United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office or Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA^50/3-91-004
November 1990
Air
Municipal Waste Combustion:
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards
and Guidelines -
Summary of Public Comments
and Responses
This document printed on recycled paper
-------
EPA-450/3-91-004
Municipal Waste Combustion:
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards and
Guidelines — Summary of
Public Comments and Responses
Emission Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
December 1990
-------
This report is issued by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It presents technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and non-profit organizations—as supplies permit—from the Li-
brary Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangfe Park, NC 27711, phone 919-541-2777 (FTS 629-2777), or
may be obtained for a fee from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, phone 703-487-4650 (FTS 737-
4650).
Publication No. EPA-450/3-91-004
11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Background Information Document
for New and Existing Municipal Waste Combustors
Prepared by:
James B. Weigold January 11, 1991
Acting Director, Emission Standards Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1. The Standards of performance limit emissions of Municipal
Waste Combustor (MWC) emissions (i.e., MWC organics, MWC
metals, and MWC acid gases) and nitrogen Oxides (NOX) from
all new MWC's at plants with aggregate capacities to
combust greater than 225 megagrams per day (Mg/day)
(225 tons per day [tpd]). The emission guidelines for
existing MWC's set levels for control of MWC emissions
from all existing MWC's at plants with capacities above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7411), as amended, directs the Administrator to
establish standards of performance for any category of new
stationary source of air pollution that "...causes or
contributes significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare."
2. Copies of this document have been sent to the following
Federal Departments: Office of Management and Budget,
Commerce, Interior, and Energy; the National Science
Foundation; and the Council on Environmental Quality.
Copies have also been sent to members of the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators; the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; EPA
Regional Administrators; and other interested parties.
3. For additional information contact:
Mr. Walter Stevenson
Standards Development Branch (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Telephone: (919) 541-5264
4. Copies of this document may be obtained from:
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-2777
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (703) 487-4600
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL 1-2
1.1.1 Applicability 1-2
1.1.2 Definitions 1-3
1.1.3 Materials Separation 1-4
1.1.4 Standards and Guidelines for
Municipal Waste Combustor
Emissions 1-4
1.1.5 Recordkeeping and Reporting 1-5
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED
ACTION 1-6
1.2.1 Alternatives to Promulgated
Action 1-6
1.2.2 Environmental Impacts of
Promulgated Action 1-6
1.2.3 Cost Impacts 1-7
1.2.4 Energy and Economic Impacts of
Promulgated Action 1-7
2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS 2-1
2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS 2-1
2.2 ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT SUMMARIES 2-1
2.3 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FOR
UNITS OF MEASURE 2-44
3.0 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS 3-1
3.1 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 3-1
3.2 SELECTION OF DESIGNATED POLLUTANT 3-7
3.3 SELECTION OF AFFECTED FACILITIES 3-10
3.3.1 Emission Sources Covered 3-10
3.3.2 Affected Facility 3-12
3.4 MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 3-13
3.5 SELECTION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED
TECHNOLOGY FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS 3-14
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
3.7 SELECTION OF FORMAT OF PROPOSED
STANDARDS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
Page
3.5.1 Municipal Waste Combustor Organics . 3-14
3.5.2 Municipal Waste Combustor Metals
and Particulate Matter 3-26
3.5.3 Municipal Waste Combustor
Acid Gases 3-39
3.5.4 Good Combustion Practices 3-47
3.5.4.1 Operator Training 3-47
3.5.4.2 Carbon Monoxide Limits . . . 3-52
3.5.4.3 Time at Temperature/
Temperature 3-59
3.5.4.4 Capacity 3-61
3.5.4.5 Particulate Matter
Control Device
Inlet Flue Gas
Temperature 3-64
3.5.4.6 Overall Good Combustion
Practices Comments 3-66
3.5.5 Size Categories for New
Municipal Waste Combustors
Plants 3-71
3.5.5.1 Size Category Distinction
Between Small and Large
Municipal Waste Combustors
Plants 3-71
3.5.5.2 Lower Size Cutoff ....'. 3-75
3.5.6 General Comments on Emission
Limits 3-83
3.6 IMPACTS OF MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR
EMISSIONS STANDARDS 3_98
3.6.1 Environmental ...... 3 QR
3.6.2 Health (and Risk * '
Assessment) , , n.
3.6.3 Energy '.'.'.'.'. 3-10*
3.6.4 Cost and Economic 3-109
3-115
3.8 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS AND
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS ... 3 118
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
/
Chapter
3.8.1 Periodic Testing 3-118
3.8.2 Continuous Monitoring 3-126
3.8.3 Comments on Test Methods 3-140
3.9 ENFORCEMENT, REPORTING AND
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS .... 3-148
3.9.1 Enforcement 3-148
3.9.2 Reporting and Recordkeeping 3-150
3.10 START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION
PROVISIONS .3~152
3.11 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 3-159
3.12 WORDING OF REGULATION 3-161
4.0 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - MATERIALS
SEPARATION 4-1
4.1 SELECTION OF MATERIALS SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS 4-1
4.1.1 Percent Separation 4-1
4.1.2 Lead-Acid Vehicle Battery
Prohibition 4-15
4.1.3 Household Battery Separation .... 4-19
4.2 IMPACTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATION
STANDARDS 4-28
4.2.1 Environmental 4-28
4.2.2 Health and Risk Assessment 4-46
4.2.3 Energy 4-48
4.2.4 Cost, Economic, and Market 4-51
4.2.4.1 Control Cost 4-51
4.2.4.2 Economic and Market
Impacts • . . . 4-57
4.3 COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR MATERIALS
SEPARATION • • • 4~69
4.3.1 Calculation of Percent
Separation 4-69
4.3.2 Contractual Arrangements 4-75
4.3.3 Combustion Permit 4-77
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter page
4.3.4 Enforcement Guidance and General
Enforcement Comments ........ 4-81
4.3.5 Battery Separation Compliance .... 4-85
4.4 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
FOR MATERIALS SEPARATION .... ....... 4-86
4.5 LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MATERIALS
SEPARATION STANDARDS ............ 4-88
4.6 OVERALL AGENCY STRATEGY TO PROMOTE MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING .... 4-91
4.6.1 Separation for Landfills ...-=... 4-91
4.6.2 Overall Strategies ......... 4-93
4.7 WORDING OF REGULATION ........... 4-100
4.8 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON
MATERIALS SEPARATION ............ 4-105
5.0 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -
NITROGEN OXIDES ................. 5-1
5.1 SELECTION OF NITROGEN
OXIDES FOR REGULATION ........... 5-1
5.2 SELECTION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED
TECHNOLOGY FOR NITROGEN OXIDES ....... 5-3
5.3 IMPACTS OF NITROGEN OXIDES CONTROL ..... 5-20
5.3.1 Environmental and Health ...... 5-20
5.3.2 Energy ................ 5-22
5.3.3 Cost and Economic .......... 5-22
5.4 PERFORMANCE TESTING AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS FOR NITROGEN OXIDES ...... 5_28
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ... 6-1
6.1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES
6.2 COFIRING ........... ' ....... 6_2
6.3 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
CONSIDERATIONS ............... 6_8
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
7.0 EMISSION GUIDELINES - MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS 7-1
7.1 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 7-1
7.2 SELECTION OF DESIGNATED POLLUTANT 7-2
7.3 SELECTION OF DESIGNATED FACILITIES 7-2
7.4 MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 7-2
7.5 SELECTION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED
TECHNOLOGY FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS 7-3
7.5.1 Municipal Waste Combustor
Organics 7-3
7.5.2 Municipal Waste Combustor
Metals and Particulate Matter .... 7-11
7.5.3 Municipal Waste Combustor
Acid Gases 7-18
7.5.4 Good Combustion Practices 7-30
7.5.4.1 Operator Training and
Certification 7-30
7.5.4.2 Carbon Monoxide Limits . . . 7-31
7.5.4.3 Time at Temperature/
Temperature . 7-36
7.5.4.4 Capacity 7-36
7.5.4.5 Particulate Matter
Control Device Inlet
Flue Gas Temperature .... 7-39
7.5.4.6 Overall Good Combustion
Practices Comments 7-41
7.5.5 Size Categories for Existing
Municipal Waste Combustors 7-43
7.5.5.1 Size Category Distinction
Between Regional and
Large Municipal Waste
Combustors 7-43
7.5.5.2 Size Category Distinction
Between Small and
Large Municipal Waste
Combustors 7-54
7.5.5.3 Lower Size Cutoff 7-56
7.5.6 General Comments on Emission Levels . 7-58
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
7.6 IMPACTS OF MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR
EMISSION GUIDELINES ............ 7-63
7.6.1 Environmental ............ 7-63
7.6.2 Health and Risk Assessment ..... 7-68
7.6.3 Energy ............... 7-71
7.6.4 Cost and Economic .......... 7-71
7.6.5 Benefits Analysis .......... 7-91
7.7 SELECTION OF FORMAT OF PROPOSED
GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS ............ 7-96
7.8 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS AND
MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS ......... 7-97
7.8.1 Period Testing ........... 7-97
7.8.2 Continuous Monitoring ........ 7-97
7.8.3 Comments on Proposed Test
Methods ............... 7-98
7.9 ENFORCEMENT, REPORTING AND
RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR
EMISSIONS ................. 7-100
7.10 MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS . .......... 7-100
7.11 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ............ 7-100
7.12 WORDING OF GUIDELINES ........... 7-104
7.13 COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR COMBUSTOR
EMISSIONS ................. 7-105
8.0 EMISSION GUIDELINES - MATERIALS
SEPARATION ........ . .
8.1 SELECTION OF MATERIALS
SEPARATION PROVISIONS
8.1.1 Percent Separation ......... Q_-^
8.1.2 Lead-Acid Vehicle
Battery Prohibition ......... 8_2
8.1.3 Household Battery Separation . . . '. s-2
8.2 IMPACTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATION
GUIDELINES ................. 8-2
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
8.2.1 Environmental 8-2
8.2.2 Health and Risk Assessment 8-3
8.2.3 Energy 8-3
8.2.4 Cost, Economic, and Market 8-3
*
8.3 COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR MATERIALS
SEPARATION 8-6
8.3.1 Calculation of Percent Separation . . 8-6
8.3.2 Contractual Arrangements 8-6
8.3.3 Combustion Permit 8-8
8.3.4 Enforcement Guidance/General
Enforcement Comments 8-9
8.3.5 Batter/ Separation Compliance .... 8-9
8.4 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS
FOR MATERIALS SEPARATION 8-10
8.5 LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MATERIALS
SEPARATION GUIDELINES 8-10
8.6 OVERALL AGENCY STRATEGY TO PROMOTE
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING 8-10
8.6.1 Separation for Landfills 8-10
8.6.2 Overall Strategies 8-10
8.7 WORDING OF REGULATION 8-12
8.8 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MATERIALS
SEPARATION 8-12
9.0 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTOR EMISSION GUIDELINES 9-1
9.1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES 9-1
9.2 COFIRING 9-1
9.3 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION CONSIDERATIONS 9-3
9.4 NITROGEN OXIDES CONTROL FOR
EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS .... 9-6
9.5 OTHER 9-7
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR
MUNICIPALS COMBUSTORS 2-2
2-2 LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS
ON PROPOSED STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS 2-35
7-1 PERFORMANCE OF ACID GAS CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES 7-48
XI
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
A consent decree required the Administrator of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to sign proposed
standards for new municipal waste combustors (MWC's), and
emission guidelines for existing MWC's by November 30, 1989.
The standards were signed on schedule and were published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 20, 1989 (54 FR 52251
and 52209) under authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The consent decree also required the Administrator to
sign final standards by December 31, 1990. This consent
decree was subsequently modified to extend the deadline until
January 11, 1991.
Public comments were requested on the proposed standards
and guidelines. There were over 300 written comments
received, mainly from industrial representatives,
municipalities, and private citizens. Also commenting were
environmental groups, State agencies, and industrial trade
associations. Public hearings were held in Boston,
Massachusetts, on January 22 and 23, 1990; in Detroit,
Michigan, on January 25 and 26, 1990; and in Seattle,
Washington, on January 30 and 31, 1990. These hearings were
open to the public and over 100 commenters commented on the
proposed standards at these meetings. The written comments
that were submitted and verbal comments made at the public
hearings, along with responses to these comments, are
summarized in this document. The summary of comments and
responses serves as the basis for the revisions made to the
standards and guidelines between proposal and promulgation.
On November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were
adopted and they included, among other things, a new
1-1
-------
Section 129 that applies to solid waste incinerators.
Section 129 applies to a range of solid waste incinerators
including MWC's, medical waste incinerators, infectious waste
incinerators, and industrial waste incinerators. For MWC's,
Section 129 directs that the new source performance standards
(NSPS) and guidelines be broadened beyond their present form
and specifies the schedule for revision. First, Section 129
authorizes EPA to promulgate NSPS and guidelines applicable to
MWC units larger than 225 megagrams per day (Mg/day) (250 tons
per day [tpd]) unit capacity on schedule, as required by the
consent decree. The standards and guidelines currently being
promulgated comply with that requirement. Second, Section 129
directs EPA to review and revise the current NSPS and
guidelines within one year, to be fully consistent with
Section 129. This may result in a number of changes to the
NSPS and guidelines including the addition of numerical
emission limits for mercury, cadmium, and lead. Third,
Section 129 directs that NSPS and guidelines, fully consistent
with Section 129, be promulgated for MWC's of less than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) unit capacity within two years.
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
Substantial changes have been made to the standards and
guidelines in response to comments and additional analyses
completed since proposal. The major changes are summarized
below.
1.1.1 Applicability
To be consistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990,
Sections 60.50a of the NSPS and Section 60.32a of the
guidelines have been modified to specify that only MWC units
with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) of MSW are
affected by the NSPS and guidelines. Proposed emission levels
for smaller MWC's have been deleted from the regulations.
Both the NSPS and the guidelines have been modified to exempt
two specific classes of combustors. A new paragraph has been
added to both the NSPS in Section 60.50a and the guidelines in
Section 60.32a which will exempt dedicated MWC's combusting
only tires or fuel derived solely from tires from all
1-2
-------
provisions of the standards or guidelines except an initial
report. Additionally, as a result of comments received, a new
paragraph has been added to exempt cofired combustors that
fire fuel streams containing 30 percent or less MSW (by
weight, daily basis) from all provisions of the standards and
guidelines except the initial report and records and reports
of the daily weight of MSW and each other fuel combusted.
Another paragraph has been added that clarifies that
combustion of segregated medical waste in MWC's above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity is not subject to the NSPS.
Also, a new subsection has been added to the NSPS in
Section 60.58a providing procedures for calculating MWC unit
capacity and providing default design heating values to be
used in this calculation. Finally, the materials separation
provisions have been deleted.
1.1.2 Definitions
Several minor changes to definitions, as well as some
additions, have been made in both Section 60.51a of the
standards and Section 60.31a of the guidelines to improve
clarity. The more significant changes are revisions to the
definition of MSW and the revision of the definitions of large
MWC plant and very large MWC plant in the guidelines.
The definition of MSW provided in Section 60.51a of
Subpart Ea has been revised to clarify that it is the source
and nature of the discarded material that is critical, rather
than the percent composition of the waste stream. In general,
discards from residential, commercial, and institutional
facilities, whether single materials or mixtures, are
considered MSW, but industrial process and manufacturing
wastes are not considered MSW. Greater detail about what
materials are not included in this definition has also been
provided.
Large MWC plant in the final guidelines will apply to
plants with aggregate capacity to combust more than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) of MSW, but less than or equal to 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd), and very large MWC plant will apply to those MWC
plants with capacities above 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). This
1-3
-------
definition of a very large plant replaces the proposed
definition of a "regional" MWC plant. (The NSPS applies the
same standards to all MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day
[250 tpd] and so does not apply different standards based on
aggregate plant capacity.)
Definitions for batch MWC. cofired combustor.
Federally—enforceable. maximum demonstrated particulate matter
control device temperature, maximum demonstrated MWC unit
load, and standard conditions have been added for clarity.
The meaning and use of these terms is explained either in the
regulations and/or in the responses to comments in
Chapters 3.0 through 9.0.
1.1.3 Materials Separation
The final regulations do not include requirements for
materials separation. Although the materials separation
provisions have been deleted, this document addresses many of
the generic issues raised during the public comment period
relating to generic issues associated with materials
separation programs in conjunction with municipal waste
combustion (see especially chapters 4 and 8) .
