
parameter
and
emissions,
and
because
the
limits
would
be
readily
achievable).
G.
How
Would
Sources
Comply
with
Emission
Standards
Expressed
as
Hazardous
Waste
Thermal
Emissions?
Several
proposed
emission
standards
would
be
expressed
as
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions:
mass
of
pollutant
emissions
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste
feed
per
million
Btu
of
hazardous
waste
fed
to
the
combustor.
To
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions­
based
standard
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

80
If
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emission
standard
is
derived
from
normal
rather
than
compliance
test
emissions
data,
however,
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
would
be
calculated
as
discussed
above
in
Section
F
of
the
preamble.

224
during
a
comprehensive
performance
test,
you
would
calculate
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions
by
apportioning
mass
emissions
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
according
to
the
ratio
of
the
mass
feedrate
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
and
chloride
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
to
the
feedrate
for
all
feedstreams
and
dividing
by
the
heat
input
rate
(
i.
e.,
million
Btu/
hr)
attributable
to
the
hazardous
waste.
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
emissions­
based
standard,
you
would
calculate
an
operating
limit
based
on
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
during
the
performance
test.
80
The
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
limit
would
be
calculated
as
the
mass
feedrate
(
lb/
hr)
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
and
chloride
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams
divided
by
the
heat
input
rate
(
million
Btu/
hr)
from
hazardous
waste
feedstreams.
For
compliance,
you
would
continuously
monitor
the
feedrate
of
hazardous
waste
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average
updated
each
minute
or,
for
standards
based
on
normal
emissions,
on
a
annual
rolling
average
updated
each
hour.
You
must
know
the
concentration
of
mercury,
semivolatile
metals,
low
volatile
metals,
or
total
chlorine
and
chloride
in
the
hazardous
waste
at
all
times,
and
the
heating
value
of
the
hazardous
waste
at
all
times.
Using
this
information,
you
would
calculate
and
record
the
hazardous
waste
thermal
feed
concentration
on
a
12­
hour
rolling
average,
or
for
standards
based
on
normal
emissions,
on
a
annual
rolling
average
updated
each
hour.
H.
What
Are
the
Other
Proposed
Compliance
Requirements?
We
propose
other
compliance
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
the
same
as
those
currently
in
place
at
§
63.1206
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
The
rationale
for
the
requirements
is
the
same
as
discussed
in
previous
rulemakings
for
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
and
compliance
procedures
would
be
the
same
as
currently
required
for
those
sources.
The
other
compliance
requirements
include
provisions
for:
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans;
operation
and
maintenance
plans
including
a
requirement
for
bag
leak
detector
systems
for
fabric
filters;
automatic
hazardous
waste
feed
cutoff
systems,
including
a
requirement
for
exceedance
reporting;
combustion
system
leak
requirements;
changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
that
could
adversely
affect
compliance
with
emission
standards;
operator
training
and
certification
requirements;
and
requirements
for
sources
that
elect
to
comply
with
the
carbon
monoxide
standard
to
document
one­
time
that
hydrocarbons
also
meet
the
hydrocarbon
standard;
and
provisions
allowing
a
one­
time
demonstration
of
compliance
with
the
destruction
and
removal
efficiency
standard.
Please
note
that
we
propose
revisions
to,
or
request
comment
on,
some
of
these
compliance
requirements
in
Part
Three
of
the
preamble.
Any
revisions
to
these
requirements
that
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

81
Please
note
that
a
new
or
reconstructed
unit
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
Interim
Standards
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns
is
a
unit
that
began
operation
after
September
30,
1999.

225
we
might
make
in
the
final
rule
would
be
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors.

XV.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
Compliance
Times
for
this
Proposed
Rule?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
specifies
the
dates
by
which
affected
sources
must
comply
with
the
emission
standards.
New
or
reconstructed
units
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
immediately
upon
startup
or
[
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
whichever
is
later.
A
new
or
reconstructed
unit
for
purposes
of
complying
with
this
proposed
rule
is
one
that
begins
construction
after
[
DATE
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
81
Existing
sources
are
allowed
up
to
three
years
to
comply
with
the
final
rule.
See
proposed
§
63.1206(
a)(
1)(
ii)
and
(
a)(
2).
This
is
the
maximum
period
allowed
by
the
CAA.
We
believe
that
three
years
for
compliance
is
necessary
to
allow
adequate
time
to
design,
install,
and
test
control
systems
that
will
be
retrofitted
onto
existing
units.

XVI.
How
Did
EPA
Determine
the
Required
Records
and
Reports
for
the
Proposed
Rule?
We
propose
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
that
are
identical
to
those
already
in
place
at
§
§
63.1210
and
63.1211
and
applicable
to
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
and
lightweight
aggregate
kilns.
Please
note,
however,
that
we
are
proposing
a
new
requirement
applicable
to
all
hazardous
waste
combustors
that
would
require
you
to
submit
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
a
Compliance
Progress
Report.
A.
Summary
of
Requirements
Currently
Applicable
to
Incinerators,
Cement
Kilns,
and
Lightweight
Aggregate
Kilns
and
that
Would
Be
Applicable
to
Boilers
and
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Furnaces
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
notifications
to
the
Administrator
in
addition
to
those
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63:
(
1)
notification
of
changes
in
design,
operation,
or
maintenance
(
§
63.1206(
b)(
5)(
i));
(
2)
notification
of
performance
test
and
continuous
monitoring
system
evaluation,
including
the
performance
test
plan
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
evaluation
plan
(
§
§
63.1207(
e));
and
(
3)
notification
of
compliance,
including
results
of
performance
tests
and
continuous
monitoring
system
evaluations
(
§
§
63.1210(
b),
63.1207(
j);
63.1207(
k),
and
63.1207(
l)).
You
would
also
be
required
to
submit
notifications
to
the
Administrator
if
you
request
or
elect
to
comply
with
various
alternative
requirements.
Those
notifications
are
listed
at
§
63.1210(
a)(
2).
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
submit
the
following
reports
to
the
Administrator
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

226
in
addition
to
those
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
Subpart
A
of
40
CFR
Part
63:
(
1)
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
(
if
electing
to
comply
with
§
63.1206(
c)(
2)(
ii)(
B));
(
2)
excessive
exceedances
report
(
§
63.1206(
c)(
3)(
vi));
and
(
3)
emergency
safety
vent
opening
reports
(
§
63.1206(
c)(
4)(
iv)).
Owners
and
operators
of
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
would
be
required
to
keep
records
documenting
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
Subpart
EEE.
Recordkeeping
requirements
are
prescribed
in
§
63.1211(
b),
and
include
requirements
under
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
Part
63.
B.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
and
Compliance
Progress
Report
Requirements?
1.
What
Is
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply?
In
the
June
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782),
we
required
that
sources
subject
to
the
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
standards
complete
a
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
no
later
than
October
2,
2000
and
conduct
a
NIC
public
meeting
no
later
than
July
31,
2000.
The
NIC
and
its
associated
public
meeting
served
four
primary
purposes
during
the
early
implementation
and
compliance
phases
of
the
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
requirements
which
we
believe
were
of
benefit
to
regulators,
sources
and
the
public
alike.
First,
the
NIC
served
as
a
compliance
planning
tool
for
Phase
I
sources
because
it
required
you
to
develop
an
outline
of
the
key
activities
that
needed
to
be
completed
in
order
to
meet
the
Subpart
EEE
standards
by
the
compliance
date.
It
also
required
that
you
include
the
estimated
dates
for
each
of
those
key
activities.
Because
the
NIC
was
required
to
be
completed
within
the
first
year
of
implementing
the
Phase
I
requirements,
it
also
may
have
had
the
added
and
important
benefit
of
encouraging
sources
to
reduce
their
HAP
emissions
early.
By
focusing
a
source's
attention
on
the
means
by
which
it
would
achieve
compliance
well
before
the
actual
compliance
date,
the
NIC
may
have
prompted
some
sources
to
upgrade
their
combustion
design
and
operations
earlier,
thereby
yielding
an
early
reduction
in
HAP
emissions.
The
NIC
also
may
have
prompted
earlier
waste
minimization
efforts
for
the
same
reason.
Second,
the
NIC
also
served
as
a
planning
tool
for
regulatory
authorities.
Based
on
the
information
provided
in
the
NIC,
regulators
could
determine
what
activities
were
likely
to
occur
and
when
over
the
course
of
the
three­
year
compliance
period.
For
example,
they
could
estimate
how
many
sources
needed
to
modify
their
combustion
units
and
existing
RCRA
permits
prior
to
performance
testing,
how
many
sources
intended
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste,
and
how
many
sources
intended
to
apply
for
the
comparable
fuels
exclusion.
Using
this
information,
regulators
could
plan
how
to
most
efficiently
allocate
their
resources
in
response
to
the
forthcoming
compliance
activities
of
the
sources.
Third,
the
NIC
promoted
early
public
involvement
by
fostering
an
open
dialogue
between
sources
and
the
public
regarding
compliance
strategies
for
meeting
the
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
standards.
Experience
has
shown
that
members
of
the
public
are
interested
in
being
kept
adequately
informed
of
and
having
input
into
the
compliance
and
permitting
activities
of
hazardous
waste
combustion
facilities.
The
NIC
and
its
associated
public
meeting
provided
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
share
their
views,
thereby
allowing
the
source
to
develop
a
final
compliance
strategy
that
met
the
goals
of
both
the
source
and
the
surrounding
community.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

82
Under
the
Early
Cessation
provision,
we
required
sources
that
did
not
intend
to
comply
with
the
Phase
I
standards
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
within
two
years
of
the
effective
date
of
the
Phase
I
rule.
Under
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
provision,
we
required
sources
to
report
to
their
regulatory
agencies
the
status
of
their
progress
toward
compliance
with
the
standards.