1.1.4 Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustor
Emissions
The final standards for MWC organic emissions from new
MWC's with unit capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) have
been set at 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(ng/dscm) [12 grains per billion dry standard cubic foot
(gr/billion dscf)] total dioxins/furans in Section 60.53a(c)
of Subpart Ea. In the final guidelines, the emission level
for MWC's with unit capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) at
very large MWC plants has been set at 60 ng/dscm (24
gr/billion dscf) in Section 60.34a of Subpart Ca, The MWC
organic emission level for MWC's at existing large plants has
not changed since proposal. The reasons for these changes are
described in Chapters 3.0 and 7.0.
The final standards for MWC acid gases from new MWC's has
been revised from an 85-percent reduction in potential sulfur
dioxide (802) emissions to an 80-percent reduction (24-hour
1-4
-------
geometric mean) in Section 60.54a(c) of Subpart Ea. Changes
have also been made in the final guidelines for MWC acid gas
emissions from existing designated MWC's at very large MWC
plants in Section 60.35a. The percent reduction for SO2
emissions has been revised from 85 to 70 percent (24-hour
geometric mean), and the percent reduction for hydrogen
chloride (HC1) emissions has been changed from 95 to
90 percent for existing designated MWC's at very large plants.
These changes are based on analyses described in Chapters 3.0
and 7.0.
Additionally, the standards and guidelines for MWC
operating practices in Sections 60.56a and 60.35a have been
revised somewhat. The carbon monoxide (CO) levels and
averaging times have been revised for certain types of MWC's.
The uniform maximum particulate matter (PM) control device
inlet temperature has been changed to a requirement that a
site-specific maximum temperature be established at each MWC
during the dioxin/furan compliance test.
Finally, the standard for nitrogen oxides (KOX) in
Section 60.55a has been set at 180 parts per million by volume
(ppmv). This applies only to new MWC's with unit capacities
above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). (The proposal included a range of
120 to 200 ppmv.)
Compliance provisions for calculating the 24-hour
geometric mean percent reduction for SO2 have been added to
Reference Method 19.
1.1.5 Recordkeepina and Reporting
The provisions for recordkeeping and reporting in
Section 60.59a of the standards and Section 60.39a of the
emission guidelines have been revised to support the changes
enumerated in the previous sections. The only significant
change involves appropriate recordkeeping and reporting
provisions for NOX emissions consistent with the emission
limit established. The reporting requirements associated with
the proposed materials separation requirements have been
deleted.
1-5
-------
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION
1.2.1 Alternatives to Promulgated Action
The regulatory alternatives are discussed in the proposal
preamble and the background information documents (BID's) for
the proposed standards and guidelines. (52 FR 52251 and
52209). These regulatory alternatives reflect the different
levels of emission control from which one was selected that
represents the best demonstrated technology, considering
costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements associated with MWC's. These alternatives
remain substantially the same as at proposal.
1.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Promulgated Action
The preambles to the proposed standards and guidelines
discussed the environmental impacts likely to result from
these regulations. The estimated impacts have changed as a
result of changes in the final regulations.
Air Emissions. In the fifth year after adoption, the
standards for MWC emissions would reduce emissions of
dioxins/furans from affected new MWC's by about 99 percent.
Overall MWC metal emission reductions of about 99 percent
would be achieved. Acid gas emissions at affected new MWC's
would be reduced by about 94 percent, and NOX emissions would
be reduced by about 45 percent.
Under the guidelines for existing MWC's, emissions of
dioxins/furans from designated MWC's would be reduced by about
95 percent. Overall MWC metals emission reductions of about
97 percent would be achieved. Acid gas emissions at
designated MWC's would be reduced by about 65 percent. There
are no guidelines for KOX emissions from existing MWC's.
Water and Solid Waste. As discussed at proposal, no
significant water or solid waste impacts are projected for the
standards and guidelines. Requirements for good combustion
practices (GCP) tend to reduce the quantity of ash generated
by MWC's, whereas addition of acid gas control slightly
increases the quantity of ash generated due to addition of
lime scrubber solids. Overall, the standards and guidelines
would increase the net amount of MWC ash generated by roughly
1-6
-------
5 percent relative to baseline. It is unclear what, if any,
effect acid gas control would have on ash quality. However,
increased scrutiny and control over waste disposal in
municipal waste landfills should result in environmentally
adequate ash disposal practices. Combustion of MSW as opposed
to direct landfilling greatly reduces the volume of waste to
be disposed of in landfills (by approximately 90 percent) and
extends landfill life.
1.2.3 Cost Impacts
The cost impacts of the standards and guidelines have
been revised somewhat since proposal. The total annualized
costs of control in the fifth year after adoption of the
standards for new MWC's would be $170 million, and the overall
national average annualized cost per unit of MSW combusted
would be $12/Mg ($ll/ton). Cost increases resulting from the
standards for typical new MWC plants would range from about
$11 to $21/Mg ($10 to $19/ton) of MSW combusted. For
perspective, typical costs incurred by the general public for
disposal of MSW range from $40 to over $100/Mg ($36 to
$90/ton) of MSW, including collection, transportation,
combustion, and ash disposal.
The total annualized cost of the guidelines for existing
MWC's would be about $302 million, and the overall national
cost would be about $12/Mg ($ll/ton) of MSW combusted. Cost
increases for typical very large existing MWC plants resulting
from the guidelines would range from about $8 to $12/Mg ($7 to
$ll/ton) of MSW combusted. Cost increases for typical large
existing MWC plants would range from about $8 to ,$36/Mg ($7 to
$32/ton) of MSW combusted.
1.2.4 Energy and Economic Impacts of Promulgated Action
The BID'S for the proposed standards and guidelines
discussed the economic impacts. Additional technical
background documents published at promulgation discuss the
economic impacts of the final regulations.
A new MWC regulated under the standards would require
additional energy to operate the MWC emissions and NOX control
equipment. Total national usage of electrical energy would
1-7
-------
increase by about 220,000 megawatt hours per year (MW-hrs/yr).
For existing MWC's, total national electrical energy usage for
operating the MWC emissions control equipment would increase
by about 210,000 MW-hrs/yr. Also, natural gas for auxiliary
fuel at existing MWC's would increase by about 820 terajoules
(TJ) (7.8xl011 Btu) per year. Although new and existing MWC's
would require additional energy to operate control equipment,
the additional energy use would result in only a very small
net reduction in energy generation at the MWC site of less
than 3 percent.
The NSPS and guidelines will have a wide range of impacts
on the price of combustion services. Using a 1988 average
tipping fee of $42.70/Mg ($38.74/ton) of waste combusted
(1987 dollars), and assuming the full cost of meeting the
standards is passed directly to MWC customers, the lowest and
highest price increases for the model new MWC plants used in
the Agency's economic analysis will be 25 and 50 percent,
respectively. Using the same average tipping fee, the lowest
and highest price increases for model existing MWC plants will
be 19 and 84 percent, respectively.
The economic impacts on small communities and on
households in those communities will not occur because MWC's
in small communities will not have sufficient capacities to be
covered under these standards or guidelines.
The Agency reanalyzed how the standards and guidelines
might affect the way communities and private owners choose
among alternative waste disposal technologies, and among
alternative capacities from those MWC's that are constructed.
The Agency expects that, as a result of the standards for new
MWC's, some communities will substitute landfills and other
waste management options for some combustors, and therefore,
that fewer MWC's will be constructed. As a result of this
substitution, the direct social cost of controlling emissions
from the new MWC's drops, and MWC emission reductions due to
the standards are less than what they would have been had
there been no adjustments of MWC construction plans.
1-8
-------
The Agency also expects that some communities may elect
to close their existing MWC's and substitute landfills or
other waste management options rather than implement the
guidelines. However, in an analysis scenario that allows new
MWC's as substitutes for existing MWC's that will be very
expensive to retrofit, the Agency found that there was no
substitution. The Agency recognizes that both the social
costs and emissions due to MWC's would likely be reduced if,
because of the cost of the regulation, communities chose to
replace their existing combustors with other, less expensive
means of solid waste disposal.
Some of the benefits of the NSPS and guidelines have been
quantified. The absence of a sufficient exposure-response and
valuation information precludes a comprehensive benefits
analysis. Partial benefits for reduction of PM and SO2 —
primarily benefits from reductions in morbidity and
mortality — are expected to total $70 to $120 million for the
NSPS and $95 to $152 million for the guidelines.
1-9
-------
2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS
2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS
The public comment period was from December 20, 1989, to
March 1, 1990. A total of over 300 letters commenting on the
proposed standards and guidelines were received. Comments
were provided by industry representatives, governmental
entities, environmental groups, and private citizens. These
comments have been recorded and placed in the docket for these
rulemakings (Docket No. A-89-08, Category IV-D). Table 2-1
presents a listing of all persons submitting written comments,
their affiliation, and the recorded Docket Item No. assigned
to each comment letter.
In addition, 118 persons presented oral comments on the
proposed standards and guidelines at public hearings held in
Boston, Massachusetts, on January 22 and 23, 1990; in Detroit,
Michigan, on January 25 and 26, 1990; and in Seattle,
Washington, on January 30 and 31, 1990. Verbatim transcripts
of the comments at the public hearings have been prepared and
placed in Docket No. A-89-08, Category IV-F. Table 2-2
presents a listing of all persons presenting comments at the
public hearings, their affiliation, and the Docket Item No.
assigned to each speaker.
2.2 ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT SUMMARIES
Comments made at the public hearings or submitted in
writing are summarized and responses are provided in
Chapters 3.0 through 9.0. The comments are grouped by subj ect
areas, and the organization of topics is similar to the
organization of the proposal preamble for the NSPS and
guidelines (54 FR 52251 and 54 FR 52209).
2-1
-------
Chapters 3.0 through 6.0 include comments on the proposed
NSPS. Chapter 3.0 contains comments on the applicability of
the NSPS and the standards for MWC emissions (e.g., MWC
organics, MWC acid gases, and MWC metals). These include
comments on selection of the best demonstrated technology for
control of MWC emissions, the selected size categories for
MWC's, the proposed emission limits, GCP requirements, and the
testing, monitoring, and reporting provisions. Comments on
the environmental, economic, and other impacts of the
standards are also included.
Chapter 4.0 summarizes comments on materials separation.
These include comments on the proposed separation requirements
and the associated compliance demonstration and reporting
provisions. The environmental, economic, and other impacts of
materials separation are also discussed. In addition, broader
comments on national strategies to promote MSW recycling are
contained in Chapter 4.0.
Chapter 5.0 summarizes comments on the proposed standards
for NOX. Chapter 6.0 includes other comments on miscellaneous
issues related to the NSPS.
Chapters 7.0 through 9.0 summarize comments on the
proposed emission guidelines for existing MWC's. In many
instances, comments apply equally to new and existing MWC's
regulated under the NSPS and guidelines. In such cases, the
comment is included with NSPS comments in Chapters 3.0 through
6.0 and is not repeated in Chapters 7.0 through 9.0. Only
those comments and responses that pertain specifically to the
guidelines and not the NSPS, are included in Chapters 7.0,
8.0, and 9.0.
Chapter 7.0 contains comments related to the guidelines
for MWC emissions and compliance times for existing MWC's.
Chapter 8.0 focuses on the materials separation provisions of
the guidelines; and Chapter 9.0 includes miscellaneous
comments on topics related to the guidelines.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-01 Lloyd L. Chambers, III
Nekoosa Papers Inc.
Port Edwards, Wisconsin
IV-D-02 Lloyd L. Chambers, III
Nekoosa Papers Inc.
Port Edwards, Wisconsin
IV-D-03 Donald L. Shepherd
Private Citizen
Salem, Virginia
IV-D-04 Lloyd L. Chambers, III
Nekoosa Papers Inc.
Port Edwards, Wisconsin
IV-D-05 Kenneth R. St. George
Private Citizen
Chicopee, Massachusetts
IV-D-06 Nancy E. Rogers
Board of Health
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
IV-D-07 Sharyl Barbee
Private Citizen
Madison Heights, Michigan
IV-D-08 Harry A. Watters
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency
Seattle, Washington
IV-D-09 Orinne Goldberg
Private Citizen
Spokane, Washington
IV-D-10 Charles A. Collins
Air Quality Division
State of Wyoming
IV-D-11 Judd Gregg
Office of the Governor
Concord, New Hampshire
Continued
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) . LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-12 George C. Pedersen
Kimre, Inc.
Perrine, Florida
IV-D-13 Thomas W. Stephens
Private Citizen
Detroit, Michigan
IV-D-14 Ronald R. Welch
City of Petersburg
Petersburg, Alaska
IV-D-15 Arthur C. Sprenkle
House of Representatives
Olympia, Washington
IV-D-16 Joan Stevens
American Lung Association of
New Hampshire
Manchester, New Hampshire
IV-D-17 Christine 0. Gregoire
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
IV-D-18 Louis D. Draghetti
Town of Agawam
Department of Weights and Measures
Agawam, Massachusetts
IV-D-19 Alex Sagady
American Lung Association of
Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
IV-D-20 Ora Mae Orton
Council for Land Care & Planning,
Inc.
Spokane, Washington
IV-D-21 David Cohen
Mercury Refining Company
Latham, New York
Continued
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-22 Curtis A. Pike
Town of Wolfeboro
Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
IV-D-23 Loren Yunk, Laura Sarau
Loralaur Technologies
Tucson, Arizona
IV-D-24 Mr. and Mrs. Arthen and
Mary F. Sterna
Private Citizens
Madison Heights, Michigan
IV-D-25 G- Raymond Lorello,
Robert S. Sommers
Public Utilities and Aviation
Department
Columbus, Ohio
IV-D-26 Glen S. McGhee
The Cherry Street & Gold Street
Neighborhood Association, Inc.
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
IV-D-27 Curt Messex
Citizens for Clean Air
Spokane, Washington
IV-D-28 Francis J. Hopcroft
North East Solid Waste Committee
North Andover, Massachusetts
IV-D-29 Mark Radzinski
Solid Waste Management Department
Tulsa, Oklahoma
IV-D-30 J. T. Hestle, Jr.
Nashville Thermal Transfer
Corporation
Nashville, Tennessee
IV-D-31 Richard J. Swift
Foster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc.
Clinton, New Jersey
Continued
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-32 Lloyd J. Compton
Compton Engineering, P.A.
Pascagoula, Mississippi
IV-D-33 Dean A. Massett
City of Red Wing
Red Wing, Minnesota
IV-D-34 Nicholas Menonna, Jr.
KTI Energy, Inc.
Guttenberg, New Jersey
IV-D-35 Mark K. Bobman
Polk County Solid Waste Management
Crookston, Minnesota
IV-D-36 Jim Shirrell
City of Batesville
Batesville, Arkansas
IV-D-37 Lawrence E. Baker
City of Irving, Texas
Department of Environmental
Services
Irving, Texas
IV-D-38 W. Harold Snead
City of Galax
Galax, Virginia
IV-D-39 Dan Edwards
City of Fergus Falls
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
IV-D-40 Stanley J. Keely
Orange County Division of Public
Utilities
Orlando, Florida
IV-D-41 Daniel E. Warren
American Resource Recovery
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Continued
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-42 Frances B. Richerson
United Bio-Fuel Industries, Inc.