227
Fourth,
the
public
involvement
aspect
of
the
NIC
also
offset
any
public
participation
opportunities
that
may
have
been
"
lost"
if
sources
chose
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
process.
Many
Phase
I
sources
had
to
modify
their
combustion
systems'
design
and/
or
operations
in
order
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards.
Sources
that
were
already
operating
under
RCRA
combustion
permits
needed
to
first
modify
those
permits
before
initiating
any
MACT
compliance
related
changes.
Normally,
a
Class
2
or
3
modification
would
be
necessary
to
incorporate
into
a
RCRA
permit
the
types
of
changes
we
expected
would
be
necessary
for
sources
complying
with
Phase
I
standards.
Given
that
Class
2
and
3
modifications
could
have
consumed
a
year
or
more
of
a
source's
three­
year
Subpart
EEE
compliance
period,
we
developed
a
streamlined
permit
modification
process
solely
for
the
purpose
of
implementing
Subpart
EEE
upgrades.
Under
the
streamlined
process,
you
could
request
a
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
to
address
and
incorporate
any
necessary
MACT
upgrades
into
your
RCRA
permit.
To
be
eligible
to
use
the
streamlined
permit
modification,
however,
you
first
must
have
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements,
including
those
related
to
public
involvement.
2.
What
Happened
to
the
NIC
Provisions?
We
promulgated
the
NIC
on
June
19,
1998
(
63
FR
33782)
along
with
several
other
requirements
related
to
the
Phase
I
NESHAP.
On
May
14,
2001,
we
removed
the
NIC
and
two
other
provisions
from
the
federal
regulations
in
response
to
a
court
mandate
to
vacate.
See
66
FR
24270.
In
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ass'n
v
EPA,
217
F.
3d
861
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000),
the
court
vacated
three
provisions
of
the
Phase
I
rule:
the
Early
Cessation
requirement,
the
NIC
and
the
Compliance
Progress
Report.
82
While
the
panel
majority
held
that
we
possessed
the
legal
authority
to
impose
an
Early
Cessation
requirement,
the
panel
also
held
that
we
had
claimed
the
authority
to
do
so
without
making
a
showing
of
a
health
and
environmental
benefit
(
such
as
reduced
HAP
emissions
or
less
hazardous
waste
generated)
and
that
this
was
an
impermissible
statutory
interpretation.
See
217
F.
3d
at
865­
67.
The
panel
majority
further
held
that
because
it
could
not
determine
whether
we
would
have
promulgated
the
NIC
and
Progress
Report
requirements
absent
the
Early
Cessation
provision,
both
the
NIC
and
Progress
Report
requirements
should
be
vacated
as
well.
However,
the
panel
did
agree
to
issue
a
stay
of
its
mandate
for
a
long
enough
period
of
time
to
allow
sources
to
submit
their
NICs
so
that
they
would
be
eligible
for
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification.
As
discussed
above,
the
NIC
was
intended
to
serve
as
a
compliance
planning
and
communication
tool.
We
did
not
intend
the
NIC
to
serve
as
the
basis
for
requiring
a
source
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste.
However,
as
a
planning
and
communication
tool
we
expected
sources
that
did
not
intend
to
comply
with
the
standards
to
state
this
in
their
NIC
and
include
a
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

83
If
a
major
title
V
source
has
a
remaining
permit
term
of
three
or
more
years
on
the
date
the
Replacement
standards
are
promulgated,
the
title
V
permitting
authority
must
complete
a
reopening
of
the
source's
title
V
permit
to
incorporate
the
requirements
of
these
standards
not
later
than
18
months
after
promulgation.
Major
sources
having
remaining
permit
terms
of
less
than
three
years
on
the
date
the
Replacement
standards
are
promulgated
may
wait
until
permit
renewal
to
incorporate
the
new
standards.
Area
sources
with
title
V
permits
likewise
may
wait
228
schedule
of
activities
that
the
source
would
need
to
complete
in
order
to
stop
burning
hazardous
waste
within
the
two­
year
Early
Cessation
time
frame.
We
believe
that
the
court
recognized
this
interpretation
as
our
original
intent
in
their
agreement
to
stay
their
issuance
of
the
mandate
until
after
sources
had
submitted
their
final
NICs
on
October
1,
2000.
By
allowing
the
Phase
I
sources
to
complete
the
NIC
process,
the
court
provided
sources
with
the
opportunity
to
effectively
plan
their
compliance
strategies
and
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification.
It
also
provided
the
public
with
the
opportunity
for
a
level
of
participation
that
they
may
not
have
had
otherwise.
3.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Re­
Institute
the
NIC
for
Phase
I
Sources?
As
stated
above,
we
believe
that
the
NIC
was
a
valuable
planning
and
communication
tool
for
sources,
regulators,
and
the
public
during
the
early
implementation
and
compliance
stages
of
the
1999
Phase
I
Subpart
EEE
requirements.
The
NIC
also
provided
an
additional
benefit
to
sources
upgrading
their
combustion
systems
by
compensating
for
any
"
lost"
public
participation
opportunities
when
using
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
process.
As
discussed
in
Part
One,
I.
B
and
D,
we
are
proposing
in
today's
notice
to
supplant
the
existing
Phase
I
standards
with
final
Replacement
standards.
We
anticipate
that
a
significant
number
of
Phase
I
sources
may
need
to
conduct
additional
upgrades,
or
in
some
cases
upgrade
for
the
first
time,
to
comply
with
the
Replacements
standards.
See
§
§
63.1203A,
63.1204A,
and
63.1205A.
Reinstituting
the
NIC
for
these
sources
could
provide
the
same
planning
and
communication
benefits
during
the
initial
Replacement
standards
compliance
period
that
it
did
for
the
original
Phase
I
standards.
Specifically,
we
expect
that
by
focusing
attention
early
on
the
necessary
tasks
and
strategies
for
achieving
compliance,
Phase
I
sources
will
be
in
a
better
position
to
meet
the
Replacement
standards
by
the
compliance
date.
Regulators
will
gain
insight
from
the
information
provided
in
the
NIC
to
effectively
allocate
their
resources
to
accommodate
future
regulatory
activities.
And,
the
NIC
will
provide
the
public
with
the
opportunity
and
mechanism
to
keep
abreast
of
any
significant
changes
an
existing
source
might
need
to
make
as
a
result
of
the
Replacement
standards.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
same
planning
and
communication
opportunities
gained
from
completing
the
NIC
process
are
available
from
other
portions
of
the
air
regulatory
program.
For
example,
although
the
public
will
be
notified
of
a
source's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
Replacement
standards
during
the
reopening
or
renewal
of
the
source's
title
V,
this
notification,
in
most
cases,
will
not
occur
as
early
in
the
three­
year
Subpart
EEE
compliance
period,
nor
is
it
likely
to
include
the
specific
information
regarding
the
source's
compliance
strategy.
83
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

until
permit
renewal.
Permitting
authorities
must
follow
the
same
public
notice
procedures
for
title
V
permit
reopenings
and
renewals
as
is
required
for
initial
permit
issuance
under
title
V,
including
providing
public
notice
of
the
action,
providing
a
public
comment
period
of
at
least
30
days,
and
providing
an
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing.
See
40
CFR
§
§
70.7
and
71.7.

84
Once
a
source
conducts
its
CPT
and
submits
an
Notification
of
compliance
documenting
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
standards,
the
source
may
request
that
its
RCRA
permit
be
modified
to
remove
any
duplicative
limits
or
conditions.
Only
those
risk­
based
provisions
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
MACT
requirements
as
specified
in
the
Notification
of
compliance
or
that
address
other
emission
hazards
will
remain
in
the
RCRA
permit.
We
expect
that
many
sources
will
document
compliance
with
the
Phase
I
Interim
standards
between
2003
and
2004
and
will
request
the
removal
of
any
duplicative,
less
stringent
provisions
from
their
RCRA
permits
shortly
thereafter.