Petersburg, Virginia
IV-D-43 Timothy A. Hurst
Cassia County
Burley, Idaho
IV-D-44 Fred E. Marquis
Pinellas County
Clearwater, Florida
IV-D-45 Paul D. Wiegand
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa
IV-D-46 Michael A. Gagliardo
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal
Authority
Baltimore, Maryland
IV-D-47 Fred Retchin
Board of Commissioners
New Hanover County
Wilmington, North Carolina
IV-D-48 Parker Andrews
Department of Public Works
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
IV-D-49 T. C. Crusberg
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts
IV-D-50 Mary R. Wieman
Private Citizen
Spokane, Washington
IV-D-51 Benjamin A. Harvey
Waste Recyclers Council
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-52 James Self
City of Waxahachie
Waxahachie, Texas
~~Continued
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-53 Alan C. Cason
Harford County Government
Belair, Maryland
IV-D-54 Floyd H. Lawson
Broome County Resource Recovery
Agency
Binghamton, New York
IV-D-55 Edward Kuzanarowis
Private Citizen
Sandwich, Massachusetts
IV-D-56 Pam Liester
Pilchuck Audubon Society
Everett, Washington
IV-D-57 Joan Lintelman, Connie Ferguson
The League of Women Voters
Lansing, Michigan
IV-D-58 William H. Hudnut, III
City of Indianapolis
Indianapolis, Indiana
IV-D-59 Ray and Vivienne Kell
Private Citizens
Madison Heights, Michigan
IV-D-60 Janet Manter
Three Rock Solid Waste Planning
District
Candia, New Hampshire
IV-D-61 Jon Peacy
JPC Consultants
Highland Parks, Illinois
IV-D-62 Donald A. Drum
Butler County Community College
Butler, Pennsylvania
Continued
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-63 Jon P. Sandstedt for
Leonard D. Verrelli
State of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
IV-D-64 Steve Shuler
Joy Energy Systems, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
IV-D-65 Carroll W. Chambliss
I. C. Thomasson Associates, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
IV-D-66 Marvin D. McKinley
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
IV-D-67 John Keegan
Trican Energy Systems Limited
Brantford, Ontario, Canada
IV-D-68 Steve Passage
Montenay Power Corporation
Mineola, New York
IV-D-69 Jeffrey C. Smith
IGCI Industrial Gas Cleaning
Institute, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-70 Frank E. Rutherford
City of Tuscaloosa
Solid Waste Disposal Authority
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
IV-D-71 Justin Kopca
Private Citizen
IV-D-72 Richard D. Parker
Londe - Parker, Inc.
Ballwin, Missouri
Continued
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) . LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-73 Timothy I. Michaels
Private Citizen
St. Louis, Missouri
IV-D-74 Richard H. Watson
Washington State Energy Office
Olympia, Washington
IV-D-75 Charles E. Roos
National Recovery Technologies
Nashville, Tennessee
IV-D-76 Paul Gruendler
Private Citizen
Rising Fawn, Georgia
IV-D-77 Durwood S. Curling
Southeastern Public Service
Authority of Virginia
Chesapeake, Virginia
IV-D-78 G. Raymond Lorello
Public Utilities and Aviation
Department
Columbus, Ohio
IV-D-79 Mrs. Velma Drake
Private Citizen
IV-D-80 David A. Buff
KBN Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Inc.
Gainesville, Florida
IV-D-81 John A. Kleppe
Scientific Engineering
Instruments, Inc.
Sparks, Nevada
IV-D-82 Alfred C. Schmidt
Schmidt Instrument Co.
San Carlos, California
Continued
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-83 Philip J. Hamel
Town of Wallingford
Wallingford, Connecticut
IV-D-84 David Gossman
Gossman Consulting, Inc.
Hampshire, Illinois
IV-D-85 Sara Elizabeth Frey
Private Citizen
Bloomington, Indiana
IV-D-86 Donald T. Flood
Scientific Engineering
Instruments, Inc.
Sparks, Nevada
IV-D-87 Roger Randolph
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Jefferson City, Missouri
IV-D-88 Paul A. Faust
Private Citizen
St. Louis, Missouri
IV-D-90 Arthur C. Granfield
Babcock & Wilcox, and National
Ecology
Barberton, Ohio
IV-D-91 William R. Darcy
Connecticut Resources Recovery
Authority
Hartford, Connecticut
IV-D-92 J. R. Smith
Houston Lighting & Power Company
Houston, Texas
IV-D-93 Joel Carr
Village of Saltaire
Saltaire, New York
Continued
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-94 Lawrence M. Hands
WW Engineering & Science, Inc.
Livonia, Michigan
IV-D-95 Doug MacMillian
Environmental Systems Co.
Alexandria, Virginia
IV-D-96 Stephen M. Rhoads
California Energy Commission
Sacramento, California
IV-D-97 John M. Griffin
Michigan Hospital Association
Lansing, Michigan
IV-D-98 Beth C. Miller
Private Citizen
Detroit, Michigan
IV-D-99 Ronald H. Ford
Concord Regional Solid Waste/
Resource Recovery Cooperative
Penacook, New Hampshire
IV-D-100 Michael A. Roller
Recytec America, Inc.
Cedar Knolls, New Jersey
IV-D-101 David B. Sussman
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.
Alexandria, Virginia
IV-D-102 Paul C. Rettig
American Hospital Association
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-103 George Abel
U. S. EPA, Region X
Air Programs Branch
Seattle, Washington
Continued
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-104 George Abel
U. S. EPA, Region X
Air Programs Branch
Seattle, Washington
IV-D-105 David A. Smith
Natural Resources Defense
Council
New York, New York
IV-D-106 Renee J. Robins
Conservation Law Foundation of
New England
Boston, Massachusetts
IV-D-107 John S. Lambert
Foster Wheeler Power Systems, Inc.
Clinton, New Jersey
IV-D-108 Bernard Killian
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Springfield, Illinois
IV-D-109 Bernard Killian
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Springfield, Illinois
IV-D-110 Bernard Fryshman
Private Citizen
Brooklyn, New York
IV-D-111 Everett A. Bass
City of Tampa
Solid Waste Department
Tampa, Florida
IV-D-112 Charles J. Curran
County of Montgomery
Dayton, Ohio
Continued
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-113 John W. Norton
County of Montgomery
Dayton, Ohio
IV-D-114 American Newspaper Publishers
Association
IV-D-115 John D. Pirich
Greater Detroit Resource Recovery
Authority
Detroit, Michigan
IV-D-116 Westinghouse Resource Energy
Systems Division
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
IV-D-117 Marjorie J. Clarke
INFORM, Inc.
New York, New York
IV-D-118 Donna Dupont
Private Citizen
Holyoke, Massachusetts
IV-D-119 C. G. Mumm
Bechtel Corporation
Gaithersburg, Massachusetts
IV-D-120 Thomas Webster
Center for the Biology of Natural
Systems
Flushing, New York
IV-D-121 Mark Cohen
Center for the Biology of Natural
Systems
Flushing, New York
IV-D-122 Robert F. Brothers
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, New York
Continued
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket: Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-123 James Ledbetter
City of Huntsville
Solid Waste Disposal Authority
Huntsville, Alabama
IV-D-124 Arthur C. Granfield
Babcock & Wilcox
Barberton, Ohio
IV-D-125 Harland M. Doliner
Donna J. Vorhees
McGregor, Shea & Doliner
(Counsel for)
Town of North Kingstown
North Kingstown, Rhode Island
IV-D-126 James H. Heil
Town of Brookhaven
Brookhaven, New York
IV-D-127 Bert Brown
Joy Technologies Inc.
Monrovia, California
IV-D-128 James Sears
Department of Solid Waste
Management
Marion County, Oregon
IV-D-129 Audrie Zettick Schaller
Private Citizen
Lower Makefield, Pennsylvania
IV-D-130 Steve Smallwood
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida
IV-D-131 Thomas F. Tansey
SEMASS Partnership
Rochester, Massachusetts
Continued
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket: Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-132 G. Raymond Lorello
Public Utilities and Aviation
Department
Columbus, Ohio
IV-D-133 Walter Roy Quanstrom
Amoco Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
IV-D-134 Edward W. Davis
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York
IV-D-135 Konheim & Ketcham (Counsel for)
Citizens Advisory Committee on
Resource
Queens, New York
IV-D-136 . New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.
New York, New York
IV-D-136A New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc.
New York, New York
IV-D-137 Richard F. Anderson
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Danvers, Massachusetts
IV-D-138 Richard F. Anderson
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Danvers, Massachusetts
IV-D-139 Michael A. Gagliardo
National Resource Recovery
Association
Washington, D. c.
IV-D-140 Dr. James L. Burke
Garden state Paper Company
Elmwood Park, New Jersey
Continued
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-141 Gordon L. Sutin
EAC Systems, Inc.
Albany, New York
IV-D-142 Cheryl Richardson, Carl Hild,
Karen Wood, Randall Weiner,
Mary Grisco
Anchorage Clean Air Coalition
Anchorage, Alaska
IV-D-143 Max Stul Oppenheimer
Venable, Baetjer and Howard
(Counsel for)
The Pulaski Company
Baltimore, Maryland
IV-D-144 Carl W. Strickler, Bo Ocarsson
Gotaverken Energy Systems, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
IV-D-145 Patrick L. Stevens
City of Indianapolis
Indianapolis, Indiana
IV-D-146 Joseph R. Williams
Washington Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
IV-D-147 Fred A. Lafser
Riedel Industrial Waste
Management, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri
IV-D-148 William J. Nicholson
Potlatch Corporation
San Francisco, California
IV-D-149 John W. Drake
Oklahoma Department of Health
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
IV-D-150 John W. Drake
Oklahoma Department of Health
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Continued
2-17
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-151 Dorothy Gibson and Gordon Gibson
Citizens for a Livable Environment
and Recycling, Inc.
Huntington, New York
IV-o-152 Scott Duboff
Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
(Counsel for)
Pinellas County Department of
Solid Waste Management
St. Petersburg, Florida
IV-D-153 Scott Duboff
Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
(Counsel for)
Pinellas County Department of
Solid Waste Management
St. Petersburg, Florida
IV-D-154 Anthony Licata
American Energy Corporation
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-155 Kent Burton
Institute of Resource Recovery
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-156 Robert Earl
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-157 W. Allen Moore
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-158 Occidental Chemical Corporation
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-159 Roger Etter
Waste Combustion Equipment
'institute
Washington, D. C.
Continued
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-160 Luke Schmidt
National Association for Plastic
Container Recovery
Charlotte, North Carolina
IV-D-161 Herschel Cutler
Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-162 Lynn A. Monk
Swidler & Berlin (Counsel for)
Northern States Power Company -
Wisconsin
IV-D-163 Sue M. Briggum
Waste Management, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-164 Governmental Refuse Collection and
Disposal Association
Silver Spring, Maryland
IV-D-165 National Electrical Manufacturers
Association
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-166 National Association of Counties
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-167 J°n Greenberg
Browning-Ferris Industries
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-168 S. William Becker
STAPPA/ALAPCO
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-169 William B. Marx and Jan B. Vlcek
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan
(Counsel for)
Council of Industrial Boiler
Owners
Burk, Virginia
Continued
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-169A William B. Marx and Jan B. Vlcek
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan
(Counsel for)
Council of Industrial Boiler
Owners
Burk, Virginia
IV-D-170 Gerald Z. Dubinski and
Jean M. Beaudoin
Battery Council International
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-171 Norman H. Nosenchuck and
David Buckner
Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-172 H. Randall Puterbaugh
Frontier Industries Inc.
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
IV-D-173 John F. Ruston
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-174 Robert C. Kaufmann
American Paper Institute and the
National Forest Products
Association
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-175 NUMARC/Inadvertently submitted to
Docket A-89-08; Submitted 03/09/90
to Docket A-79-11
IV-D-176 John Chadbourne
Systech Environmental Corporation
Xenia, Ohio
IV-D-177 Bradley J. Beckham
State of Colorado Department of
Health
Denver, Colorado
Continued
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket: Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-178 Robert P. Miller
State of Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Lansing, Michigan
IV-D-179 Harold M. Draper
Mississippi Forestry Association
Jackson, Mississippi
IV-D-180 John H. Gulledge
Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts
Los Angeles, California
IV-D-181 N. C. Vasuki
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Delaware
IV-D-182 David W. Carroll
Lafarge Corporation
Reston, Virginia
IV-D-183 Craig S. Volland
Spectrum Technologists
Kansas City, Missouri
IV-D-184 Mark L. Wollschlager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Omaha, Nebraska
IV-D-185 Kent M. Barlow
Madison Gas and Electric Company
Madison, Wisconsin
IV-D-186 E. Gail Suchman
State of New York Department of
Law
New York, New York
IV-D-187 H. Clark Gregory
Private Citizen
Atlanta, Georgia
Continued
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-188 James K. Hambright
Department of Environmental
Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
IV-D-189 Anthony J. McMahon
State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Trenton, New Jersey
IV-D-190 Francis W. Holm
The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-191 Mary B. Powers
Kalamazoo River Protection
Association
Kalamazoo, Michigan
IV-D-192 Martin C. Fisher
Department of Environmental
Services
County of York
Yorktown, Virginia
IV-D-193 . Francis J. Hopcroft
North East Solid Waste Committee
North Andover, Massachusetts
IV-D-194 Anton S. Gardner
Arlington County, Virginia
IV-D-195 Marjorie A. Franklin
The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-196 Gary M. Garfield
Town of Litchfield
Litchfield, New Hampshire
IV-D-197 Max Stul Oppenheimer
Venable, Baetjer and Howard
Baltimore, Maryland
Continued
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-198 Alan T. Butler
State of Washington Department of
Ecology
Redmond, Washington
IV-D-199 George Abel
U. S. EPA, Region X
Air Programs Branch
Seattle, Washington
IV-D-200 George Abel
U. S. EPA, Region X
Air Programs Branch
Seattle, Washington
IV-D-201 Bonnie Kay House, et. al.
Private Citizens
Phillipston, Massachusetts
IV-D-202 Robert L. Massey
Consumat Systems, Inc.
Richmond, Virginia
IV-D-203 Jeanne Davies
Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter
San Diego, California
IV-D-204 George Rainer
Private Citizen
Irvington, New York
IV-D-205 Victor A. Bell
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Providence, Rhode Island
IV-D-206 Hans G. Arnold
Oneida - Herkimer Solid Waste
Management Authority
Utica, New York
IV-D-207 Ronald O. Webb
Environmental Systems Corporation
Knoxville, Tennessee
Continued
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-208 Mary Brown
Citizens for Responsible Waste
Management
Stratham, New Hampshire
IV-D-209 J. Michael Valentine
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
St. Paul, Minnesota
IV-D-210 Peter D. Venturini
Air Resources Board
Sacramento, California
IV-D-211 G. D. Walmsley, Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company, Document
Inadvertently Put Into This Docket
- Forwarded to Docket A-89-09
IV-D-212 John E. Pinkerton, Reid A. Miner
National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc.
New York, New York
IV-D-213 Craig Hart
Methodist Hospital of Indiana,
Inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IV-D-214 Don Bockelman
Committee to Protect the Ozone
Sedro Woolley, Washington
IV-D-215 Larry K. Bright
Private Citizen
Fairbanks, Alaska
IV-D-216 Doug Swanson
GE Government Services
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-217 Andrew Rodwin
Private Citizen
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Continued
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-218 Andrew Saul
Private Citizen
IV-D-219 Brendan Sexton
Department of Sanitation
New York City, New York
IV-D-220 Ronnie Crochet
Crochet Equipment Company
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
IV-D-221 J. Leonard Ledbetter
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Atlanta, Georgia
IV-D-222 Trudy R. Gasteazoro
Waste to Energy Association
Minnesota
IV-D-223 Timothy F. Hunt, Jr.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm
Beach County
West Palm Beach, Florida
IV-D-224 Frank J. Visser
County of Oswego Department of
Public Works
Fulton, New York
IV-D-225 EPA Regional Administrator,
Region II
New York, New York
IV-D-226 Wayne Goode
Energy and Environmental Committee
Missouri Senate
IV-D-227 Rose A. Menyes, Brian C. Stock
The Lung Association
Windsor, Ontario
Continued
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-228 J» Leonard Ledbetter
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Atlanta, Georgia
IV-D-229 John J. Henry
The City of Revere
Revere, Massachusetts
IV-D-230 Mary E. Hurley
The City of Springfield
Springfield, Massachusetts
IV-D-231 Thomas M. Hendersen
Broward County Board of County
Commissioners
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
IV-D-232 William S. Becker
U. S. Small Business
Administration
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-233 Douglas G. Viafora
Scientific Engineering
Instruments, Inc.