229
In
addition,
while
we
believe
that
there
will
be
fewer
Phase
I
sources
in
the
position
of
having
RCRA
combustion
permit
conditions
after
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
Interim
standards,
for
those
that
do
and
wish
to
use
the
streamlined
permit
modification
process
to
allow
any
necessary
Replacement
standards
upgrades,
a
second
NIC
would
provide
the
same
public
participation
benefits
as
did
the
first
NIC.
84
40
CFR
270.42(
j)
currently
allows
a
source
to
use
the
RCRA
streamlined
modification
process
provided
that
the
source
first
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements
that
were
in
place
prior
to
October
11,
2000.
Since
many
sources
complied
with
those
NIC
requirements
in
1999
and
2000,
the
existing
regulatory
language
would
allow
those
same
sources
to
further
modify
their
RCRA
permits
for
Replacement
standards
upgrades.
The
regulatory
language
does
not
make
any
distinction
regarding
when
the
upgrades
are
to
take
place
in
relation
to
when
the
NIC
requirements
were
to
have
been
fulfilled.
We
do
not
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
for
a
source
to
rely
on
previous
informational
and
public
participation
activities
carried
out
to
comply
with
the
earlier
NIC
requirements
and
emission
standards
to
address
upgrades
occurring
years
later
in
response
to
a
different
set
of
standards
any
more
than
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
the
public
participation
activities
of
a
previous
RCRA
modification
to
suffice
for
a
later
modification.
By
requiring
sources
that
choose
to
use
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
process
for
Replacement
standards
upgrades
to
first
complete
a
NIC,
including
its
associated
public
meeting,
that
specifically
addresses
those
Replacement
standards
upgrades,
the
community
will
be
kept
better
informed
of
additional
changes
to
the
combustion
system
and
the
impact
on
the
RCRA
permit.
4.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Require
the
NIC
for
Phase
II
Sources?
We
believe
that
the
NIC
would
provide
the
same
benefits
with
respect
to
communication
and
compliance
strategy
planning
for
the
Phase
II
sources
that
it
has
for
Phase
I
sources.
In
addition,
without
completing
the
NIC
process,
Phase
II
sources
will
not
be
eligible
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
when
upgrading
their
combustion
systems.
We
are
proposing
that
Phase
II
sources
comply
with
the
same
NIC
requirements
as
their
Phase
I
counterparts.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

230
5.
How
Will
the
NIC
Process
Work?
We
are
proposing
to
apply
a
similar
NIC
process
to
that
which
we
promulgated
in
the
June
19,
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782).
The
following
is
a
general
description
of
that
process.
Within
nine
months
of
the
promulgation
of
the
final
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards,
you
would
develop
and
make
publically
available
a
draft
NIC.
The
draft
NIC
would
contain
general
information
such
as
whether
you
are
a
major
or
an
area
source
and
what
waste
minimization,
emission
control
techniques,
and
emission
monitoring
techniques
you
might
be
considering.
At
the
same
time,
you
would
also
provide
a
notice
to
the
public
of
at
least
one
informal
NIC
public
meeting.
Within
ten
months,
you
would
hold
this
public
meeting
to
discuss
the
activities
you
described
in
the
draft
NIC
for
achieving
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
standards.
The
meeting
provides
an
opportunity
for
a
mutual
understanding
between
you
and
the
public
regarding
compliance
options,
including
consideration
of
both
technical
(
e.
g.,
equipment
changes
to
upgrade
air
pollution
control
devices)
and
operational
(
e.
g.,
process
changes
to
minimize
waste
generation)
alternatives.
We
expect
the
exchange
between
you
and
the
community
at
the
meeting
to
be
similar
to
that
which
would
occur
at
RCRA
pre­
application
meetings.
That
is,
we
intend
for
the
meeting
to
provide
an
open,
flexible
and
informal
occasion
for
you
and
the
public
to
discuss
various
aspects
of
your
compliance
strategy,
provide
an
opportunity
for
sharing
ideas
and
provide
an
opportunity
for
building
a
framework
for
a
solid
and
positive
working
relationship.
Lastly,
you
would
submit
a
final
NIC
to
your
regulatory
authority
that
would
include
the
information
provided
in
the
draft
NIC
(
revised
as
necessary
after
the
public
meeting)
as
well
as
a
summary
of
the
public
meeting.
This
final
NIC
would
be
submitted
to
your
regulatory
authority
within
one
year
of
the
promulgation
of
the
final
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards.
In
summary,
we
believe
that
the
NIC
would
provide
important
planning
and
communication
opportunities
for
both
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sources.
It
also
would
allow
all
Phase
I,
as
needed,
and
Phase
II
sources
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure.
Thus,
we
are
proposing
NIC
requirements
for
both
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
sources.
6.
What
Is
the
Compliance
Progress
Report?
In
addition
to
the
NIC,
we
also
promulgated
Compliance
Progress
Report
requirements
in
the
1998
"
fast
track"
rule.
See
63
FR
33782.
The
purpose
of
the
Progress
Report
was
to
help
regulatory
agencies
determine
if
sources
were
making
reasonable
headway
in
their
efforts
to
come
into
compliance.
The
Progress
Report
was
required
to
be
submitted
at
the
midpoint
of
the
threeyear
compliance
period
and
contain
information
that
essentially
built
on
the
information
you
previously
provided
in
the
NIC.
For
example,
if
you
indicated
in
the
NIC
that
you
needed
to
make
specific
physical
modifications
to
your
combustion
system
in
order
to
comply
with
the
standards,
you
would
be
expected
to
describe
your
progress
in
making
those
modifications
in
your
Compliance
Progress
Report.
Although
the
Progress
Report
was
primarily
intended
as
a
tool
for
the
regulatory
agencies,
we
believe
it
also
may
have
been
beneficial
to
sources
as
well.
For
example,
the
Progress
Report
could
have
been
used
by
sources
as
a
mechanism
to
review
and
make
any
necessary
changes
to
their
original
strategy
for
achieving
compliance.
As
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
the
Court
vacated
the
early
cessation,
NIC
and
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

85
For
example,
if
you
reported
in
your
NIC
that
you
intended
to
upgrade
your
existing
unit,
but
later
determined
that
it
was
more
appropriate
to
replace
the
unit
with
a
new
unit,
we
would
expect
you
to
inform
your
regulatory
agency
of
this
change
in
your
compliance
plan
in
your
Compliance
Progress
Report.

231
Compliance
Progress
Report
provisions
of
the
Phase
I
rule
in
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ass'n
v
EPA,
217
F.
3d
861
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000).
Although
the
Court's
primary
focus
was
the
early
cessation
provision,
it
also
vacated
the
Progress
Report
requirements
because
it
could
not
determine
whether
we
would
have
promulgated
those
requirements
absent
the
early
cessation
provision.
7.
Why
Is
EPA
Requesting
Comment
on
Requiring
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
for
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sources?
We
believe
that
the
Progress
Report
would
be
a
useful
tool
for
both
regulators
and
sources
in
measuring
progress
toward
achieving
compliance
with
the
Subpart
EEE
standards
and
determining
if
any
revisions
to
a
source's
compliance
strategy
are
necessary.
Unlike
the
NIC,
however,
we
do
not
have
practical
experience
with
the
application
of
the
Compliance
Progress
Report,
because
the
Court
vacated
its
requirements
prior
to
their
implementation.
As
a
result,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
whether
or
not
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
should
be
required
for
Phase
I
or
Phase
II
sources.
8.
How
Would
the
Compliance
Progress
Report
Requirement
Work?
The
Compliance
Progress
Report
requirements
would
be
similar
to
those
promulgated
for
Phase
I
sources
in
the
June
19,
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782).
Within
two
years
of
the
promulgation
of
the
final
standards,
you
would
develop
and
submit
to
your
regulatory
authority
a
Compliance
Progress
Report.
The
Report
would
include
information
which
demonstrates
your
progress
toward
compliance.
This
could
include,
for
example,
completed
engineering
designs
for
any
physical
modifications
to
the
combustion
unit
that
are
needed
to
comply
with
the
standards;
copies
of
construction
applications;
and
binding
contractual
commitments
to
purchase,
fabricate,
and
install
any
necessary
equipment,
devices,
and
ancillary
structures.
In
addition,
you
would
be
expected
to
include
a
detailed
schedule
that
lists
the
dates
for
all
remaining
key
activities
and
projects
that
will
bring
you
into
compliance
with
the
standards.
For
example,
you
would
include
bid
and
award
dates
for
construction
contracts,
milestones
for
groundbreaking,
and
dates
for
the
approval
of
permits
and
licenses.
We
would
also
expect
you
to
include
in
your
report
any
updates
or
changes
to
the
information
you
previously
provided
in
your
NIC,
including
if
you
have
changed
your
compliance
plan
based
on
engineering
studies
or
evaluations
that
you
have
conducted
since
your
NIC
submittal.
85
Sources
that
intend
to
cease
burning
hazardous
waste
prior
to
or
on
the
compliance
date
would
still
be
expected
to
submit
a
report
describing
key
activities
and
projected
dates
for
initiating
RCRA
closure
and
discontinuing
hazardous
waste
activities
at
the
combustion
unit.

XVII.
What
Are
the
Title
V
and
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
for
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
Sources?
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

86
There
is
no
change
to
our
decision
to
subject
Phase
I
area
sources
to
the
same
MACT
standards
and
title
V
permitting
requirements
as
the
major
sources.
For
Phase
II
sources,
area
sources
are
required
to
meet
the
same
MACT
standards
as
major
sources,
but
only
for:
dioxin/
furan,
mercury,
carbon
monoxide/
hydrocarbons,
and
destruction
and
removal
efficiency.
See
Part
Two,
Section
I.
A.
for
more
information
on
regulation
of
area
sources.
Therefore,
Phase
II
area
sources
will
be
required
to
obtain
a
title
V
permit
only
for
those
MACT
standards
as
discussed
later
in
Paragraph
C.
4.
of
this
section.