Sparks, Nevada
IV-D-234 David J. Zaber
National Wildlife Federation
Ann Arbor, Michigan
IV-D-235 R. N. Mosher
American Boiler Manufacturers
Association
Arlington, Virginia
IV-D-236 William J. Nicholson
Potlatch Corporation
San Francisco, California
IV-D-237 Charles D. Malloch
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri
Continued
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-238 Daryl Ditz
Cornell Waste Management Institute
Ithaca, New York
IV-D-239 Ross Glasgow
Canadian Embassy
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-240 Elizabeth Greene
State of New Hampshire House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-241 Leigh Sanderson
Private Citizen
Huntsville, Alabama
IV-o-242 Leonard D. Verrelli
State of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
IV-D-243 John R. McKernan
State of Maine Office of the
Governor
Augusta, Ma ine
IV-D-244 Craig Volland
Spectrum Technologists
Kansas City, Missouri
IV-o-245 Air Pollution Control Association
Dallas, Texas
IV-D-246 Joseph R. Williams
State of Washington, Department of
Ecology
Olympia, Washington
IV-D-247 George T. Musler
State of New Hampshire, House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
Continued
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-248 Julino Cesar Roman
Officina del Alcalde, Gobierno
Municipal de Aguada
Aguada, Puerto Rico
IV-D-249 W. Douglas Scaraman
State of New Hampshire, House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-250 Kenneth M. MacAskill
State of New Hampshire, House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-251 Caroline L. Gross
State of New Hampshire, House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-252 Bob Kirk
City of Dyersburg
Dyersburg, Tennessee
IV-D-253 Michael Horn
Private Citizen
Taos, New Mexico
IV-D-254 L. W. Eberley
Northern States Power Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota
IV-D-255 Michael A. Gagliardo
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal
Authority
Baltimore, Maryland
IV-D-256 James Self
City of Waxahachie
Waxahachie, Texas
Continued
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-257 Gary L. Boley
Combustion Engineering
Windsor, Connecticut
IV-D-258 E. O. Morris
Gardinier, Inc.
Riverview, Florida
IV-D-259 ' Paul J. O'Connor
St. Lawrence County Solid Waste
Disposal Authority
Ogdensburg, New York
IV-D-260 Dave Nelson
Pope-Douglas Solid Waste Board
Alexandria, Minnesota
IV-D-261 ' Kenneth F. Sheehan
Public Works Division
Nashua, New Hampshire
IV-D-262 Richard W. McCain
Lake County Fish & Game Protective
Association
Lake County, Indiana
IV-D-263 Christopher Morgan
Private Citizen
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-264 N. C. Vasuki
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Dover, Delaware
IV-D-265 Dominick M. Di Gangi
Greater Bridgeport Regional Solid
Waste Advisory Board
Bridgeport, Connecticut
IV-D-266 Dayle E. Johnson
Quandrant Co.
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Continued
2-29
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-267 Phillip M. Ringrose
Public Works - Utility Services
Tacoma, Washington
IV-D-268 Charles E. Roos
National Recovery Technologies
Nashville, Tennessee
IV-D-269 Reuter Resource Recovery
Hopkins, Minnesota
IV-D-270 Ronald O. Webb
Environmental Systems Corporation
Knoxville, Tennessee
IV-D-271 Gary M. Garfield
Town of Litchfield
Litchfield, New Hampshire
IV-o-272 Linda G. Stuntz
Department of Energy
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-273 Argonne National Laboratory
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
IV-D-274 Dwight Kessel
The Metropolitan Knox Solid Waste
Authority, Inc.
Knox County, Tennessee
IV-D-275 Michelle Slovak, Tova Kantrowitz,
Janice Cardinale, Jesse Wilson,
Martin Nagel,, Jeffrey Kerner
City of Long Beach
Long Beach, New York
IV-D-276 Donald W. Coleman, Donald
J. Belcourt, Neil A. Sieminski
Town of Candia Office of the
Selectman
Candia, New York
Continued
2-30
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-277 Martin W. Walsh, Jr.
State of Maryland Department of
the Environment
Baltimore, Maryland
IV-D-278 Harriet Weinmann Slive
Slive & Slive
Cleveland, Ohio
IV-D-279 Michael Mains
Maine Energy Recovery Company
Biddeford, Maine
IV-D-280 John S. Nordin
Western Research Institute
Laramie, Wyoming
IV-D-281 Richard Schneider
Public Relations Consultant
Fairfield, Iowa
IV-D-282 Sue M. Briggum
Waste Management, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-283 John S. Nordin
Western Research Institute
Laramie, Wyoming
IV-D-284 Elizabeth C. Brown
State of Connecticut House of
Representatives
Hartford, Connecticut
IV-D-285 James Self
City of Waxahachie City Council
Waxahachie, Texas
IV-D-286 Trudy R. Gasteazoro
Waste to Energy Association
Minnesota
Continued
2-31
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-287 Durwood S. Curling
Southeastern Public Service
Authority of Virginia
Chesapeake, Virginia
IV-D-288 James Sahagian
Catrel New York
Edison, New York
IV-D-289 Ronnie Crochet
Crochet Equipment Company, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
IV-D-290 Sue M. Briggum
Waste Management, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
IV-D-291 G. Michael Pope
Entech Corporation
Ottumwa, Iowa
IV-D-292 D. H. Trott
Crossbow, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
IV-D-293 Jerry Raque, Bill Sego
Falls City RDF, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky
IV-D-294 Carl W. Strickler
Reading Energy Company
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
IV-D-295 G. Michael Pope
Entech Corporation
Ottumwa, Iowa
IV-D-296 David S. Beachler
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Continued
2-32
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-297 Ann R. Torr
New Hampshire House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-298 Christine Tritter
Private Citizen
Lisbon, Ohio
IV-D-299 Michael Hill
New Hampshire House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-300 William S. Bartlett, Jr.
New Hampshire House of
Representatives
Concord, New Hampshire
IV-D-301 Caroline A. Anderson
Private Citizen
Shaker Heights, Ohio
IV-D-302 J. Patrick Mulcahy
Eveready Battery Company, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri
IV-D-303 William J. Nicholson
Potlatch Corporation
San Francisco, California
IV-D-304 Stanley E. Shafer
Board of County Commissioners
Wray, Colorado
IV-D-305 Michael Mains
Maine Energy Recovery Company
Biddeford, Maine
IV-D-306 George Wallis
Duracell, Inc.
Needham, Massachusetts
Continued
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-1 (CONCLUDED). LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Commenter and Affiliation
IV-D-307 Louis E. Azzato
Foster Wheeler Corporation
Clinton, New Jersey
IV-D-308 William J. Nicholson
Potlatch Corporation
San Francisco, California
IV-D-309 William J. Nicholson
Potlatch Corporation
San Francisco, California
2-34
-------
TABLE 2-2. LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-1.1 David Minott
Alternative Resources, Inc.
IV-F-1.2 Daniel Greenbaum
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
IV-F-1.3 Jonathan Bilmes
Bristol Resource Recovery Facility
Operating Committee
IV-F-1.4 Nancy Seidman
Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management
IV-F-1.5 Mike Maines
Maine Energy Recovery Company
Biddeford, Maine
IV-F-1.6 Kent Burton
Institute of Resource Recovery
IV-F-1.7 Lee Casey
Department of Solid Waste
Management of Metropolitan Dade
County
IV-F-1.8 Harlan Doliner
Town of North Kingstown,
Rhode Island
IV-F-1.9 Renee Robins
Conservation Law Foundation of
New England
IV-F-1.10 Ben Harvey
Waste Recyclers Council
IV-F-l.ll • Charles Eggers
Occidental Energy from Waste
Plant
Niagara Falls, New York
Continued
2-35
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-1.12 William Darcy
Connecticut Resources Recovery
Authority
IV-F-1.13 Beverly Rodeschin
State Representative from New
Hampshire, Science Technology
and Energy Committee
IV-F-1.14 Daniel O'Neil
Town of New Port, New Hampshire
IV-F-1.15 Robert Jackson
City of Claremont, New Hampshire
IV-F-1.16 John Cook
New Hampshire/Vermont Solid
Waste Project
IV-F-1.17 Carl Hirths
New Hampshire/Vermont Solid
Waste Project
IV-F-1.18 Tim Martin
Greenpeace
IV-F-1.19 Edward Davis
Division of Air Resources
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
IV-F-1.20 Robert Bauman
City of Boston, Massachusetts
IV-F-1.21 Charles Adler
Private Citizen
IV-F-1.22 Amy Perry
Massachusetts Public Interest
Research Group
IV-F-1.23 Cathy Fontaine
Citizens Against Pollution
East Bridgewater, Massachusetts
Continued
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-1.24 Charles Spencer
Advocates for a Safe Environment
of Western Massachusetts
IV-F-1.25 Robert Loring
Private Citizen
IV-F-1.26 Ron Ford
Concord Regional Solid Waste
Resource Recovery Cooperative
IV-F-1.27 Patricia Anderson
American Lung Association of
Massachusetts
IV-F-1.28 Carl Hanson
Bridgewater Residents Against a
Contaminated Environment
Bridgewater, Massachusetts
IV-F-1.29 Charles Kitson
SEMASS Partnership
Rochester, Massachusetts
IV-F-1.30 Charles Roos
National Recovery Technologies
Nashville, Tennessee
IV-F-1.31 Robert Collins
Clean Water Actions
IV-F-1.32 Frances Hopcroft
Northeast Solid Waste Committee
North Andover, Massachusetts
IV-F-1.33 Frank Palermo
JWP, Incorporated
IV-F-1.34 Terence Duran
Catrel
Edison, New Jersey
IV-F-1.35 CSI Resource Systems, Inc.
Continued
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-2.1 Miriam Marcus
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.2 Maryann Angelini
Private citizen
IV-F-2.3 R. H. Bernstein
Montgomery County Solid Waste
Dayton, Ohio
IV-F-2.4 Trudy Gasteazoro
Minnesota Waste Energy Association
IV-F-2.5 Bella Marshall
Greater Detroit Resource Recovery
IV-F-2.6 Kathleen Aterno
Clean Water Action
IV-F-2.7 Kent Burton
Institute of Resource Recovery
IV-F-2.8 Michael Cousino
Olmsted County, Minnesota
IV-F-2.9 Brenda Liveoak
Oakwood Environmental Concerns
IV-F-2.10 Tom Stevens
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.11 W. Reed Madden
Green County, Ohio
IV-F-2.12 Clifton Loveland
Hampton, Virginia, Refuse-Fired
Steam Plant
IV-F-2.13 Patricia Willis
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.14 Millard A. Cutler
Friends in Unity with Nature
Continued
2-38
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-2.15 Curt Kemmppainen
Governmental Refuse Collection
Disposal Association
IV-F-2.16 Bruce Liles
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.17 ' Unidentified Speaker
IV-F-2.18 Carol Izant
Grassroots Detroit Alliance for
Solid Waste Solutions
IV-F-2.19 Ralph Franklin
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.20 David Watson
Cass Corridor of Concerned
Residents
IV-F-2.21 Dennis Summers
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.22 Harold Stokes
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.23 Joan D'Argo
Greenpeace
IV-F-2.24 Saulius Simoliunas
Sanitary Chemists & Technicians
Association
IV-F-2.25 Jesse Enriquez
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.26 Rick Coronado
Clean Water Alliance
IV-F-2.27 Marcus Maxmad
Circle of Flight
IV-F-2.28 Wilburn Henry Bishops
Private Citizen
Continued
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-p-2.29 Bradford White
Observation Balloon Newsletter
IV-F-2.30 Dennis Minks
City of Louisville, Kentucky
IV-F-2.31 David Hales
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
IV-F-2.32 Kay Jones
Greater Detroit Resource Recovery
Authority
IV-F-2.33 Sharon Howell
Detroit Area Greens
IV-F-2.34 James Boggs
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.35 Paul Stark
Detroit Area Greens
IV-F-2.36 Lauren Sargent
Huron Valley Greens
IV-F-2.37 Christine Koenig
Detroit Area Greens
IV-F-2.38 Harold Stokes
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.39 Karen Kendrick-Hands
East Michigan Environmental Action
Council and Grosse Pointe' Citizens
for Recycling
IV-F-2.40 Alex Sagady
American Lung Association of
Michigan
IV-F-2.41 Allen Greenberg
Air Pollution Control Division
Wayne County, Michigan
Continued
2-40
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-2.42 William Drake for
I. Varga
Representative - Third District
Detroit, Michigan
IV-F-2.43 Mark Adams
Waste Oil Action
IV-F-2.44 Tom Adams
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.45 Paul Vial
Recycling Detroit
IV-F-2.46 Eloise Crofty
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.47 Ann Woiwode
Sierra Club, Michigan
IV-F-2.48 Gerald Miley
Oakland County Department of
Public Works
IV-F-2.49 Marilyn Gilbert
WEAVE
IV-F-2.50 Alex Johnson
Private Citizen
IV-F-2.51 Rose Menyes
Lung Association of Windsor and
Essex County
Canada
IV-F-2.52 Joan Lintelman
League of Women Voters
IV-F-2.53 Kristine Olsson
Environmental Advocates Students
Organization
Continued
2-41
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONTINUED)
LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No.
IV-F-2.54
IV-F-2.55
IV-F-2.56
IV-F-2.57
IV-F-2.58
IV-F-2.59
IV-F-2.60
IV-F-2.61
IV-F-2.62
IV-F-3.1
IV-F-3.2
IV-F-3.3
IV-F-3.4
IV-F-3.5
speaker ?nd Affiliation
James Musso
Northern States Power Company,
Wisconsin
Eden Winter
Private Citizen
Manuel Rottenberg
General Mill Supply of Detroit
Judith Davies
Private Citizen
Mary Ban
Sumpter Environmental Review Board
Donald Issac
Private Citizen
wilburn Bishops
Private Citizen
Andy Duncan
Private Citizen
Beth Miller
Private Citizen
Jay Willenberg
Washington Department of Ecology
Mike Ruby
Environmetrics
Kent Burton
Institute of Resource Recovery
Roger Etter
John Zink Company
Lee Eberly
Northern States Power, Minneapolis
Continued
2-42
-------
TABLE 2-2 (CONCLUDED). LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS ON
PROPOSED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Docket Item No. Speaker and Affiliation
IV-F-3.6 Bill Chesseman
Channel Corporation
IV-F-3.7 Diana Gale
Seattle Solid Waste Utility
IV-F-3.8 Jon Sandsted
Alaska Department of Conservation
IV-F-3.9 Kent Flaherty
Entech Corporation
IV-F-3.10 William J. Nicholson
Corporate Energy Services,
Potlatch Corporation
IV-F-3.11 Dr. Jeffrey Morris
Sound Resource Management Group
IV-F-3.12 Ann Robinson
League of Women Voters
IV-F-3.13 Pamela Liesten
Washington Toxic Coalition
2-43
-------
2.3 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FOR UNITS OF MEASURE
APCD
ANPRM
ASME
ATSDR
BACT
BID
CAA
GARB
CEM
CFC
CO
C02
COM
DAS
DSI
EPA
ESP
FAA
FBC
FDA
FF
FGR
GCP
HC1
HEM
IRFA
ISC
ISCST
LAER
LLRW
MACT
MIR
MSW
MWC
air pollution control device
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
best available control technology
Background Information Document
Clean Air Act
California Air Resources Board
continuous emission monitor
chlorofluorocarbon
carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
continuous opacity monitor
data acquisition system
dry sorbent injection
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
electrostatic precipitator
Federal Aviation Administration
fluidized-bed combustor
Food and Drug Administration
fabric filter
flue gas recirculation
good combustion practice
hydrogen chloride
Human Exposure Model
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Industrial Source Complex
Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Model
lowest achievable emission rate
low level radioactive waste
maximum available control technology
maximum individual lifetime risk
municipal solid waste
municipal waste combustor
2-44
-------
NAAQS
Na2
NESHAP
NOX
NRC
NSPS
NSR
OSHA
OSW
°2
PCB
PIC
PM
PSD
PVC
QA
QC
RCRA
RDF
RFA
RIA
SCA
SCR
SD
SIC
SIP
SNCR
S02
SOX
TEF
THC
TLV
TSCA
national ambient air quality standard
sodium sulfide
national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants
nitrogen oxides
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
new source performance standards
new source review
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste
oxygen
polychlorinated biphenyls
products of incomplete combustion
particulate matter
particulate matter smaller ,than 10 microns
prevention of significant deterioration
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance
quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
refuse-derived fuel
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Regulatory Impact Analysis
surface collection area
selective catalytic reduction
spray dryer
Standard Industrial Classification
State implementation plan
selective noncatalytic reduction
sulfur dioxide
sulfur oxides
toxic equivalency factor
total hydrocarbons
threshold limit value
Toxic Substances Control Act
2-45
-------
ABBREVIATIONS FOR UNITS OF MEASURE
Btu = British thermal unit
°c = degrees Celsius
dscf = dry standard cubic foot (14.7 psi, 68°F)
dscm = dry standard cubic meter (14 psi, 68°F)
°F = degrees Fahrenheit
ft3 = cubic foot
gr = grains
HHV = higher heating value
J = joules
kg = kilogram
Ib = pound
Mg = megagram
MW-hrs = megawatt-hours
m3 = cubic meter
mg = milligrams
ng = nanogram
ppm = parts per million
ppmv = parts per million by volume
psi = pounds per square inch
sec = second
tpd = tons per day
tpy = tons per year
Mg = microgram
yr = year
$/Mg = dollars per megagram
$/ton = dollars per ton
2-46
-------
3.0 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
3.1 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Comment; Four commenters (IV-F-2.3, IV-D-111, IV-D-113,
IV-D-195) challenged the selection of MWC's as a major
emission source for regulation. The commenters argued that
emissions from MWC's are insignificant compared to those from
utility coal boilers and other sources.