232
In
today's
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking,
we
are
maintaining
the
same
general
approach
we
took
in
the
1999
rule
with
respect
to
title
V
and
RCRA
permitting
requirements
and
the
Phase
I
sources.
We
feel
that
this
approach,
to
place
the
MACT
air
emissions
and
related
operating
requirements
in
the
title
V
permit
and
to
continue
to
require
RCRA
permits
for
all
other
aspects
of
the
combustion
unit
and
the
facility
that
are
governed
by
RCRA,
is
still
the
most
appropriate
method
to
meet
our
obligations
under
both
statutes.
In
1999,
our
goal
in
developing
a
permitting
scheme
to
accommodate
both
statutes
with
respect
to
air
emission
limitations
and
standards,
was
to
avoid
duplication
to
the
extent
practicable
and
to
streamline
requirements.
We
remain
committed
to
that
goal,
as
we
revise
and
refine
the
permitting
approach
we
finalized
in
1999.
A.
What
Is
the
General
Approach
to
Permitting
Hazardous
Waste
Combustion
Sources?
In
the
September
1999
rule,
we
finalized
a
permitting
approach
that
places
the
MACT
air
emissions
and
related
operating
requirements
in
the
title
V
permit
and
retains
all
other
RCRA
related
requirements
(
e.
g.,
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units)
in
the
RCRA
permit.
See
64
FR
52828,
52833­
52834
(
September
30,
2000).
Under
this
approach,
sources
comply
with
their
RCRA
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements
until
they
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
by
conducting
a
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitting
a
Notification
of
Compliance
(
NOC)
to
the
Administrator
(
or
authorized
State)
that
documents
compliance.
86
Upon
documenting
compliance
through
the
NOC,
sources
may
begin
the
transition
from
RCRA
permitting
to
title
V
permitting.
We
believe
that
this
approach
still
makes
the
most
sense
in
terms
of
providing
flexibility
and
minimizing
duplication
between
the
two
permitting
programs,
while
ensuring
that
there
is
no
break
in
regulatory
coverage.
It
is
also
appropriate
given
where
sources
will
be
in
the
transition
process
of
complying
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards
upon
promulgation
of
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
the
Phase
II
standards.
The
majority
of
Phase
I
sources
will
have
initiated
a
significant
modification
of
their
title
V
permits
to
include
the
operating
requirements
of
their
NOC
and
a
modification
of
their
RCRA
permits
to
remove
duplicative
conditions.
By
this
time,
permitting
authorities
and
sources
are
familiar
with
the
current
permitting
approach
and
have
worked
through
many
issues
to
make
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards
and
the
ensuing
transition
successful.
We
feel
that
permitting
authorities
and
sources
would
prefer
to
draw
upon
their
experiences
and
utilize
the
expertise
they
have
developed,
rather
than
exploring
ways
to
implement
a
new
permitting
scheme.
Therefore,
we
are
retaining
the
same
general
approach
to
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

233
permitting
for
Phase
I
sources
and
are
proposing
to
apply
this
same
general
approach
to
Phase
II
sources
in
today's
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking:
to
place
the
MACT
emission
standards
only
in
the
CAA
regulation
at
40
CFR
part
63
Subpart
EEE,
and
rely
on
implementation
through
the
air
program
and
operating
permit
programs
developed
under
title
V.
4.
What
Is
the
Authority
for
the
Proposals
Discussed
In
this
Section?
EPA
is
issuing
these
proposals
to
modify
RCRA
permits
under
the
authority
of
sections
1006(
b),
2002,
3004,
3005
and
7004(
b)
of
RCRA.
With
regard
to
the
regulatory
framework
that
would
result
from
today's
proposal,
we
are
proposing
to
eliminate
the
existing
RCRA
stack
emissions
national
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
for
hazardous
waste
combustors.
That
is,
after
submittal
of
the
NOC
established
by
today's
rule
and,
where
applicable,
RCRA
permit
modifications
at
individual
facilities,
RCRA
national
stack
emission
standards
will
no
longer
apply
to
these
hazardous
waste
combustors.
We
originally
issued
emission
standards
under
the
authority
of
section
3004(
a)
and
(
q)
of
RCRA,
which
calls
for
EPA
to
promulgate
standards
``
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.''
We
believe
that
the
proposed
MACT
standards
are
generally
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
that
separate
RCRA
emission
standards
are
not
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Refer
to
Part
Four,
Section
IX.
How
Does
the
Proposed
Rule
Meet
the
RCRA
Protectiveness
Mandate?
for
a
discussion
on
this
topic.
In
addition,
RCRA
section
1006(
b)
directs
EPA
to
integrate
the
provisions
of
RCRA
for
purposes
of
administration
and
enforcement
and
to
avoid
duplication,
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
with
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
and
other
federal
statutes).
This
integration
must
be
done
in
a
way
that
is
consistent
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
these
statutes.
Therefore,
section
1006(
b)
provides
further
authority
for
EPA
to
eliminate
the
existing
RCRA
stack
emissions
standards
to
avoid
duplication
with
the
new
MACT
standards.
We
are
not
proposing,
however,
that
RCRA
permit
conditions
to
control
emissions
from
these
sources
will
never
be
necessary,
only
that
the
national
RCRA
standards
appear
to
be
unnecessary.
Under
the
authority
of
RCRA's
``
omnibus''
clause
section
3005(
c)(
3);
see
40
CFR
270.32(
b)(
2)),
RCRA
permit
writers
may
impose
additional
terms
and
conditions
on
a
sitespecific
basis
as
may
be
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Thus,
if
MACT
standards
are
not
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
in
an
individual
instance,
RCRA
permit
writers
will
establish
permit
limits
that
are
protective.
In
RCRA,
Congress
gave
EPA
broad
authority
to
provide
for
public
participation
in
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
Section
7004(
b)
of
RCRA
requires
EPA
to
provide
for,
encourage,
and
assist
public
participation
in
the
development,
revision,
implementation,
and
enforcement
of
any
regulation,
guideline,
information,
or
program
under
the
Act.
2.
Is
EPA
Proposing
a
Different
Permitting
Approach
for
New
Sources?
As
discussed
above,
we
are
maintaining
the
same
general
permitting
approach
as
before.
However,
we
are
proposing
to
eliminate
the
unintended
result
of
the
previous
regulatory
construct,
which
caused
new
sources
to
initially
be
subject
to
the
RCRA
air
emission
and
operating
requirements.
In
particular,
we
want
to
specify
that
any
hazardous
waste
burning
incinerators,
cement
kilns,
lightweight
aggregate
kilns,
boilers,
and
hydrochloric
acid
production
furnaces
newly
entering
the
RCRA
permitting
process
(
e.
g.,
sources
that
are
seeking
an
initial
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

234
RCRA
permit
or
permit
modification
to
include
a
new
hazardous
waste
combustion
unit)
after
promulgation
of
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
are
not
subject
to
certain
specified
RCRA
permit
requirements
or
performance
standards.
The
approach
we
are
proposing
today
is
similar
to
the
one
we
proposed
in
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
amendment
rule
(
see
66
FR
35146),
but
was
not
finalized.
The
amendment
was
not
finalized
due
to
several
unresolved
issues
and
thus,
it
was
agreed
(
during
litigation
settlement
discussions),
that
we
would
revisit
and
address
the
issues
in
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
rulemaking.
a.
Why
Is
EPA
Proposing
a
Different
Permitting
Approach
for
New
Sources?
In
the
September
1999
rule,
we
had
amended
language
in
40
CFR
§
§
264.340,
265.340,
266.100,
270.19,
270.22,
270.62,
and
270.66
to
accommodate
the
permit
transition
from
RCRA
to
the
CAA.
To
summarize,
the
amended
language
in
these
sections
says
that
once
a
source
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
standards
in
40
CFR
part
63
subpart
EEE,
the
requirements
in
specified
part
264,
265,
266,
and
part
270
sections
would
no
longer
apply.
However,
the
amended
language
neglected
to
specifically
address
if,
how,
or
when
new
sources
would
make
the
transition
from
RCRA
permitting
requirements
to
CAA
MACT
requirements.
As
we
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
July
3,
2001
proposed
amendments,
under
RCRA,
new
sources
must
obtain
a
permit
or
a
permit
modification
before
they
may
start
construction
of
a
new
source/
unit.
The
way
the
current
part
270
language
reads,
new
sources
subject
to
the
1999
rule
and
the
Interim
Standards
rule
are
not
able
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
part
63
standards
until
after
a
RCRA
permit
is
issued,
the
source
is
built,
and
they
conduct
performance
testing.
This
means
they
would
have
to
submit
a
trial
burn
plan
with
their
RCRA
permit
application
and
also
submit
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
 
startup
shake­
down,
trial
burn,
and
post­
trial
burn.
Likewise,
RCRA
permitted
facilities
that
are
adding
a
new
combustion
source
would
have
to
provide
the
same
information
with
their
permit
modification
request.
Whether
the
source
is
new
or
adding
a
new
combustion
source,
the
permit
writer
would
have
to
review
this
information
and
write
conditions
into
the
RCRA
permit
governing
all
phases
of
combustor
operations.
This
expenditure
of
resources,
on
the
part
of
the
source
and
the
permitting
agency,
is
unnecessary
given
that
the
conditions
will
become
inactive
or
be
removed
from
the
RCRA
permit
upon
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
For
new
sources,
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
is
upon
start­
up.
Therefore,
today
we
are
proposing
that
new
sources
(
whether
a
new
source
or
a
new
source
at
an
existing
permitted
source)
who
will
be
subject
to
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
upon
start­
up,
not
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process
for
establishing
combustor
emissions
and
operating
requirements
(
i.
e.,
submission
of
a
trial
burn
plan
with
the
RCRA
permit
application,
submission
of
suggested
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation
 
start­
up/
shake­
down,
trial
burn,
and
post­
trial
burn,
and
ultimately
obtaining
a
permit
with
operating
and
emission
standards).
b.
How
Is
EPA
Proposing
to
Change
the
Current
Requirements
for
New
Sources?
In
the
July
3,
2001
proposal,
we
developed
regulatory
language
to
clarify
our
intent
not
to
require
new
sources
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
with
respect
to
combustor
operations
and
emissions.
In
response
to
that
proposal,
we
received
comments
from
the
Sierra
Club
expressing
concerns
that
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

87
See
memo
from
Michael
Galbraith
to
Docket
#
RCRA­
2003­
0016
entitled
"
Summary
of
Conference
Call
with
Sierra
Club
Relating
to
Implementation,"
dated
August
14,
2003.

235
the
increased
opportunities
for
public
participation
established
in
the
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
(
60
FR
63417,
December
11,
1995)
would
be
lost.
This
rule
involves
communities
earlier
in
the
permitting
process,
provides
more
opportunities
for
participation,
expands
public
access
to
information,
and
offers
guidance
on
how
facilities
can
improve
public
participation.
In
a
follow­
up
discussion
with
the
Sierra
Club,
they
specifically
expressed
interest
in
being
able
to
influence
decisions
on
the
construction
of
hazardous
waste
combustors.
87
Upon
consideration,
we
agree
with
the
Sierra
Club
that
in
our
previous
effort
to
streamline
the
RCRA
permitting
process
for
new
sources,
we
did
not
fully
consider
that
important
opportunities
for
public
participation
may
be
lost.
Although
we
still
believe
that
new
sources,
whether
a
new
source
or
an
existing
source
adding
a
new
source,
should
not
be
required
to
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process,
we
also
believe
that
the
Sierra
Club's
concerns
have
merit.
It
makes
sense
to
afford
the
public
the
same
(
or
as
close
as
possible)
public
participation
opportunities
for
new
units
under
the
HWC
MACT/
CAA
framework
that
they
had
under
the
RCRA
regulations.
Therefore
we
are
modifying
our
earlier
proposal
as
discussed
in
the
paragraphs
below,
to
consider
several
options
that
will
attempt
to
address
these
concerns,
as
well
as
provide
a
means
to
improve
the
existing
regulatory
requirements
for
new
sources.
The
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
Rule
implemented
four
new
requirements
for
facilities
and
permitting
agencies
that
enable
communities
to
become
more
active
participants
throughout
the
permitting
process.
They
are:
1)
permit
applicants
must
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
before
applying
for
a
permit;
2)
permitting
agencies
must
announce
the
submission
of
a
permit
application
which
will
tell
community
members
where
they
can
view
the
application
while
the
agency
reviews
it;
3)
permitting
agencies
may
require
a
facility
to
set
up
an
information
repository
at
any
point
during
the
permitting
process
if
warranted;
and
4)
permitting
agencies
must
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial
(
or
test)
burn.
88
Consequently,
we
will
focus
on
each
of
these
and
propose
mechanisms
that
mirror
or
fulfill
the
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
We
stated
earlier
in
this
section
that
under
RCRA,
new
sources
must
obtain
a
permit
(
or
a
permit
modification
at
an
existing
source)
before
they
may
start
construction
of
a
new
source.
This
holds
true
regardless
of
whether
we
finalize
an
approach
that
does
not
require
new
sources
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
that
contains
the
combustor
operating
and
emissions
standards
(
i.
e.,
a
RCRA
permit
will
still
be
required
to
address
all
other
activities
at
the
facility
including
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units).
So,
in
applying
for
a
RCRA
permit,
new
hazardous
waste
facilities/
sources
will
still
be
required
to
meet
the
public
participation
requirements.
However,
the
problem
arises
if
new
sources
are
not
required
to
provide
information
relative
to
the
combustor
(
i.
e.,
sources
were
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

89
Note
that
new
sources
must
have
prepared
and
included
their
documentation
of
compliance
in
the
operating
record
upon
start­
up.
New
sources
then
have
6
months
from
the
date
of
start­
up
to
begin
their
comprehensive
performance
test.

90
If
necessary,
concerns
raised
regarding
the
regulation
of
the
combustor
can
be
addressed
through
application
of
RCRA's
omnibus
provision
(
RCRA
Section
3005(
c)(
3)).

236
formerly,
at
this
point
in
the
process,
required
to
submit
a
trial
burn
plan),
but
only
for
the
other
proposed
hazardous
waste
management
activities
at
the
source.
Thus,
the
source
would
not
be
required
to
discuss
the
proposed
combustor­
specific
operations
and
emissions
at
the
informal
public
meeting,
nor
would
the
permit
application
that
is
made
available
to
the
public
to
review,
contain
information
regarding
the
combustor
operations
or
emissions.
In
an
effort
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
participation
equivalent
to
RCRA,
we
believe
that
the
Notification
of
Intent
to
Comply
(
NIC)
requirements,
as
proposed
in
Part
Two,
Section
XVI.
B.,
serve
in
place
of
the
first
two
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
The
primary
functions
of
the
NIC
are
to
serve
as
a
compliance
planning
tool
and
to
promote
early
public
involvement
in
the
permitting
process.
In
terms
of
compliance
planning,
the
draft
NIC
must
contain
general
information
including
the
waste
minimization,
emission
control,
and
emission
monitoring
techniques
that
are
being
considered
and
how
the
source
intends
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards.
With
regard
to
early
public
involvement,
a
draft
of
the
NIC
must
be
made
available
to
the
public
for
review
within
9
months
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
Replacement
Standards
and
Phase
II
Standards
rule.
One
month
later,
the
source
must
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
to
discuss
the
activities
described
in
the
NIC.
The
NIC
requirements
apply
to
new
sources
as
well
(
see
§
63.1212(
b)(
1)
in
today's
Notice),
but
the
timing
will
vary
according
to
the
date
a
new
source
begins
burning
hazardous
waste.
For
example,
if
a
new
source
begins
burning
3
months
after
the
rule's
effective
date,
then
it
will
have
only
6
months
before
it
must
prepare
and
make
a
draft
NIC
available
for
public
review.
89
More
significantly,
according
to
40
CFR
§
63.1212(
b)(
2),
as
proposed
in
today's
Notice,
new
sources
that
are
to
begin
burning
more
than
9
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
will
be
required
to
meet
all
of
the
NIC
and
Compliance
progress
report
requirements
in
§
§
63.1210(
b)
and
(
c),
63.1211(
c),
and
63.1212(
a)
prior
to
burning
hazardous
waste.
We
feel
that
the
NIC
requirements
are
commensurate
with
the
public
participation
requirements
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
to
inform
the
community
of
the
proposed
combustor
operations
and
to
make
the
compliance
information
available
for
public
review
and
comment.
On
the
other
hand,
we
also
recognize
that
there
are
a
few
gaps.
For
instance,
the
NIC
requirements
are
not
associated
with
a
permit
action
and
the
regulatory
agency
is
not
required
to
be
present
at
the
NIC
public
meeting.
We
would,
however,
expect
the
source
to
consider
any
comments
raised
during
the
NIC
process
as
it
develops
its
final
compliance
strategy
and
final
NIC.
90
Also,
if
a
new
source
begins
burning
after
the
effective
date
of
today's
rule,
but
prior
to
9
months
after
the
effective
date,
the
NIC
is
not
required
to
be
made
available
for
public
review
before
a
new
source
begins
burning.
In
other
words,
the
public
is
not
provided
information
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

91
Since
the
public
participation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
§
124.31
and
124.32
only
apply
to
initial
RCRA
permits
and
renewals
with
significant
changes,
a
corresponding
regulatory
amendment
would
need
to
be
made
to
the
applicability
paragraphs
to
include
modifications
to
RCRA
permits
only
for
new
combustion
sources
that
will
comply
with
Part
63,
subpart
EEE
upon
start­
up.
Also,
63.1212(
b)
would
need
to
be
amended
to
reference
§
§
124.31
and
124.32.

92
40
CFR
§
70.7(
h)(
2)
requires
that
information
including
the
draft
Title
V
permit,
the
application,
all
relevant
supporting
materials,
and
other
materials
available
to
the
permitting
authority
that
are
relevant
to
the
permit
decision,
be
made
available
to
interested
persons.

237
relative
to
the
combustor's
operations,
emissions,
and
compliance
schedule
prior
to
it
beginning
operations.
Given
these
gaps,
we
are
proposing
a
scenario
in
which
the
NIC
requirements
for
new
sources
under
MACT,
could
be
crafted
to
achieve
a
comparable
level
of
public
participation
as
under
RCRA.
We
are
proposing
to
require
that
all
new
sources
prepare
a
draft
NIC
and
make
it
available
to
the
public
at
the
same
time
as
their
RCRA
pre­
application
meeting
notice.
We
also
propose
that
new
sources
submit
their
comprehensive
performance
test
plan
at
this
time.
By
submitting
the
NIC
and
CPT
plan
together,
the
public
would
be
provided
with
compliance­
related
information
relevant
to
the
combustor
as
well
as
the
proposed
combustor
operations
and
emissions
(
i.
e.,
the
public
is
provided
testing
information
through
the
CPT
that
they
would
have
received
via
the
trial
burn
plan).
Lastly,
as
part
of
this
option
we
propose
that
the
NIC
public
meeting
coincide
with
the
informal
public
meeting
for
the
RCRA
permit.
By
holding
a
simultaneous
meeting,
the
public
is
given
the
opportunity
to
inquire
and
comment
on
both
the
source's
proposed
activities
and
the
combustor's
proposed
operations
with
regulatory
officials
from
both
the
Air
and
RCRA
programs
present.
We
request
comment
on
this
discussion.
91
With
respect
to
the
information
repository
regulations
at
40
CFR
§
124.33,
the
purpose
of
the
information
repository
is
to
make
information
(
i.
e.,
documents,
reports,
data,
and
information
deemed
necessary)
available
to
the
public
during
the
permit
issuance
process
and
during
the
life
of
a
permit.
While
the
Title
V
permit
procedures
specify
that
information
relevant
to
the
permitting
decision
be
made
available
to
the
public,
92
this
information
would
not
be
accessible
prior
to
construction
or
operation
of
the
combustor.
Under
RCRA,
the
information
repository
would
be
established
some
time
after
submission
of
the
permit
application,
but
before
construction
and
operation
of
the
combustor.
Even
though
an
information
repository
is
not
a
required
component
of
the
RCRA
permit
process,
the
regulations
provide
a
permitting
agency
with
the
discretion
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and
require
a
source
to
establish
and
maintain
one.
Therefore,
so
that
the
public
is
afforded
the
same
opportunities
to
view
and
copy
information
such
as
the
NIC,
test
plans,
draft
Title
V
permit
and
application,
reports
and
so
forth
under
MACT,
we
are
considering
two
options.
We
could
include
a
provision
similar
to
§
124.33
in
the
NIC
regulations
for
new
sources.
It
would
allow
a
regulatory
agency,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
require
a
source
to
establish
an
information
repository
specific
to
the
combustor.
We
believe
the
NIC
regulations
are
a
suitable
location
to
place
such
a
provision,
since
the
NIC
is
the
first
opportunity
for
the
public
to
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