Response; Municipal waste combustors have been considered an
important source category of concern for many years. They
were the second combustion source to be regulated under
Section 111 of the CAA with the 1971 proposal and subsequent
promulgation of NSPS for incinerators (Subpart E). Municipal
waste combustors warrant regulatory attention because of their
complex mixture of air emissions and the potential public
health impacts. In addition, the MWC industry is experiencing
rapid growth due to the increasing restrictions and limited
space availability for landfilling. At proposal, there were
estimated to be 210 MWC plants (450 individual MWC's) with a
capacity of 95,000 Mg/day (105,000 tpd) in operation or under
construction. It is predicted that in the next 5 years
construction will commence on over 60 new MWC plants (over
150 individual MWC's) with an additional capacity of about
50,000 Mg/day (55,000 tpd). Some of these new MWC's will be
located in high population areas. Municipal waste combustors
are significant sources of air pollution at the individual
plant level and could be a major source of emissions on a
national basis if not adequately controlled. It was projected
that in the absence of an NSPS, new MWC's could emit over
90,000 Mg/yr (100,000 tpy) of MWC acid gases (primarily S02
and HC1), about 7,500 Mg/yr (8,300 tpy) PM, as well as MWC
3-1
-------
organics. The NSPS will reduce combined emissions of these
pollutants to about 9,300 Mg/yr (10,300 tpy).
The standards and guidelines currently being promulgated
affect MWC unit with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd). They will control about 100 existing MWC plants
(200 MWC's units) and 30 new MWC plants (70 MWC units) within
the next 5 years. As described in Chapter 1, standards and
guidelines to cover the remaining smaller MWC units will be
promulgated within 2 years.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.6) noted that no definition
for "municipal waste combustion" was given in the Federal
Register.
Response; Municipal waste combustion is the burning of MSW in
any type of equipment, including heat recovery and nonheat
recovery units. A definition of MWC is included in the final
NSPS.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-210) asked why the definition of
MSW specifies the waste must contain greater than 50 percent
waste consisting of paper, wood, yard waste, etc., when
burning any amount of MSW qualifies a facility to be regulated
by the standard. Another commenter (IV-D-107) suggested
changing the definition of MWC to read "which combusts MSW or
any combination of MSW and an alternative fuel" to clarify
that the NSPS will apply to facilities that combust any MSW
and not just to dedicated MWC's or those that burn more than
50 percent MSW.
Two commenters (IV-D-146, IV-D-246) said in the
definition of MSW it is not clear whether the 50 percent
applies to a daily, monthly, or design average.
Response; Based on the comments received, the Agency reviewed
the definition of MSW and concluded it was unclear,
particularly when applied to cofiring situations. The
definition of MSW has been revised in the final standard and
the 50-percent content requirement has been deleted. However,
consistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990, a provision has
been added to exclude cofired combustors that fire less than
30 percent MSW (by weight) from the standards.
3-2
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-108) said the term "refuse" in
the definition of MSW is not defined. The commenter asked why
the existing definition of solid waste in 40 CFR 60.51 is not
being used to describe MSW.
Response: The proposed definition of MSW was similar to the
definition of solid waste given in 40 CFR 60.51. However, the
definition has been modified in the final standard in response
to public comments requesting clarification on how to
interpret the 50-percent content requirement and on what
particular materials are included, and to be consistent with
the CAA Amendments of 1990.
Comment; Some commenters thought the source category had been
defined too broadly. One commenter (IV-D-159) stated the
broad definitions of MWC and MSW include for regulation many
types of combustors without proper consideration of such
factors as size, technology, and application. In particular,
he felt many very small modular facilities typically used in
medical, industrial, or commercial uses would have to shutdown
unless the rules are modified. The commenter thought the
definition of MSW should be limited to designate waste streams
from various generators that are handled at a centralized
facility (rather than at a small on-site combustor).
Municipal waste combustors should be defined as facilities
which combust such waste streams. Two commenters (IV-D-108,
IV-D-169) thought the development of the proposed standard did
not address industrial or institutional incinerators whose
waste includes MSW or could be classified as MSW under the
broad definition proposed. One commenter (IV-D-232) expressed
concern that industrial wastes might inadvertently be covered
by the broad definition of MSW. One (IV-D-237) recommended
industrial combustors which handle self-generated solid waste
be exempt from the standards. On the other hand, two
commenters (IV-F-3.8, IV-D-242) urged EPA to extend the rules,
or to develop similar rules, to apply to combustion of all
nonregulated industrial and commercial wastes.
Three commenters (IV-D-122, IV-D-190, IV-D-235) thought
that the definition of municipal-type solid waste should be
3-3
-------
altered to read "construction/demolition,
hazardous/nonhazardous, medical and infectious wastes, and
sewage sludge are not considered MSW." One commenter
(IV-D-102) opposed the rules because they would prematurely
place restrictions on the medical waste incinerators before
EPA develops a comprehensive regulatory scheme for medical
waste disposal, which is expected in 1991. The commenter
suggested deferring the regulation of medical waste combustion
until the ATSDR report on medical waste is completed. Others
(IV-F-3.2, IV-D-64, IV-D-97, IV-D-108, IV-D-149, IV-D-202,
IV-D-221) also thought hospital or medical waste should not be
covered. Two commenters (IV-D-210, IV-D-213) asked whether
the standards would apply to incinerators at hospitals that
combust general and medical waste. One (IV-D-210) encouraged
EPA to include for regulation all medical incinerators except
those that are exclusively crematoriums. Another commenter
(IV-D-282) thought medical waste incinerators that combust
greater than 50 percent MSW should be subject to the materials
separation requirements.
Response; The final standards include a revised definition of
MSW. Municipal solid waste includes household, commercial,
and institutional discards. Industrial process or
manufacturing waste are excluded from the definition of MSW.
Some other specific types of waste (such as wood pallets,
construction/demolition wastes, sewage sludge, and
automobiles) that are not typically in MSW are also excluded
by the definition. Furthermore, consistent with the CAA
Amendments of 1990, combustors that fire fuel streams composed
of 30 percent or less MSW or hospital wastes (by weight, daily
basis) are exempt from the emission limits. This will exempt
some industrial and commercial facilities that co-fire MSW
with other non-MSW fuels. Since the standards being
promulgated covered only MWC units with capacities larger than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd), very few medical waste combustors would
be covered. As directed by Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, standards for MWC's with capacities below 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. Section 129
3-4
-------
also directs EPA to establish standards for medical waste
combustors.
Comment: Many commenters (see Section 6.2) thought facilities
that cofire paper and other nontoxic source separated MSW
components with solid fuels should be excluded. One commenter
(IV-D-148) said the definition of MSW should state materials
recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse, recycling,
composting, or combustion are not considered to be MSW and
units combusting these materials are not considered to be
MWC's. The commenter thought that whether RDF is included as
MSW should be based upon explicit determination that
combustion of RDF leads to similar emissions as combustion of
the entire mixed solid waste stream. Other commenters
(IV-D-74, IV-D-148, IV-D-174, IV-D-236) felt the definition of
MSW should specifically exclude source separated, clean,
combustible fuels such as mixed wastepaper and wood pallets.
Response; If the separated materials are discards from
residential, commercial, or institutional facilities as
specified in the definition of MSW, then they are regulated as
any other component or mixture of MSW. Mixed wastepaper and
RDF are considered MSW. Wood pallets are specifically
excluded from the definition of MSW in the final standards.
The standards currently being promulgated affect only MWC's
with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd), so
combustors firing small amounts of MSW or source-separated MSW
components are not covered. Additionally, consistent with the
CAA Amendments of 1990, cofired combustors that fire fuel
streams composed of 30 percent or less MSW by weight (daily
basis) are not subject to the emission limits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-212) stated the proposed MWC
regulations are inconsistent with the recent regulations
proposed for MSW landfills under RCRA (FR 53 33314-33422,
August 30, 1988) in defining the source category. The "MSW
landfill" definition exempts "industrial solid waste landfills
that may receive office, sanitary, or cafeteria wastes
generated at the site." The commenter supported the technical.
rationale for the exemption and said analogous reasoning
3-5
-------
should be applied to the case where industrial boilers burn
on-site generated wastes. He felt EPA lacks sufficient
information to develop sound regulations for industrial
boilers burning small amounts of MSW or MSW-type materials.
He added that if industrial boilers are required to meet MWC
standards for doing so, the facilities may begin relying on
already overloaded municipalities for waste disposal.
Four commenters (IV-D-158, IV-D-174, IV-D-212, IV-D-221)
agreed the definition of MWC should exclude facilities that
burn internally-generated wastes as an auxiliary fuel.
Response: The definition of MSW in this regulation does
include site-generated wastes such as office or cafeteria
wastes. However, the standards currently being promulgated
apply only to MWC's with unit capacities greater than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd), and so will not cover many industrial or
commercial boilers and other combustors that commonly burn
very small amounts of internally-generated wastes.
Additionally, the definition of MSW in 40 CFR 60.51a excludes
combustors that burn industrial process or manufacturing
wastes only.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-80) asked whether automobile
shredder fluff is included in the definition of municipal-type
solid waste. He felt it should not be because the fluff could
be considered a demolition waste, less than 50 percent of the
fluff is composed of the types of refuse specified in the
definition and automobile shredding is an industrial process.
Response: Automobiles, and thus automobile shredder fluff,
are not considered part of the typical municipal waste stream
and have been excluded from the definition of MSW in the final
standards.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-146, IV-D-246) thought
construction and demolition debris should be added to the
definition of solid waste. They said their State is
establishing programs for separating and recycling these
materials.
Response; Construction and demolition wastes are not included
in the definition of MSW because they are not considered
3-6
-------
typical components of the municipal waste stream. The Agency
encourages the recycling of all reusable materials whether or
not they are classified as MSW.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-182) asked EPA to specifically
exclude cement kilns co-firing MSW or RDF from the definition
of MWC.
Responset* Cement kilns that combust a fuel stream containing
more than 30 percent MSW (by weight) and are above 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) capacity are covered by the standards. The intent
of the standards is to control emissions from the burning of
MSW, and, therefore, all types of combustor designs are
included. Many cement kilns, however, will be below these
cutoffs and will not be covered under these standards.
3.2 SELECTION OF DESIGNATED POLLUTANT
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-137, IV-D-149,
IV-D-150, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) felt it was unnecessary and
inappropriate to establish the new classification of
pollutants "MWC emissions" for regulation under the CAA. They
pointed out that MWC emissions are comprised of MWC metals,
MWC organics, and MWC acid gases, all of which are regulated
individually. Therefore, it is redundant to establish a
separate category of MWC emissions. Two commenters (IV-D-116,
IV-D-155) added that the components of MWC emissions are
unrelated in their formation, emission, control, and
environmental effect. Two commenters (IV-D-149, IV-D-150)
objected to the terms MWC organics and MWC acid gases when it
is dioxins/furans, S02/ and HC1 that are being regulated, and
three commenters (IV-D-149, IV-D-150, IV-D-283) objected to
the term MWC metals when it is PM that is being regulated.
One commenter (IV-D-257) thought if it is appropriate to
regulate emissions of HC1 and dioxins/furans from MWC
facilities, then they should be specifically designated as
pollutants for regulation under the CAA. This designation
would permit the regulation of other sources of these
pollutants. One commenter (IV-D-108) said the category MWC
emissions is undefined in the rule. He asked specifically
whether PM and NOX were included.
3-7
-------
Another commenter (IV-D-164) concurred with the EPA's
approach to regulate "MWC emissions" and to subcategorize the
MWC emissions into organics, metals, and acid gases. However,
he asked why NOX is not included as a subcategory and why NOX
is considered a pollutant from new but not existing sources.
Three commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) expressed
concern that adoption of MWC emissions as a regulated
pollutant could require all other sources which emit metals,
organic compounds, and acid gases to be subject to
requirements associated with MWC emissions such as PSD
permitting and NSR requirements. One commenter (IV-D-108)
questioned whether sources other than MWC's could emit "MWC"
emissions.
Response; "Municipal waste combustion emissions" is a term
used to describe the composite mixture of compounds emitted
from MWC's. It generally consists of three classes of
pollutants: MWC metals, MWC acid gases, and MWC organics.
The superclass of MWC emissions was selected as the designated
pollutant, rather than designating individual subclasses, to
emphasize and encompass the numerous and diverse pollutant
emissions. Although the components of MWC emissions may be
unrelated in some ways, they are all generated in the same
facility from the burning of municipal waste. Furthermore,
the applied air pollution control technology is an integrated
system which controls all three subclasses. Therefore, MWC
emissions have been designated as one pollutant rather than as
three subclasses.
Under Section 111, pollutants may be designated if they
contribute to health and/or welfare impacts and are not
regulated under Sections 108 to 110 or Section 112 of the CAA.
The pollutant MWC emissions fits these requirements and is
designated for health effects reasons. However, in order to
ensure that the components of MWC emissions (MWC acid gases,
MWC metals, and MWC organics) are controlled, emission limits
for monitoring and compliance purposes include some criteria
pollutants regulated under Sections 108 to 110, specifically
there are SC-2, CO, and PM limits. These pollutants can be
3-8
-------
readily measured and indicate control of the other pollutants
that are part of MWC emissions. In particular, S(>2 emissions
limits (along with HC1 limits) ensure MWC acid gas control.
Particulate matter emission limits ensure MWC metals control
without testing for each and every metal. And CO is one of
several emissions parameters monitored to assure MWC organics
control. This is a much more practical approach than setting
limits for the hundreds of individual compounds in MWC
emissions.
The standards currently being promulgated include NOX
limits for new MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd)
capacity. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, NOX limits will also be considered for existing MWC's
and for units smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Revised
standards and guidelines for MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) will be promulgated within 1 year, and those for MWC
units smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated
within 2 years.
Municipal waste combustion emissions can only be emitted
from MWC's. Acid gases, organics, and metals emitted from
other types of stationary sources are not considered "MWC
emissions" and therefore the sources emitting them would not
be subject to PSD or NSR requirements in terms of this
regulation.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.6) felt that emissions of all
toxic chemicals should be regulated.
Response; This regulation is a Section 111 action not a
Section 112 action. As stated in the ANPRM (52 FR 25339,
July 7, 1987) and the preamble to the proposed standards
(54 FR 52251, December 20, 1989), it was decided to regulate
MWC's under Section 111 rather than Section 112 of the CAA
prior to proposal of these standards. While MWC emissions may
reasonably be anticipated to contribute to endangerment of
public health and welfare, the range of health and welfare
effects and the uncertainties in the cancer risk estimates did
not warrant listing MWC emissions as a hazardous air pollutant
under Section 112. Furthermore, Section 112 could not be used
3-9
-------
to address particular subgroups of emissions including HC1 and
lead, which could be addressed under Section 111. And,
Section lll(d) permits more thorough evaluation of MWC's at
the State level.
Section 111 standards are based on technology whereas
Section 112 standards are based on the health effects of
specific toxics. Under Section 111 of the CAA, standards of
performance are to reflect the emission level "achievable
through application of the best technological system of
continuous emission reduction which (taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emission reduction, any nonair
quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated." These standards reflect the best demonstrated
technology and are designed to ensure continuous control of
the three subclasses of MWC emissions (MWC acid gases, MWC
organics, and MWC metals). Measurement of a limited number of
pollutants and parameters will adequately assure the
technology is installed and operated to control the range of
pollutants in MWC emissions. It would be impractical, and in
some cases impossible, to set emission limits and measure for
each individual pollutant given current information.
3.3 SELECTION OF AFFECTED FACILITIES
3.3.1 Emission Sources Covered
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-108) thought the affected
facility should be defined to specifically exclude facilities
disposing of hospital or medical waste and units with
capacities of 9 Mg/day (10 tpd) or less. Another commenter
(IV-D-97) requested a 45 to 90 Mg/day (50 to 100 tpd) minimum
capacity threshold in order to exclude hospital incinerators.
(Additional comments recommending small size cutoffs are
contained in Section 3.5.5.)
Response: Consistent with Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, the standards currently being promulgated affect only
MWC's with capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). This will
exclude the vast majority of hospital or medical waste
combustors. Furthermore, consistent with section 129,
3-10
-------
combustors that combust primarily segregated medical waste are
excluded from today's standards. Standards for MWC's with
capacities below 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) and medical waste
combustors will be promulgated within 2 years as directed by
the CAA Amendments of 1990.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-122) stated the standards should
not apply during periods when a MWC is not combusting HSW, for
example, when an RDF unit is burning oil rather than RDF.
Response: The standards only apply when a MWC is combusting
MSW or a mixture of wastes and fuels containing MSW. During
periods when only fossil fuels or other non-MSW materials are
being fired a unit does not have to comply with the MWC
standards.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-122) said combustors that are
already regulated under RCRA, or other more stringent NSPS
should be exempt from the MWC regulation.
Response; Some MWC's may be regulated under Subparts Da or Db
as well as this NSPS. Such combustors will have to comply
with this regulation as well as Subpart Da or Db. The RCRA
regulations the commenter refers to are for hazardous waste
incinerators. If a combustor burns hazardous wastes regulated
under Subtitle C that is not MSW it would comply with the RCRA
regulations rather than this NSPS. Sources that are subject
to more than one rule are required to meet all applicable
standards and the more stringent set in the case of an
overlap.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.40, IV-F-3.1) said that
opacity limitations or other regulations should be set for
fugitive emissions such as those from ash handling and
transport.
Response; The standards do not set limits for fugitive
emissions. However, the site-specific training manuals
required as part of GCP by the NSPS are required to include a
section on proper ash handling procedures. Other planned
regulatory and legislative actions will further address ash
issues.
3-11
-------
3.3.2 Affected Facility
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-104, IV-D-149,
IV-D-199) supported the approach of using the aggregate
capacity of all MWC units at one plant in determining facility
size. One (IV-D-199) stated the history of the CAA is full of
examples where operators purposely construct their facility so
that it is just below applicable air pollution standards.
Commenter IV-D-101 thought the aggregate capacity should
include capacities of space that is left for expansion as well
as the capacities of new facilities built on the same or
contiguous sites.
Response; Where appropriate, aggregated capacity is being
used to determine facility size because of the common practice
within the MWC industry of constructing multiple MWC's at the
same location and the recognition that multiple small MWC's
can have the same emission impacts as a single large MWC. It
would be impractical and unnecessary to consider space that is
left for expansion in determining capacity. However, when a
new combustor is built in the area left for capacity
expansion, its capacity would be aggregated with all new
combustors (i.e., constructed any time after proposal of
these standards) at the site, and all such combustors would be
subject to the applicable limits based on the total capacity.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.3) asked for clarification on
which combustors at their plant would be subject to the NSPS
versus the guidelines. The plant has two combustors with a
total capacity above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd), and they may add
another combustor.
Response; Consistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990, the
standards currently being promulgated affect only MWC units
with unit capacities (not aggregate plant capacities) greater
than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are not subject to these standards,
but will be covered by separate standards which are to be
promulgated within 2 years. For MWC units above 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd), those combustors on which construction commenced
prior to the date of proposal of the NSPS, December 20, 1989,
3-12
-------
are subject to the emission guidelines. Any new combustors on
which construction commences after proposal of the NSPS are
subject to the NSPS. Capacities of units subject to the
guidelines and the NSPS are not added together in determining
plant capacity. The NSPS applies the same standards to all
combustors larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) regardless of
local plant capacity. The guidelines have different
provisions for combustors at large versus very large plants.
(See Chapter 7, Section 7.5.5 for further discussion of the
guidelines plant size categories.)
3.4 MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
Comment: Three commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-F-3.5, IV-D-222) said
the point at which an existing facility triggers NSPS during
reconstruction should be reconsidered. The commenters felt
the 50-percent fixed capital cost limit should be based on the
construction cost of the entire MWC plant rather than the
individual MWC unit.
Response: The terms of the reconstruction provision are
applicable to the affected facility as it is defined in each
NSPS. The affected facility in this rulemaking is the
individual MWC unit. It should be noted that the affected
facility is each combustor and does not include other parts of
the plant such as the tipping floor, cranes, post-combustor
air pollution control equipment, or ash handling equipment.
These commenters are requesting that the affected facility be
more broadly defined as the entire MWC plant. Under
Section 111, the-NSPS must apply to new sources of emissions.
Generally pollutants are emitted from specific processes or
pieces of equipment (e.g., a combustor) within a plant rather
than from the entire plant. Since the purpose of Section 111
is to minimize emissions by application of the best
demonstrated control technology (considering cost, health and
environmental effects, and energy requirements), there is a
presumption that a narrower, more specific, definition of the
affected facility is proper. In order to promulgate the
broader designation, the Agency would have to find that it
would achieve greater total emission reductions or equivalent
3-13
-------
total reductions with significant other benefits such as
reduced costs, energy consumption or other environmental
impacts. The Agency has adequately demonstrated that the
control technologies required by this NSPS can be applied at a
reasonable cost to the affected facility as currently defined.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-80) asked whether a dismantled
combustor would be considered a new or existing unit if it
were reassembled with new instrumentation.
Response; Mere disassembly and reassembly and/or sale of an
existing MWC does not change the affected facility status from
existing to new. However, under the reconstruction provision
in 40 CFR 60.15, if components are replaced and their fixed
capital cost exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of
constructing a comparable entirely new MWC unit, then the
reconstructed unit could be considered a new facility, and
therefore subject to the NSPS.
3.5 SELECTION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
3.5.1 Municipal Waste Combustor Organics
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-101) said that prior to 1989
their MWC facilities with SD/FF control had achieved total
dioxin/furan levels of below 10 ng/dscm (4 gr/billion dscf) at
12 percent C02« However, Method 23 testing at two new state-
of-the-art MWC's with well designed SD/FF systems showed
higher total dioxin/furan levels. One plant (Babylon) had an
emission level of 22.8 ng/dscm (9.3 gr/billion dscf) (average
of three tests) with individual test runs of 28.8, 26.3, and
13.3 ng/dscm (11.7, 10.7, and 5.4 gr/billion dscf). The other
(Indianapolis) had an average level of 12.1 ng/dscm
(4.9 gr/billion dscf), with two of the three individual test
runs above 10 ng/dscm (4 gr/billion dscf). The commenter said
that when expressed on the basis of TEF, dioxin/furan
emissions from these facilities were relatively low (0.14 and
0.06 ng/dscm [0.06 and 0.02 gr/billion dscf]). Test results
were submitted.
Other commenters (IV-D-153, IV-D-155, IV-D-184, IV-D-257)
said values in the lower end of the 5 to 30 ng/dscm (2 to
3-14
-------
12 gr/billion dscf) range could not be met by all MWC's with
SD/FF systems.
Two of the commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155, IV-D-257)
recommended that, based on these data, if EPA establishes a
total dioxin/furan limit for new MWC's it should be no lower
than 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf). However, the commenters
would prefer a limit of 50 ng/dscm (20 gr/billion dscf) due to
the limited amount of data and the lack of data over the 20-
to 30-year expected life of a typical MWC. Another commenter
(IV-D-144) said that while a range of 5 to 30 ng/dscm (2 to
12 gr/billion dscf) is similar to typical emission levels for
MWC's, including FBC's, the data base is limited and since
NSPS are "never to be exceeded" limits, a margin for
uncertainty should be included.
One commenter (IV-D-149) said their evaluation of a large
MWC and a commercial biomedical MWC support dioxin/furan
limits of 75 ng/dscm (31 gr/billion dscf) for large MWC plants
and 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) for small plants. (The
emission control technology on these two plants were not
specified in the comment.)
Another commenter (IV-D-154) said levels in the range of
10 to 30 ng/dscm (4 to 12 gr/billion dscf) may not be
achievable over a 20-year operating period and suggested the
NSPS require the same level as the guidelines (125 ng/dscm
[50 gr/billion dscf]). Another (IV-D-277) said the proposed
range for large plants was too low and had not been
demonstrated on a long-term basis.
Response: Test reports submitted by Commenter IV-D-101 as
well as other data on SD/FF performance collected before and
after proposal were analyzed. The data included tests of
10 recently built MWC's with good combustion and well designed
SD/FF control systems. For 8 of the 10 facilities, average
total measured outlet dioxin/furan concentrations were toward
the low end of the proposed range (below 10 ng/dscm
[4 gr/billion dscf] at 7 percent 02). However, tests for 2 of
the 10 facilities were above this level, the highest having
individual test runs of up to 29 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf)
3-15
-------
and an average of three test runs of 23 ng/dscm
(9.4 gr/billion dscf). The process data collected during the
tests indicates the control equipment was well operated, and
Agency test methods were used. Therefore, these data were
judged representative of state-of-the-art, well operated SD/FF
control systems, and there is no reason to dismiss the data as
unrepresentative.
Under Section 111 of the CAA, standards of performance
are to reflect the emission level "achievable through
application of the best technological system of continuous
emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated."
The emission limits are maximum limits not be exceeded, and
must be set at a level that is achievable by all MWC's using
best demonstrated technology. Therefore, in the final
standards, the emission limit for large new MWC's has been set
at 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) total dioxins/furans. It
is believed that with proper maintenance and careful
operation, there will be little degradation in performance
over time and that 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) provides an
adequate margin to cover future operating conditions over the
life of the equipment. In summary, the data indicate that
this level can be continuously achieved by properly designed,
operated, and maintained combustors and control systems.
Comment; As an alternative to a total dioxin/furan limit of
30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf), some commenters (IV-D-101,
IV-D-116, IV-D-144) recommended a standard of 2 ng/dscm
(1 gr/billion dscf) measured as TEF. Commenter IV-D-144 said
Sweden has a limit of 2 ng/dscm (1 gr/billion dscf) and after
a 5-year research effort to determine if a lower limit of
0.1 ng/dscm (0.04 gr/billion dscf) TEF can be set, has not yet
changed the original limit. Another commenter (IV-D-190)
suggested a limit between 1 and 2 ng/dscm (0.4 and
1 gr/billion dscf) TEF and said health studies had shown
3-16
-------
levels below 2 ng/dscm (1 gr/billion dscf) had negligible
community health effects.
Another commenter (IV-D-153) suggested a three-tier
approach to regulating dioxin/furan emissions. First, there
would be a total dioxin/furan limit. Second, if a facility
did not meet that limit, they could employ a more refined
analysis to determine TEF. Third, a facility would be given
the option of performing a site-specific health risk
assessment to demonstrate health risks of less than 1 in
1 million to the surrounding population. Another commenter
(IV-D-255) said dioxin/furan control should only be required
in cases where risks exceed 1 in 100,000.
Several of these commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-154,
IV-D-155, IV-D-184, IV-D-236) who favored an emission limit no
lower than 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) also said that
health effects at dioxin/furan levels of 30 ng/dscm
(12 gr/billion dscf) would not be significant and pointed out
that the proposed guidelines allow levels much higher than
this (e.g., up to 1,000 ng/dscm [400 gr/billion dscf]) for
existing MWC's without considering these levels to cause
unacceptable health risks.
Response; Section 3.7 of this chapter discusses the reasons
for selection of a total dioxin/furan emission limit format
rather than a TEF format. For perspective, analysis of data
from several MWC's show that a 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf)
total dioxin/furan limit is roughly equivalent to 0.5 ng/dscm
(0.2 gr/billion dscf) measured as TEF.
With regard to the comments discussing health risks and
requesting an alternative health-risk assessment approach if
the dioxin/furan limit is not met, such an approach would not
be consistent with Section 111 of the CAA. As stated in the
ANPRM (52 FR 25339, July 7, 1987) and the preamble to the
proposed standards (54 FR 52251, December 20, 1989), it was
decided to regulate MWC's under Section 111 rather than
Section 112 of the CAA. While MWC emissions may reasonably be
anticipated to contribute to endangerment of public health and
welfare, the range of health and welfare effects and the
3-17
-------
uncertainties in the cancer risk estimates did not warrant
listing MWC emissions as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112. Furthermore, Section 112 could not be used to
address particular subgroups of emissions including HC1 and
lead, which could be addressed under Section 111. And,
Section lll(d) would permit more thorough evaluation of
existing MWC's at the State level. As described in the
previous response, Section 111 standards are to be based on
the performance of demonstrated technologies and are not based
on reducing health risk to any particular target level.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-124) said EPA should evaluate
how data collected using the proposed Method 23 compares to
previously collected data used to develop the standards. They
recommended the final limit be no lower than 30 ng/dscm
(12 gr/billion dscf) to allow for any potential biases
associated with the new method.
Another commenter (IV-D-138) said Method 23 will tend to
produce higher results than the ASME protocol. He said
testing at one MWC showed that a level of 10 ng/dscm
(4 gr/billion dscf) can be achieved if measured using the ASME
protocol, but if Method 23 is specified, the standard should
be set at 20 ng/dscm (8 gr/billion dscf) rather than
10 ng/dscm (4 gr/billion dscf).
Response; Method 23 is an accurate and precise test method.
Some of the data used in developing the standard were
collected using Method 23 while other tests used the ASME
protocol, which is very similar to Method 23. In the
development of Method 23, there was some concern as to whether
methylene chloride or toluene should be used to rinse sample
train glassware. Acetone followed by methylene chloride was
used in the past under the ASME protocol. Method 23 also
bases compliance test results on rinse with acetone followed
by methylene chloride. In addition, it specifies a final QA
rinse with toluene. However, this toluene rinse is used only
to collect information, not to determine the emission level
for compliance demonstration. Therefore, Method 23 would give
3-18
-------
the same or very similar results as well-conducted tests using
the ASME protocol.
As explained in a previous response, the standard for new
large MWC's is 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) total
dioxins/furans.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said that the
NSPS allowing small MWC's to use DSI but requiring cooling
only to 230°C (450°F) at the PM control device inlet (rather
than to a lower temperature) permits small plants to have
essentially uncontrolled dioxin/furan emissions. The
commenters cited a statement in the EPA's earlier Operational
Guidance Document saying that control of toxic organic
pollutants is affected by reduction in flue gas temperature.
They also claimed control equipment can be operated at
temperatures as low as 120°C (245°F) and cited a paper to
support this claim. These commenters and another (IV-D-186)
recommended the rules include a PM control device inlet
temperature not to exceed 135°C (275°F),. and said this would
achieve over 80 percent control of dioxins, whereas at higher
temperatures less than 75 percent control would be achieved.
A reference was attached.
Response: The standard currently being promulgated affects
only MWC units with capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). A
PM control device inlet temperature requirement is included in
the standards. The purpose of the temperature at the PM
control device inlet is to prevent secondary formation of
dioxins/furans in the control device. Information available
at proposal indicated that formation can occur if PM control
devices are operated at temperatures in the range of 230°C to
320°C (450°F to 600°F). A provision of the proposed NSPS
specified a 230°C (450°F) maximum PM control device inlet
temperature for all sizes of MWC's. This provision was
changed at promulgation. In order to achieve the dioxin/furan
and acid gas emission limits, most new MWC's are expected to
use a SD/FF system and would operate at temperatures well
below 230°C (450°F). As described in more detail in
Section 3.5.4, the promulgated standards require MWC's to
3-19
-------
establish a site-specific maximum temperature at the time of
their dioxin/furan compliance test. Compliance with this
temperature limit would be continuously monitored to provide
added assurance that MWC organic (e.g., dioxin/furan)
emissions are reduced on a continuous basis. A site-specific
temperature limit approach was chosen because the relationship
between temperature and dioxin/furan emissions may be
different for different MWC's. For many MWC's, operation at
temperatures below 230°C (450°)F may be necessary to meet the
dioxin/furan emission limits.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said four
European countries have committed to a dioxin emission
standard or guideline of 0.1 ng/dscm (0.04 gr/billion dscf)
(measured in toxic equivalents rather than as total
dioxins/furans), and that efforts are underway in the
Netherlands to retrofit their 11 MWC's with activated charcoal
add-on devices. The commenter suggested a standard of
0.1 ng/dscm (0.04 gr/billion dscf) on a TEF basis for new
plants over 225 Mg/day (250 tpd), between 0.1 and 0.2 ng/dscm
(0.04 and 0.08 gr/billion dscf) for plants between 45 and
225 Mg/day (50 and 250 tpd), and 0-2 ng/dscm (0.08 gr/billion
dscf) for smaller plants.