93
This
approach
does
not
eliminate
the
possibility
that
some
combustor­
specific
requirements
may
be
retained
in
the
RCRA
permit
such
as:
risk­
based
conditions,
compliance
with
an
alternative
MACT
standard,
compliance
with
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
events
under
RCRA
rather
than
the
CAA,
etc.
See
section
XVII,
D.
2.
for
a
more
complete
discussion.
Consequently,
sources
would
be
expected
to
include
the
applicable
RCRA
conditions
in
their
RCRA
permit
application.

238
discuss
the
combustor
operations
and
emissions.
Alternatively,
rather
than
incorporate
provisions
for
an
information
repository
in
the
NIC
regulations,
the
applicability
language
in
§
124.33
could
be
amended
to
include
new
combustion
sources
that
will
comply
with
Part
63,
subpart
EEE
upon
start­
up.
We
request
comment
on
this
discussion.
The
last
RCRA
public
participation
requirement
requires
the
permitting
agency
to
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial
burn
or
test
burn
at
a
combustion
facility.
If
new
sources
are
not
required
to
follow
the
RCRA
permitting
process
with
respect
to
combustor
emissions
and
operations,
they
also
would
not
be
required
to
submit
a
trial
burn
plan
with
their
permit
application
or
conduct
a
trial
burn.
However,
under
MACT,
new
(
and
existing)
combustion
sources
are
required
to
submit
performance
test
and
continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS)
performance
evaluation
test
plans
for
approval.
The
MACT
performance
test
serves
the
same
purpose
as
the
RCRA
trial
burn
test:
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
relevant
emission
standards
and
to
collect
data
to
determine
at
what
levels
the
corresponding
operating
conditions
should
be
set.
Similar,
but
not
identical
to
the
RCRA
requirements
at
40
CFR
§
§
270.62
and
270.66
requiring
the
permitting
agency
to
notify
the
public
prior
to
a
trial/
test
burn,
the
MACT
performance
test
regulations
(
see
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)),
specify
that
a
source
must
issue
a
public
notice
announcing
the
approval
of
the
test
plans
and
provide
a
location
where
the
public
may
view
them.
Although
the
timing
of
the
public
notices
are
slightly
different,
the
regulations
both
provide
notice
to
the
public
about
testing.
Under
RCRA,
notice
is
given
to
the
public
prior
(
usually
30
days)
to
commencement
of
the
trial
burn,
whereas
under
MACT,
notice
is
given
when
the
test
plans
are
approved.
The
newly
amended
regulations
of
§
63.1207(
e)(
2)
proposed
in
this
Notice,
specify
that
sources
must
make
the
test
plans
available
for
review
at
least
60
days
prior
to
commencement
of
the
test
and
must
provide
the
expected
time
period
for
commencing
(
and
completing)
the
test.
Thus,
the
public
is
informed
of
the
test
and
provided
estimates
of
test
dates
through
public
notice
of
the
approved
test
plan.
Thus
far,
the
approach
we
have
proposed
is
intended
to
ensure
that
the
public
will
have
the
same
opportunities
for
participation
and
access
to
information
as
they
would
if
new
sources
continued
to
be
subject
to
the
RCRA
permit
process
to
include
the
combustor
emission
and
operating
requirements.
By
proposing
that
new
sources
not
be
required
to
obtain
a
RCRA
permit
with
combustor
emission
and
operating
requirements,
it
provides
for
the
smoothest
and
most
practical
transition
from
RCRA
requirements
to
MACT
requirements.
93
Aside
from
the
approach
we
have
focused
on,
there
are
others
that
may
be
worthy
of
consideration.
We
can
also
look
at
the
option
of
a
transition
point
for
new
sources
that
would
specify
how
far
a
new
source
would
proceed
down
the
RCRA
permit
path
before
it
could
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

239
"
transition"
over
to
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
and
CAA
permitting.
There
are
three
additional
options
we
can
consider
relative
to
a
transition
point:
1)
after
the
RCRA
Part
B
application
is
submitted;
2)
after
the
RCRA
permit
is
issued;
and
3)
after
the
source
places
its
Documentation
of
Compliance
(
DOC)
in
the
operating
record.
Beginning
with
the
first
option,
each
successive
one
moves
in
the
direction
toward
the
way
new
sources
currently
make
the
transition
from
RCRA
to
MACT
and
includes
modifications
to
the
RCRA
information
requirements.
We
envision
each
of
these
options
to
be
a
variation
of
the
current
RCRA
permit
process.
Under
the
first
option,
the
transition
point
would
occur
after
the
source
submits
its
RCRA
Part
B
application.
The
key
to
this
option
is
that
the
source
would
be
subject
to
the
public
participation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
§
124.31
and
124.32,
to
hold
an
informal
public
meeting
and
to
have
the
submission
of
the
permit
application
noticed.
However,
new
sources
would
not
be
required
to
include
the
combustor's
operation
and
emission
information
in
the
Part
B
application.
Rather,
the
source
would
only
be
required
to
discuss
the
compliance­
related
activities
related
to
the
combustor
as
part
of
the
informal
public
meeting.
For
the
second
option,
the
transition
point
would
be
after
the
permitting
agency
issues
the
RCRA
permit.
The
source
would
not
only
discuss
the
combustor's
compliance­
related
activities
as
part
of
the
RCRA
informal
public
meeting
as
in
the
first
option,
but
it
would
also
address
the
operations
and
emissions
through
development
of
a
trial
burn
plan,
or
a
CPT
plan
in
lieu
of
the
trial
burn
plan,
or
even
a
coordinated
CPT/
RCRA
trial
burn
plan,
if
it
is
likely
that
the
source
will
require
some
RCRA
permit
conditions
(
i.
e.,
risk­
based
conditions).
With
this
option,
even
though
all
activities
pre­
permit
issuance
must
address
the
source
and
the
combustor's
operations
and
emissions,
the
approved
permit
would
not
contain
the
operating
and
emission
requirements
(
with
the
exception
of
risk­
based
or
alternative
standards).
For
the
third
option,
the
transition
point
would
be
after
the
source
places
its
DOC
in
the
operating
record,
which
indicates
the
source's
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
Basically,
the
source
would
proceed
down
the
RCRA
permit
path
as
in
option
two
by
complying
with
the
public
participation
requirements,
submitting
a
trial
burn
plan/
CPT
plan/
coordinated
plan,
suggesting
conditions
for
the
various
phases
of
operation,
and
receiving
a
RCRA
permit.
However,
in
this
option,
the
permit
would
need
to
address
combustor
operations
and
emissions
to
the
extent
that
it
would
cover
the
construction
and
start­
up/
shakedown
periods.
With
respect
to
the
public
participation
requirements,
all
three
options
automatically
factor
in
the
first
two
RCRA
public
participation
requirements
(
by
virtue
of
where
the
transition
would
be
made).
However,
we
did
not
discuss
how
we
would
account
for
the
remaining
two
public
participation
requirements.
We
believe
that
the
information
repository
and
the
notification
of
a
trial
burn
requirements
can
be
addressed
in
the
same
manner
as
we
discussed
in
our
proposed
approach.
So,
for
these
options,
we
would
incorporate
an
appropriate
requirement,
either
through
the
NIC
regulations
or
the
public
participation
regulations,
that
would
allow
for
an
information
repository
to
be
established.
Regarding
the
notice
of
a
trial
burn,
we
believe
that
the
notice
of
the
performance
test
is
equivalent.
In
summary,
our
proposed
approach
involves
modifying
the
NIC
provisions
to
include
RCRA
public
participation
requirements.
The
second
group
of
options
consider
a
range
of
transition
points
that
are
also
worthy
of
consideration.
We
invite
comment
on
this
discussion.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