Others (IV-D-27, IV-D-142) suggested that the Swedish
limit of 0.1 ng/dscm (0.04 gr/billion dscf), on a TEF basis,
be adopted, since this level can apparently be met in Europe.
Commenter IV-D-190 also suggested 0.1 ng/dscm (0.04 gr/billion
dscf).
Another commenter (IV-D-120) said more stringent dioxin
levels had been demonstrated than the proposed 5 to 30 ng/dscro
(2 to 12 gr/billion dscf) range. He said pilot testing of an
MWC with carbon adsorption in Germany showed total tetra-
through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran
levels one to two orders of magnitude below the levels
proposed by EPA. He said the proposed standards (5 to
30 ng/dscm [2 to 12 gr/billion dscf]) would equate to about
0.08 to 0.45 ng/dscm (0.03 to 0.18 gr/billion dscf) TEF using
the Nordic method or 0.05 to 0.27 ng/dscm (0.02 to
3-20
-------
0.11 gr/billion dscf) TEF using the Eadon method, and that the
high end of this range is above levels targeted by European
countries.
Another commenter (IV-D-238) said New York has a
regulation that new facilities must achieve 2 ng/dscm
(1 gr/billion dscf) but develop plans to reduce emissions to
0.2 ng/dscm (0.08 gr/billion dscf) Eadon TEF. The commenter
said 0.2 TEF is about 7 or 8 ng/dscm (3 gr/billion dscf) total
dioxins/furans and therefore suggested a total dioxin/furan
limit in the lower end of the proposed range.
Commenter IV-D-239 also suggested a limit near 5 ng/dscm
(2 gr/billion dscf).
Responset The format of the standards is a total dioxin/furan
limit rather than TEF. Section 111 of the CAA is being used
to regulate MWC's, and Section 111(a) of the CAA specifies
that standards are to be based on the performance of the best
demonstrated control technologies considering costs and other
relevant factors. Section 111 standards are not risk-based,
nor does the new section 129 require use of a TEF. As
explained in Section 3.7, a total dioxin/furan limit will
assure installation and proper operation of control
technologies as well as a TEF standard would, and is a more
straightforward approach. While TEF can be calculated using
different methods, and the calculation methods will probably
change from time to time, the total dioxin/furan limit will
not. The total dioxin/furan limit of 30 ng/dscm
(12 gr/billion dscf) is roughly equivalent to a TEF of
0.5 ng/dscm (0.2 gr/billion dscf).
As explained in the first response in this section, test
data from 10 state-of-the-art MWC'-s with well designed and
operated SD/FF systems were collected and analyzed in setting
the standards. These tests represent the performance of the
best demonstrated technology for control of MWC organics (as
well as MWC acid gases and MWC metals). Carbon adsorption has
been tried on a pilot scale in Europe, but has not been
evaluated in continuous operation on commercial- scale MWC's.
Review of data from the 10 tests of full commercial MWC's with
3-21
-------
SD/FF systems shows that a level of 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion
dscf) total dioxins/furans is achievable on a continuous basis
by all MWC's with this best demonstrated technology. Lower
levels would not be continuously achievable by all such
systems.
Comment; Several commenters suggested the format of the
dioxin/furan limit be a TEF limit rather than a total
dioxin/furan limit. The comments are in Section 3.7.
Response; See Section 3.7.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-2.15 and IV-D-164, IV-D-232)
said MWC's in compliance with the EPA's GCP will emit dioxin
concentrations below ambient dioxin/furan concentration levels
of concern and that emission limits and costly emission
testing that would be required for dioxins/furans are not
necessary.
Another commenter (IV-D-219) also suggested deleting the
dioxin/furan limits. He said there is a lack of data, it has
not been shown that these emissions cause health risks, and
GCP and CO monitoring will ensure dioxin/furan control.
Alternatively, he suggested establishing site-specific
dioxin/furan limits after 4 years of testing.
Response; The dioxin/furan emission limits have been
demonstrated to be achievable. Therefore, uniform national
standards have been set for MWC plants, and establishing
site-specific requirements after testing of each site is not
necessary. A combination of both GCP and properly designed
and operated add-on controls will be necessary to meet the
dioxin/furan emission limits. Direct measurement of
dioxins/furans on an annual basis is reasonable and will
assure that the combination of GCP and add-on control
technology is performing properly and emissions at the stack
are in compliance with the emission limits. Monitoring of GCP
and CO alone would not give the same level of assurance.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.19) said the same dioxin/furan
emission levels should be required for all MWC technologies
(e.g., RDF), unless the environmental acceptability of a
lesser degree of control is demonstrated. Others (IV-F-2.30,
3-22
-------
IV-D-120, IV-D-134, IV-D-138, IV-D-178, IV-D-209, IV-D-222,
IV-D-235, IV-D-238, IV-D-255) said that organic emission
levels for RDF and other MWC's should be the same because
there is no reason to allow different levels of health risk
for different types of MWC's. Another commenter (IV-F-2.39)
questioned the wisdom of permitting any new RDF's if this type
of combustor generates twice as much dioxin/furan as a mass
burn MWC.
Four commenters (IV-D-96, IV-D-138, IV-D-184, IV-D-255)
said state-of-the-art RDF technology could meet the same
dioxin levels as mass burn. The first commenter (IV-D-96)
said that current emission test data from RDF's does not
accurately reflect what state-of-the-art RDF units can
achieve. He cited a 1989 California review of some RDF test
data which indicated that the RDF's tested did not have SD/FF
control and were not designed specifically to combust RDF and
that there were questions regarding the accuracy of test
results.
However, another commenter (IV-D-149) said literature
indicates RDF's emit more dioxin/furan than mass burn MWC's,
and therefore, the NSPS should specify higher limits for large
new RDF plants.
Response: As stated in the ANPRM (52 FR 25339) and the
preamble to the proposed standards (54 FR 52251), it was
decided to regulate MWC's under Section 111 rather than
Section 112 of the CAA. While MWC emissions may reasonably be
anticipated to contribute to endangerment of public health and
welfare, the range of health and welfare effects and the
uncertainties in the cancer risk estimates did not warrant
listing MWC emission as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112. Furthermore, Section 112 could not be used to
address particular subgroups of emissions including HC1 and
lead, which could be addressed under Section 111. And,
Section lll(d) would permit more thorough evaluation of
existing MWC's at the State level.
Section lll(b) requires standards for new sources to be
based on performance of best demonstrated technology
3-23
-------
considering cost and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements.
Section lll(b)(2) states that the Agency "may distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new
sources for the purposes of establishing such standards."
Section lll(d) is similarly based on demonstrated technology
for categories of existing sources. Section 111 of the CAA
does not require health risks to be controlled to any level or
to an equal extent for all sources.
In this case, it is the Agency's judgment after review of
all available data that the best demonstrated technology for
large MWC's (GCP and SD/FF controls) can achieve the same
dioxin/furan level for mass burn and RDF MWC's. Therefore, a
single level of 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) total
dioxins/furans is included in the promulgated standards for
all new MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
However, after review of data on the best demonstrated
technologies for MWC's at large existing MWC plants (retrofit
of GCP and DSI/PM control) it was judged that existing mass
burn units using these technologies would achieve somewhat
lower dioxin/furan (and CO) emission levels than existing RDF
stoker units using the same technologies. This is due to
differences in combustor design discussed in the BID'S,
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for
Proposed Guidelines for Existing Facilities"
(EPA-450/3-89-27e) and "Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment:
Combustion Control at Existing Facilities" (EPA-600/8-89-058).
Section 111 emission limits must be achievable using
demonstrated technology considering cost and technical
feasibility. Therefore, it is appropriate to have higher
emission levels for existing large RDF plants than for
existing large mass burn plants. (See Section 7.5.1 for
further discussion of existing MWC's.)
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-101, IV-D-120,
IV-D-134, IV-D-155, IV-D-178, IV-D-191, IV-D-235, IV-D-275)
said small MWC plants should be required to meet the same
dioxin/furan levels as large MWC plants. Two of the
3-24
-------
commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155) said that from a health risk
standpoint, there is no reason to have different dioxin/furan
limits for different sizes and types of MWC's. They said
small plants may actually cause greater maximum individual
risks for any given emission level because the stacks are
shorter leading to higher ground level pollutant
concentration. Another commenter (IV-D-61) said the same set
of standards for all regulated pollutants and parameters
should apply to all new MWC's regardless of combustor type or
size.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated cover only MWC units with capacities greater
than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) of MSW. Standards and guidelines
for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be
promulgated within the next 2 years as directed by the CAA
Amendments of 1990. These will include dioxin/furan levels
for small MWC's. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the
emission levels for smaller MWC's do not necessarily need to
be the same as larger MWC's. Sections 111 and 129 of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 allow the Agency to distinguish among
sizes, classes, and types of sources in establishing emission
limits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-202) said there is a lack of
data on dioxin/furan emissions from very small MWC's (e.g.,
with capacities of 45 kg/hr [100 lb/hr]). The commenter
suggested flexibility be incorporated into the standard for
very small MWC's until a data base is established.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-154, IV-D-155,
IV-D-168, IV-D-182, IV-D-189) said dioxin/furan limits may not
be a good surrogate for all MWC organic emissions. Three
commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155, IV-D-189) suggested that total
hydrocarbons may be a better surrogate and the others
(IV-D-168, IV-D-178) suggested additional surrogates such as
methylene chloride, chlorobenzenes, or PCB's. However, the
3-25
-------
commenters said dioxin/furan limits could be promulgated to
protect specifically against risks from dioxins/furans.
Response; The standards include limits for a number of
parameters to ensure control of MWC organics. In addition to
the dioxin/furan limit, there are limits and continuous
monitoring requirements for CO, combustor load level, and
temperature at the PM control device inlet. Monitoring of
this combination of parameters will ensure that combustors and
control devices are designed and operated to reduce MWC
organic emissions.
3.5.2 Municipal Waste combustor Metals and Particulate Matter
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-F-2.40, IV-D-105,
IV-D-106, IV-D-108, IV-D-168, IV-D-186, IV-D-188, IV-D-189)
said a PM limit of 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) is demonstrated,
and should be required. Commenter IV-F-2.40 said that under
the PSD program some new MWC's are already being required by
their permits to achieve 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). He gave
two examples. Commenters IV-F-1.9 and IV-D-106 said
California, New York, and other States have enforced this
level as LAER for PM. He also said that a major supplier of
baghouses for PM removal guarantees a level of 16 mg/dscm
(0.007 gr/dscf), and a test of the Marion County, Oregon, MWC
with a SD/FF shows PM rates below 8.5 mg/dscm
(0.0037 gr/dscf).
Commenter IV-D-188 said Pennsylvania permitting criteria
include a PM10 level of 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) and tests
from seven MWC's show this can be achieved. He said
23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) should be considered either as a PM
or PMio limit. Commenter IV-D-189 said New Jersey's PM limit
is 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf), and this level should be
applied to PM and PMio-
Commenters IV-D-105 and IV-D-117 said New York State
limits PM emissions to 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). The
commenters also attached a table summarizing PM test results
for several MWC's and said 17 of 19 tests since 1984 at plants
with SD/FF control show PM levels below 23 mg/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf), and the other 2 have levels of 25 mg/dscm
3-26
-------
(0.011 gr/dscf). They, therefore, concluded a level of
23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) is achievable for all sizes of new
MWC's.
Commenter IV-D-106 said that levels of 23 mg/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf) are demonstrated; while emission levels
between 23 and 34 mg/dscm (0.010 and 0.015 gr/dscf) are
reported in the literature, they frequently appear to be the
result of modified Method 5 testing that includes condensibles
from the back half of the sampling train in the measurement of
PM.
One commenter (IV-D-67) said a PM guideline of 20 mg/dscm
(0.009 gr/dscf) is being required at a recently-approved MWC
in Canada.
On the other hand, some commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-138,
IV-D-139, IV-D-155, IV-D-164) said the PM limits of 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) is reflective of best demonstrated
technologies. Three commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-139, IV-D-155)
said a level of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) is consistent with
the types of SD/FF systems the Agency examined and estimated
costs for. They said that lower levels may be achieved by
MWC's required to apply LAER, but the control costs for an
improved design, higher performance SD/FF would be much higher
than EPA estimated. Another (IV-D-116) also supported the
34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) level, saying PM can vary by an
order of magnitude from MWC's with FF, but 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) is continuously achievable.
One commenter (IV-D-190) suggested that for both new and
existing MWC's, plants larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) should
meet 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf), those below 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd) should meet 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf), and plants
between 45 and 225 Mg/day (50 and 250 tpd) should meet
intermediate levels.
Response: The standards currently being promulgated affect
only MWC units with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd). In developing the PM emission limits, test data
were collected and analyzed for 10 plants with
state-of-the-art combustors and well designed, operated, and
3-27
-------
maintained SD/FF systems. This control system represents best
demonstrated technology, and is the basis of the standards for
new MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). The data are
summarized in the BID, "Municipal Waste Combustors -
Background Information for Proposed Standards: Post
Combustion Technology Performance" (EPA-450/3-89-27c) and the
appendix to this promulgation BID, and test reports are
included in Docket No. A-89-08.
Analysis of these data support a PM limit of 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) for state-of-the-art control systems. While
tests at the majority of these combustors showed average PM
levels below 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf), one of the SD/FF
systems had a PM level of 32 mg/dscm (0.014 gr/dscf) (average
of three test runs). All data were collected according to EPA
Method 5 and were corrected to 7 percent 03 or to 12 percent
CO2- The design, operation, and maintenance of the PM control
systems achieving levels between 23 and 34 mg/dscm (0.010 and
0.015 gr/dscf) were not significantly different from systems
achieving less than 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf), and there is
no reason to dismiss the data above 23 mg/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf). These data, therefore, represent performance
of the best control systems.
It should be noted that a few average PM values higher
than 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) were reported in the BID, but
these systems were found not to represent state-of-the-art
controls or to need maintenance or repair. After
modifications or repairs were made, retests showed that they
achieved levels below 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf).
In view of the fact that Section 111 standards are
supposed to represent emission levels that are continuously
achievable using demonstrated technology, the PM level for new
MWC's has been set at 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf). Most tests
will show averages below 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). However,
there is variability in PM emission rates among MWC's even
when the combustor and the best control technologies are
properly designed, constructed, operated, and maintained.
Levels lower than 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) (e.g., 23 mg/dscm
3-28
-------
[0.010 gr/dscf]) may not be continuously achievable by all
such MWC's.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.9 and IV-D-106) said a limit
for PM smaller than 2 microns (0.08) should be set in addition
to a total PM limit. She said small particles (below
2 microns [0.08 mil]) are inhaled most deeply into the lungs.
She said California has a limit of 18 mg/dscm (0.008 gr/dscf)
for particulates smaller than 2 microns (0.08 mil) for new
MWC's.
Response; New plants will use high efficiency PM control
devices, usually FF's, to meet the PM emission limits. These
control devices have been shown to achieve very good control
of all particulates including fine particulates. A total PM
limit and opacity monitoring will adequately ensure that the
best control technologies are applied and operated to achieve
continuous emission reductions. A separate standard for fine
particulates is not needed to ensure control technology
performance. The emission limits in the NSPS must be met by
all new sources in the Nation, however, States are free to set
limits for additional pollutants as they see fit.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-82) asked for clarification of
whether the PM limit is an "upper limit" or an "average
limit," since compliance is based on an average of three test
runs and the limit can also be exceeded during malfunctions.
Response: The PM emission limit is determined as an average.
The General Provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(f) state that "unless
otherwise specified in the applicable subpart, each
performance test shall consist of three test runs using the
applicable test method For the purpose of determining
compliance with the applicable standard, the arithmetic mean
of results of the three runs shall apply." The PM results
measured and calculated in this way are not to exceed the PM
emission limit. (Responses to comments on the malfunction
provisions are contained in Section 3.10.)
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.32, IV-F-2.4, IV-F-2.5,
IV-F-2.8, IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-116, IV-D-155, IV-D-184,
IV-D-193, IV-D-222, IV-D-257) said the surrogates chosen to
3-29
-------
ensure MWC metals control, including the PM limit, are
appropriate. They thought PM and opacity limits would achieve
a high level of metals control and be more practical than
setting individual limits for specific metals.