240
3.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Changes
to
the
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
that
Will
Facilitate
the
Transition
to
MACT?
To
alleviate
potential
conflicts
between
the
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
MACT,
we
are
proposing
an
additional
streamlined
permit
modification
provision,
requiring
prior
Agency
approval,
which
would
allow
an
existing
RCRA
permit
to
be
better
aligned
with
specific
provisions
contained
in
the
Subpart
EEE
requirements.
The
intent
of
this
provision
is
to
reduce
potential
burdens
associated
with
compliance
with
overlapping
RCRA
and
MACT
requirements,
while
still
maintaining
the
overall
integrity
of
the
RCRA
permit.
a.
How
Will
the
Overlap
During
Performance
Testing
Be
Addressed?
When
we
finalized
the
performance
test
requirements
and
the
changes
to
the
RCRA
permitting
requirements
in
the
September
30,
1999
rule,
we
did
not
consider
how
sources
would
conduct
their
performance
tests
while
at
the
same
time,
maintain
compliance
with
their
RCRA
permit
requirements.
For
instance,
during
the
performance
test,
a
source
will
likely
want
to
conduct
testing
at
the
edge
of
the
operating
envelope
or
the
worst
case
for
certain
parameters
to
ensure
operating
flexibility.
This
could
conflict
with
established
operating
and
emissions
limits
required
in
the
source's
RCRA
permit
and
consequently,
prevent
the
source
from
optimizing
its
testing
range.
Currently,
sources
have
three
options
that
would
allow
them
to
resolve
any
potential
conflicts
between
their
performance
test
and
their
RCRA
permit
requirements.
One
option
would
be
for
a
source
to
submit
a
RCRA
Class
2
or
3
permit
modification
request
to
temporarily
change
or
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
during
the
MACT
performance
test
(
see
§
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L.
5).
Another
option
would
be
for
a
source
to
request
approval
for
such
changes
through
its
RCRA
trial
burn
plan
or
coordinated
MACT
/
RCRA
test
plan
(
see
§
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L.
7.
a.
or
d.).
In
this
case,
a
source
could
include
proposed
test
conditions
in
its
plan
to
temporarily
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
during
the
test.
The
last
option
would
be
for
a
source
to
request
a
temporary
authorization
that
would
allow
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
to
be
waived
for
a
period
of
180
days
(
see
§
270.42(
e)).
We
do
not
believe
that
any
of
the
options
discussed
above
provide
an
optimal
solution
to
resolving
conflicts
between
a
source's
performance
test
protocol
and
its
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emissions
limits.
A
Class
2
or
3
RCRA
permit
modification
may
not
be
an
option
for
many
sources
due
to
the
time
typically
involved
in
processing
these
requests.
Sources
that
choose
to
modify
their
permits
would
need
to
do
so
well
in
advance
of
conducting
their
performance
test
to
ensure
that
the
modification
would
be
processed
in
time
to
conduct
the
test
on
schedule.
This
may
result
in
sources
submitting
modification
requests
prior
to
approval
of
their
performance
test
plans.
We
believe
that
RCRA
permit
writers
are
unlikely
to
approve
any
modifications
to
RCRA
permit
requirements
without
the
assurance
that
the
source
will
be
operating
under
an
approved
test
plan.
Resolving
conflicts
using
a
trial
burn
or
coordinated
test
plan
is
not
a
viable
option
for
a
source
that
has
already
completed
its
trial
burn/
risk
burn
testing.
Lastly,
while
a
temporary
authorization
is
relatively
streamlined,
it
is
meant
to
be
used
in
unique
cases
affecting
an
individual
facility.
We
believe
that
it
is
most
logical
and
easily
implemented
to
propose
a
modification
that
can
be
used
consistently
to
remedy
a
common
problem
affecting
an
entire
group
of
facilities
with
similar
operations
(
e.
g.,
hazardous
waste
burning
combustors
facing
barriers
to
testing
due
to
RCRA
permit
requirements).
Therefore,
in
today's
Notice,
we
are
proposing
to
allow
sources
to
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

94
For
subsequent
performance
tests,
we
anticipate
that
this
modification
would
be
useful
for
sources
that
may
have
risk­
based
or
alternative
requirements
in
their
RCRA
permits.

241
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emissions
limits
during
pretesting,
initial,
and
subsequent
performance
testing
through
a
new
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure.
94
We
believe
that
a
process
for
waiving
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
during
performance
testing
is
consistent
with
our
objectives
to
streamline
requirements
and
minimize
conflicts
between
the
RCRA
and
CAA
programs
without
sacrificing
the
protections
afforded
by
RCRA.
Moreover,
we
view
this
new
permit
modification
to
be
complementary
to
the
provisions
of
§
63.1207(
h)
for
waiving
operating
parameter
limits
(
OPLs)
during
performance
testing.
In
the
February
14,
2002
final
amendments
rule,
we
reiterated
that
OPLs
in
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
(
DOC)
may
be
revised
at
any
time
to
reflect
testing
parameters
for
the
initial
performance
test
prior
to
submission
of
the
NOC
and
so,
in
effect,
are
automatically
waived.
Also,
we
revised
the
language
in
§
63.1207(
h)(
1)
and
(
2)
to
not
require
that
subsequent
performance
test
plans
be
approved
in
order
to
waive
OPLs,
but
rather
that
sources
only
record
the
emission
test
results
of
the
pretesting.
b.
Are
There
Other
Instances
Where
the
New
Streamlined
Permit
Modification
Can
Be
Used?
In
addition
to
our
efforts
today
to
minimize
overlapping
permit
requirements
during
performance
testing,
we
are
also
proposing
to
allow
the
new
streamlined
permit
modification
to
address
other
potential
conflicts.
In
implementing
the
1999
rule,
it
has
become
clear
that
there
are
several
other
instances
when
conflicts
may
arise
where
RCRA
permit
requirements
overlap
with
MACT
requirements.
For
example,
the
required
averaging
period
for
an
operating
parameter
might
be
slightly
different
between
MACT
and
the
RCRA
permit,
requiring
two
different
data
acquisition
schemes
during
the
interim
period
between
submittal
of
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
(
DOC)
and
the
final
modification
of
the
RCRA
permit
after
receipt
of
the
NOC.
Or,
if
a
RCRA
permit
requires
periodic
emissions
testing,
the
specified
test
schedule
in
the
permit
might
not
be
aligned
with
the
required
test
schedule
for
MACT,
causing
a
facility
to
perform
duplicate
testing
instead
of
allowing
a
single
coordinated
RCRA/
MACT
test
event.
Conflicts
in
operating
limitations,
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
scheduling
provisions
can
be
especially
prevalent
during
this
interim
period.
Consequently,
we
believe
the
new
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure
would
be
appropriate
to
address
these
probable
overlaps.
c.
Why
Is
a
New
Streamlined
Permit
Modification
Procedure
Being
Proposed?
This
new
streamlined
modification
differs
from
the
one
we
finalized
in
the
June
1998
"
fast
track"
rule
(
63
FR
33782).
In
1998,
we
provided
for
a
streamlined
RCRA
permit
modification
process
whereby
you
could
request
a
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
to
address
and
incorporate
any
necessary
MACT
upgrades
into
your
RCRA
permit
(
see
40
CFR
§
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L(
9)).
The
streamlined
permit
modification
provision,
which
was
intended
solely
for
the
purpose
of
implementing
physical
or
operating
upgrades,
allowed
sources
that
were
already
operating
under
RCRA
combustion
permits
to
modify
their
combustion
systems'
design
and/
or
operations
in
order
to
comply
with
the
MACT
standards
without
having
to
obtain
a
Class
2
or
3
RCRA
permit
modification.
Thus,
L(
9)
was
not
intended
to
account
for
overlapping
requirements.
Further,
to
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

95
Refer
to
the
new
section
in
the
RCRA
permit
modification
table
in
40
CFR
270.42,
Appendix
I,
L(
10)
and
new
regulatory
language
in
270.42(
k),
that
must
be
used
to
waive
specified
permit
requirements.

96
See
40
CFR
63.1207(
e)(
3)
for
performance
test
time
extension
requirements.

242
be
eligible
to
use
L(
9),
you
first
must
have
complied
with
the
NIC
requirements,
including
those
related
to
public
involvement.
Refer
to
Part
Two,
Section
XVI
for
a
discussion
of
the
NIC.
However,
similar
to
the
streamlined
modification
we
finalized
as
L(
9),
we
feel
that
this
new
streamlined
modification
warrants
a
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval.
We
feel
that
a
Class
1
is
appropriate
considering
that:
we
do
not
expect
that
there
would
be
significant
changes
when
requesting
certain
RCRA
permit
requirements
to
be
waived;
it
would
be
applicable
for
a
relatively
short
period
of
time;
regulatory
oversight
is
incorporated
via
approval
of
the
modification
request
and;
the
intended
goal
of
the
modification
is
to
achieve
environmental
improvement
ultimately
through
implementation
of
more
protective
standards.
d.
How
Will
the
New
Streamlined
Permit
Modification
Work?
Our
proposed
approach
allows
for
a
waiver
of
specific
RCRA
permit
requirements
provided
that
you:
1)
submit
a
Class
1
permit
modification
request
specifying
the
requested
changes
to
the
RCRA
permit,
with
an
accompanying
explanation
of
why
the
changes
are
necessary
and
how
the
revised
provisions
will
be
sufficiently
protective,
and
2)
obtain
Agency
approval
prior
to
implementing
the
changes.
95
When
utilized
to
waive
permit
requirements
during
the
performance
test,
you
also
must
have
an
approved
performance
test
plan
prior
to
submitting
your
modification
request.
(
We
believe
that
the
Class
1
modification
with
prior
Agency
approval
will
ensure
that
your
proposed
test
conditions
are
reasonable
with
respect
to
your
existing
permit
limits
(
i.
e.
that
they
are
sufficiently
protective);
and
that
an
approved
performance
test
plan
confirms
that
you
have
met
the
regulatory
requirements
for
performance
test
plans.)
We
propose
that
you
submit
your
streamlined
modification
request
in
sufficient
time
to
allow
the
Director
a
minimum
of
30
days
(
with
the
option
to
extend
the
deadline
for
another
30
days)
to
review
and
approve
your
request.
For
purposes
of
performance
testing,
we
propose
that
you
submit
your
request
at
the
time
you
receive
approval
of
your
performance
test
plan,
which
is
90
days
in
advance
of
the
test
and
coincides
with
the
time
limitations
imposed
on
the
Director
for
approval.
Additionally,
we
are
requiring
that
the
waiver
of
permit
limits
only
be
relevant
during
the
actual
testing
events
and
during
pretesting
for
an
aggregate
period
of
up
to
720
hours
of
operation.
In
other
words,
it
would
not
apply
for
the
duration
of
time
allotted
to
begin
and
complete
the
test
(
i.
e.,
the
entire
60
days).
As
a
side
note,
we
realize
that
some
sources
may
not
have
an
approved
performance
test
plan
by
the
date
their
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
because
the
Administrator
failed
to
approve
(
or
deny)
it
within
the
specified
time
period,
which
could
render
this
new
streamlined
modification
impractical.
However,
we
expect
that
sources
would
petition
the
Administrator
to
waive
their
performance
test
date
for
up
to
6
months,
with
an
additional
6
months
possible,
rather
than
to
proceed
with
the
performance
test
without
the
surety
of
an
approved
test
plan.
96
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

97
Some
sources
will
receive
extensions
of
up
to
one
year
to
conduct
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
(
see
40
CFR
63.1207(
e)(
3)).
Therefore,
their
transition
point
will
occur
at
a
later
time
designated
by
the
extension.

98
A
streamlined
permit
modification
was
developed
in
the
1999
rule
to
allow
the
removal
of
duplicative
conditions
from
RCRA
permits
(
see
270.42,
Appendix
I,
Section
A.
8).

99
Only
major
sources
are
required
to
reopen
their
title
V
permits
when
3
or
more
years
remain
in
the
permit
term.
Even
though
area
sources
were
subject
to
the
same
standards
and
title
V
permit
requirements,
they
can
wait
until
renewal
regardless
of
the
time
remaining
to
incorporate
new
or
revised
standards.
The
reopening
provisions
of
40
CFR
70.7(
f)
and
71.7(
f)
only
apply
to
major
sources.

243
B.
How
Will
the
Replacement
Standards
Affect
Permitting
for
Phase
I
Sources?
1.
Where
Will
Phase
I
Sources
Be
in
their
Transition
to
MACT
with
Respect
to
Their
RCRA
Permits?
We
discussed
earlier
that
by
the
time
the
Phase
I
Replacement
standards
and
Phase
II
standards
are
finalized,
most
Phase
I
sources
will
have
completed
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
test
and
submitted
their
NOC
documenting
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards.
97
This
marks
the
point
at
which
sources
will
begin
to
transition
from
RCRA
permitting
requirements
to
CAA
requirements
and
title
V
permitting.
For
sources
with
RCRA
permits,
they
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
operating
standards
and
emission
limits
in
their
permits
until
any
duplicative
requirements
are
either
removed
through
a
permit
modification,
expire,
or
are
automatically
inactivated
via
a
sunset
clause
contained
in
the
permit.
For
sources
operating
under
interim
status,
they
must
comply
with
the
RCRA
interim
status
requirements
until
they
demonstrate
and
document
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards.
We
anticipate
that
sources
who
are
in
the
process
of
renewing
their
RCRA
permits
would
work
with
their
permit
writers
to
include
sunset
clauses
to
inactivate
duplicative
requirements
upon
compliance
with
the
MACT
Interim
Standards.
Given
the
permit
actions
taken
during
the
transition
period
leading
up
to
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards,
we
believe
that
many
sources
will
have
had
duplicative
requirements
removed
from
their
permits
by
the
time
the
Replacement
Standards
are
promulgated.
For
sources
that
have
not
had
their
RCRA
permits
modified,
we
expect
that
they
will
proceed
with
a
modification
to
remove
duplicative
requirements.
98
2.
Where
Will
Phase
I
Sources
Be
in
Their
Transition
to
MACT
with
Respect
to
Their
Title
V
Permits?
With
regard
to
title
V
permits,
Phase
I
major
and
area
sources
were
required
to
submit
a
title
V
permit
application
12
months
after
the
effective
date
of
the
1999
rule
­
or
were
required
to
reopen
existing
title
V
permits
with
3
or
more
years
remaining
in
the
permit
term,
18
months
after
the
effective
date
­
to
include
the
MACT
standards.
Sources
with
less
than
3
years
remaining
could
wait
until
renewal
to
incorporate
the
1999
standards.
99
Upon
promulgation
of
the
Interim
Standards
on
February
13,
2002,
major
sources
were
required
to
reopen
their
permits
or
could
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

244
wait
until
renewal
to
include
the
revised
standards
according
to
the
same
time
frames
mentioned
above.
Therefore,
we
expect
that
all
Phase
I
sources
would
have
title
V
permits
containing
the
MACT
Interim
Standards
and
potentially,
operating
standards
in
accordance
with
their
DOC,
at
the
time
the
Replacement
Standards
rule
is
promulgated.
Furthermore,
most
sources
will
have
initiated
a
significant
modification
to
their
permits
to
include
the
revised
operating
requirements
of
their
NOC.
Regardless
of
these
required
compliance
activities
leading
up
to
the
promulgation
date
of
the
Replacement
Standards
rule,
Phase
I
sources
will
again
need
to
reopen
within
18
months
or
wait
until
renewal
to
incorporate
the
MACT
Replacement
standards.
3.
What
Is
Different
with
Respect
to
Permitting
in
Today's
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking?
Based
upon
our
decision
to
utilize
the
same
general
permitting
approach
as
in
the
1999
and
Interim
Standards
rules,
we
expect
sources
to
follow
the
same
transition
scheme
as
it
relates
to
RCRA
permit
requirements
and
the
CAA
requirements
and
title
V
permitting
for
the
Replacement
Standards
rule.
One
aspect,
however,
that
was
not
addressed
in
those
rules
was
how
the
permitting
of
new
sources
would
be
affected.
Hence,
we
discuss
approaches
in
this
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
see
Section
A.
1.
above)
that
would
require
them
to
obtain
RCRA
permits
only
for
corrective
action,
general
facility
standards,
other
combustor
specific
concerns
such
as
material
handling,
risk­
based
emission
limits
and
operating
requirements,
and
other
hazardous
waste
management
units
at
the
source.
Should
the
approach
we
are
proposing
be
finalized,
there
may
not
be
any
operating
requirements
and
emission
standards
to
remove
from
their
RCRA
permits.
We
also
discussed
a
new
streamline
permit
modification
procedure
in
section
A.
2.
"
What
Are
the
Proposed
Changes
to
the
RCRA
Permitting
Requirements
that
Will
Facilitate
the
Transition
to
MACT?".
This
new
procedure
allows
sources
to
waive
specific
RCRA
permit
operating
and
emission
limits
during
pretesting,
performance
testing,
and
other
instances
where
there
may
be
conflicts
during
the
interim
period
between
submission
of
the
Documentation
of
Compliance
and
final
RCRA
permit
modification.
Another
important
difference
is
our
proposal
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
evaluate
the
need
for
and,
where
appropriate,
require
SSRAs.
We
are
also
proposing
to
codify
the
authority
for
permit
writers
to
add
conditions
to
RCRA
permits
that
they
determine,
based
on
the
results
of
an
SSRA,
are
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
doing
so,
our
intent
is
to
change
the
regulatory
mechanism
that
is
the
basis
for
SSRAs,
while
retaining
the
same
SSRA
policy
from
a
substantive
standpoint.
Under
this
approach,
permitting
authorities
continue
to
have
the
responsibility
to
ensure
the
protectiveness
of
RCRA
permits.
Next,
we
have
proposed
to
re­
institute
the
NIC
(
see
Part
Two,
Section
XVI
for
a
discussion
of
the
NIC)
for
Phase
I
sources
and
to
require
the
NIC
for
Phase
II
sources.
While
the
NIC
serves
as
a
compliance
planning
tool
and
to
promote
early
public
involvement,
it
is
also
a
requirement
before
the
streamlined
permit
modification
procedure
in
40
CFR
§
270.42(
j)
and
270.42,
Appendix
I,
Section
L.
9,
can
be
utilized
to
make
changes
to
either
the
combustor
design
or
operations,
in
order
to
comply
with
the
final
Replacement
Standards.
Thus,
sources
who
have
not
yet
made
the
transition
from
their
RCRA
permits
to
title
V
permits
must
comply
with
the
NIC
requirements
to
take
advantage
of
the
streamlined
permit
modification.
*
OMB
Review
Draft*

245
Last,
a
subtle
difference
pertaining
to
the
transition
scheme
stems
from
the
time
span
between
compliance
with
the
Interim
Standards
and
the
effective
date
of
the
Replacement
Standards
relative
to
RCRA
permits.
Sources
who
received
extensions
to
the
date
for
commencing
their
initial
comprehensive
performance
test,
whether
a
6
month
or
12
month
extension,
will
not
be
required
to
submit
an
NOC
until
either
a
few
months
before
or
just
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
Replacement
Standards
rule.
Therefore,
these
sources
would
be
modifying
their
RCRA
permits
just
before
or
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule.
Nevertheless,
we
anticipate
that
sources
will
proceed
with
modification
of
their
RCRA
permits
to
remove
duplicative
requirements.