Response; The Agency concurs with these comments.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-101) concurred with the proposal
in not establishing a mercury emission limit. The commenter
submitted test reports for two MWC's and said test data from
four of their plants ranges from 55 /ig/dscm to 530 pg/dscm (22
to 216 gr/million dscf). The mercury data are highly variable
and the SD/FF apparently did not remove mercury in some tests.
The commenter said NOX control does not seem to be the
cause of poor mercury control because some tests at the
Stanislaus MWC while NOX controls were turned off as well as
some data from Bristol and Vancouver show no mercury removal.
The commenter said the control systems on these plants are
similar to controls tested at Quebec City which showed good
mercury removal. The commenter said one theory is that the
good mercury removal at Quebec City could be due to high
carbon content in the fly ash caused by poor combustion.
The commenter also said that lowering the SD outlet
temperature from 165°C to 140°C (325°F to 285°F) at Bristol
did not increase mercury removal. Furthermore, they presented
a table to show that testing under various operating and fuel
conditions at Stanislaus did not seem to change mercury
emissions much.
The commenter concluded that until more testing is done
to quantify mercury emissions from MWC's and research is done
on whether mercury can be controlled by post-combustion
emission control, or by source reduction or separation of
mercury sources in MSW, no mercury standards should be set.
Furthermore, the commenter said that the CARB and EPA
regional offices have not determined mercury emissions from
these MWC's to be a health hazard, and that mercury should not
be regulated unless it is determined that there is a health
hazard.
3-30
-------
Other commenters (IV-F-2.5, IV-D-116, IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-139, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) also said that mercury
regulation should be postponed until after mechanisms
affecting mercury emissions and their collection are
sufficiently understood. One of the commenters (IV-D-137 and
IV-D-138) said test data on mercury control by SD/FF had
produced contradictory results that have not been explained.
He said validation studies of mercury Test Method 101A have
not been performed on MWC's and that valid data must be
collected before any standards are developed. One commenter
(IV-D-127) asked EPA to examine the test method used to
collect mercury data that are used to promulgate any new
rules. He was concerned that there could be errors in the
data.
Commenter IV-D-101 also said that before any standards
are set based on activated carbon or sodium sulfide addition,
a demonstration of performance and full evaluation of costs of
these technologies would be needed. Another commenter
(IV-D-155) said that a range of control techniques including
product reformulations or prohibitions, materials separation,
and post-combustion emissions control must be evaluated. Some
commenters (IV-D-137 and IV-D-138, IV-D-257) also said that if
standards are developed based on add-on control, compliance
should be demonstrated by meeting either an emission limit or
a percent reduction. This format would allow for variations
in uncontrolled mercury levels. Commenters IV-D-116 and
IV-D-155 added that an analysis of the health effects of
mercury emissions from MWC's should be complete prior to
establishing a mercury limit. Commenters IV-D-155 and
IV-D-257 also said mercury emissions from MWC's must be put in
perspective compared to other sources.
Response; The MWC emission standards have been promulgated
without a mercury limit at this time. However, the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (Section 129) require that mercury emission
limits for MWC's be promulgated within 12 months of enactment
of the CAA Amendments. Mercury limits will therefore be
proposed in the Federal Register and promulgated in the near
3-31
-------
future. In developing the mercury emission limit, information
on mercury emissions and controls gathered during the
rulemaking for the current standards and included in Docket A-
89-08, Category IV-M, will be considered. Public comments on
mercury received as part of this rulemaking will also be
considered.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-F-1.31, IV-F-2.6,
IV-F-2.26, IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.53, IV-D-05, IV-D-135, IV-D-164,
IV-D-176, IV-D-178, IV-D-183, IV-D-201, IV-D-244) pointed out
that the proposed emission limits, based on use of SD/FF
systems, will not ensure mercury control since mercury is
volatile. One commenter (IV-F-1.31) stated that the proposal
preamble notes that results of mercury emission tests at MWC's
with SD/FF control varies widely. Others (IV-F-2.6, IV-D-244)
said tests of two California MWC's with SD/FF showed
negligible mercury control. Other commenters (IV-D-183,
IV-D-244) said mercury control by SD/FF may improve with low
temperature, but temperature spikes can occur in the system
affecting operation, detention time may be inadequate for
condensation, there are potential interactions between mercury
and lime, and potential desorption from the filter cake.
Furthermore, ammonia injection may scavenge chloride resulting
in more mercury release in the elemental form. They concluded
that SD/FF do not reliably control mercury, and other
techniques should be used.
Some of these commenters and others (IV-F-1.22, IV-F-
1.23, IV-F-1.27, IV-F-2.6, IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50,
IV-D-09, IV-D-234) said mercury is a health risk through
bioaccumulation in the environment.
The commenters all concluded that mercury emission limits
should be set. Some commenters (IV-F-1.31, IV-D-183,
IV-D-191, IV-D-241, IV-D-244) suggested consideration of wet
scrubbers and activated carbon, which they said are used in
Europe for mercury control. Two (IV-D-183, IV-D-244) said the
Netherlands has a mercury limit of 50 Mg/dscm (22 gr/million
dscf), and Germany is tightening its standards to 100 /ig/dscm
(44 gr/million dscf) for combined total mercury and cadmium.
3-32
-------
Another (IV-D-191) suggested a limit of 50 jig/dscm
(22 gr/million dscf).
One commenter (IV-D-127) said that their company has done
extensive test work on mercury control and developed an "add-
on" system using activated carbon. A patent was enclosed.
Response; As stated in the previous response, mercury
emission limits will be proposed and promulgated in accordance
with Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-183) cited a report that over a
period of 14 days, from 10 to 15 percent of the mercury in fly
ash from a FF evaporated at room temperature. He said this
indicates a problem with maintaining mercury capture.
Response; Data cited by the commenter were obtained from an
MWC in Malmo, Sweden that is equipped with a DS1 system
followed by an ESP and then a fabric filter. In this MWC,
most of the combustor fly ash (and associated carbon) was
removed by the ESP. As a result, only limited amounts of
combustor fly ash are captured by the fabric filter. The
referenced study found that mercury was strongly attached to
the ESP ash and that the level of mercury in the ESP ash did
not change over time. On the other hand, analysis of the
fabric filter ash suggested that 10-15 percent of the mercury
in this ash evaporated from this ash over a period of 14 days.
MWC's are generally equipped with a single PM control
device; the use of two PM control systems in series such as at
Malmo is very atypical. Based on a review of the referenced
study, there is no indication that a conventionally designed
SD or DSI system with an ESP or FF would experience
evaporation of mercury from the collected ash.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-F-1.22, IV-F-1.23,
IV-F-1.28, IV-F-2.6, IV-D-05, IV-D-26, IV-D-118, IV-D-149,
IV-D-168, IV-D-176, IV-D-182, IV-D-201) said that in order to
ensure metals control, standards should be set for a number of
individual heavy metals, and periodic testing for each metal
should be required. Two commenters (IV-D-176, IV-D-182) said
testing could be achieved cost effectively. One commenter
(IV-F-1.9) said that if EPA does not set limits for each
3-33
-------
metal, they should still require periodic testing for metals
and provide target levels for comparison.
Response; Review of emission test data show that PM levels
comparable to those required by the standards and guidelines
result in the removal of over 97 percent of arsenic, cadmium,
and lead and about 99 percent of beryllium, chromium, and
nickel in MWC exhaust. Data are presented in the BID,
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for
Proposed Standards: Post Combustion Technology Performance"
(EPA-450/3-89-27C). Therefore, standards for each individual
metal are not needed. The PH limit is used to ensure MWC
metals control and will require less testing. As stated in
Chapter 1, the CAA Amendments of 1990 (Section 129) specifies
that limits for mercury, lead, and cadmium be promulgated
within 1 year for MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd)
capacity and within 2 years for MWC's smaller than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) capacity. It should be noted that individual States
can establish permit limits for other pollutants and require
additional testing if they determine this is appropriate.
Comment; Another commenter (IV-F-1.4) said that there should
not be limits for individual metals, but that emission tests
for metals should be required in order to collect data.
Another (IV-D-83) said if MWC's are required to measure
only PM and do not know levels of individual toxic metals
being emitted they would be more subject to lawsuits when
illnesses occur in surrounding communities.
Response; State-and local agencies and MWC owners or
operators can determine whether metals should be tested at
particular MWC's to collect data or respond to site-specific
law suits. However, the purpose of this NSPS is not to
collect data but to establish a uniform national standard that
will result in application of best demonstrated technology or
the equivalent. As explained in the previous response, a
total PM emission limit will adequately measure control
technology performance and result in reductions in MWC metals
emissions.
3-34
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-82) asked if the 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) standard for MWC metals had been reconciled
with OSHA limits for individual metals. He said the OSHA
levels are much lower than 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf).
Response: Compliance with the MWC metals standard is measured
with a total PM emission limit. The emission limit for new
MWC's is 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) total PM. Each metal
makes up only a very small percent of total PM emissions, so
while total PM emissions are 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf),
emissions of an individual metal such as arsenic, lead,
cadmium, or nickel are typically 3 or more orders of magnitude
lower (e.g., less than 0.03 mg/dscm [0.000013 gr/dscf]). The
OSHA limits are written for individual metals, rather than
total PM and therefore, the numbers appear smaller. Also, the
OSHA values are for the air workers breath while the NSPS PM
limit is expressed as a concentration in the stack exhaust gas
before any dispersion has occurred. The concentration of
metals in the ambient air to which the public near an MWC is
exposed would be significantly lower than the concentration in
the stack exhaust.
Furthermore, these standards are developed under
Section 111 and are therefore based on the performance of
demonstrated technology rather than on health risk assessment.
However, in any case, comparison of ambient concentrations to
the OSHA TLV is inappropriate. The TLV is set to protect a
healthy worker population, and as such is based on an
8 hour/day, 40 hour/week exposure (which allows for recovery
between exposures). The TLV does not account for exposures of
a prolonged duration (such as ambient exposure) or consider
sensitive populations such as children or the elderly.
Comment! Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.19, IV-D-106,
IV-D-134, IV-D-149, IV-D-188, IV-D-238) said the proposed
temperature of 230°C (450°F) at the PM control device is not
adequate to ensure condensation and removal of metals. They
suggested that a temperature of about 150°C (300°F) should be
required to improve metals control (especially mercury
control). One commenter (IV-D-186) suggested a temperature of
3-35
-------
135oc (275°F), while others (IV-D-190, IV-D-235) suggested
180°C (350°F) measured at the PM control device outlet.
Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said the EPA's 1989
guidance for control of heavy metals from hazardous waste
incineration indicates flue gas temperature at the PM control
device affects mercury, cadmium, and arsenic removal. The
commenters attached a figure to show that better mercury
removal (e.g., 75 to 90 percent control) is achieved when
SD/FF are operated below 140°C (290°F) or wet scrubber ESP's
are operated below 100°C (210°F). These commenters,
therefore, recommended a requirement that temperature at the
PM control device inlet not exceed 135°C (275°F).
Other commenters (IV-D-106, IV-D-188) said tests at
Quebec City showed no mercury control at temperatures of 200°C
(400°F), but 90 percent mercury control below 140°C (280°F),
and argued that a temperature limit much lower than 230°C
(450°F) is needed to ensure mercury condensation and removal.
One of these commenters (IV-D-188) also said tests of the
Dutchess County MWC showed that Unit 1 operated at 220°C
(430°F) and had an outlet mercury concentration of
1,080 jtg/dscm (470 gr/million dscf) , whereas Unit 2 operated
at 185°C (365°F) and had an outlet level of 85 /ig/dscm
(37 gr/million dscf).
Another (IV-D-62) said based on published data, the flue
gas temperature entering the PM control device should be below
140°C (285°F) to achieve mercury control.
In contrast, others (IV-F-2.4, IV-F-2.8) said a PM
control device inlet temperature is not needed to ensure good
PM and metals control, and should not be included in the
rules.
Response: The 230°C (450°F) temperature included at proposal
was not specified to achieve PM and metals control. Rather,
it was to prevent secondary formation of dioxins/furans in the
control device. However, new MWC's will cool gas to
temperatures well below 230°C (450°F) at the PM control device
inlet in order to meet the dioxin/furan and acid gas emission
3-36
-------
limits. As described in Section 3.5.4, the 230oc
temperature limit included in the proposal has been changed,
and site-specific limits will be established during the
dioxin/furan compliance test. While lower temperatures may
aid in mercury capture, it is not a simple condensation
phenomenon and other factors (such as level of carbon in the
flue gas) also influence mercury control. As mentioned in
previous responses, the CAA Amendments of 1990 require that
mercury emissions be addressed through promulgation of a
mercury emission limit within 12 months of enactment of the
CAA Amendments.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.5) said the relationship
between opacity and particulates is not direct and will vary
among MWC's. He suggested a variance procedure for opacity be
included in the rules.
Response; Available information indicates that the 10-percent
opacity limit is achievable for MWC's with best demonstrated
technology. However, the General Provisions allow for
site-specific opacity limits in any cases where the emission
limits are achievable but the opacity limit is not achieved.
As provided for in 40 CFR 60.11(e)(6), if it is found that "an
affected facility is in compliance with all applicable
standards for which performance tests are conducted in
accordance with Section 60.8 of this part but during the time
such performance tests are conducted fails to meet any
applicable opacity standard, ... he [the owner or operator]
may petition the Administrator... to make appropriate
adjustment to the opacity standard for the affected facility."
Sections 60.11(e)(6), (7), and (8) describe the petition
procedure and the conditions under which the Administrator
will establish a site-specific opacity standard.
Site-specific opacity limits have been established for
individual combustion sources regulated under other subparts
using this procedure, and MWC's under Subpart Ea would also be
able to use this procedure.
3-37
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-03) said that a 10-percent
opacity limit will not ensure the PM limits are met. The
commenter said their MWC cannot meet a 180 mg/dscm
(0.08 gr/dscf) limit if opacity is above 0 percent. Another
commenter (IV-D-178) suggested 0 percent opacity saying MWC's
in their State operate with no visible emissions. Other
commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-168, IV-D-246) suggested a 5-percent
opacity limit would better ensure PM control.
Commenter IV-D-03 added that there could be a provision to
allow site-specific adjustment to a higher level if a site
demonstrates their correlation between PM and opacity.
Response; While MWC's may operate at 0 percent some of the
time, this will not be continuously achievable, as indicated
by COM data from MWC's with state-of-the-art control systems.
A limit of 10 percent is achievable, and is sufficient to
alert operators to any significant control device problems
that may be causing increased PM and MWC metals emissions. As
described in the previous response, site-specific adjustments
are allowed for by the General Provisions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-121) suggested that baghouse
design requirements could be included to reduce malfunctions.
For example, each parcel of air could pass through at least
two bags.
Response; Section 111 of the CAA requires development of
standards of performance (i.e., emission limits). As stated
in Section lll(h), "if it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce a standard of performance, he [the Administrator] may
instead promulgate a design, work practice, or operational
standard..." Section lll(h) also defines the meaning of "not
feasible" as being where either pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance device or emissions measurements is not
practical. In the case of MWC emissions, limits can be set
for PM and opacity, and testing and monitoring is practical.
Therefore, a PM emission limit format and opacity monitoring
requirements were chosen rather than a design format that
would specify FF design. Any control technique that meets the
applicable limits can be used to comply with the standards.
3-38
-------
3.5.3 Municipal Waste Combustor Acid Gases
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.15, IV-D-116,
IV-D-138, IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-255) said the NSPS should
require 90 percent HCl control and 80 percent SC>2 control
(rather than the proposed 95 percent and 85 percent,
respectively). Commenters IV-F-1.35 and IV-D-116 claimed
these levels are demonstrated and can be guaranteed by
vendors. Other commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-153, IV-D-255)
claimed the higher proposed levels have only been demonstrated
at short-term stack tests and have not been demonstrated on a
continuous basis and are not justified in the EPA's background
documents. Commenter IV-D-153 recommended 80 percent SC>2
control, but did not mention HCl, while another commenter
(IV-D-160) suggested a limit of 80 percent or 40 ppm for SO2
for large plants. Yet another (IV-D-231) suggested limits of
90 percent or 45 ppm for HCl and 75 percent or 60 ppm for SO2
(8-hour block average). One commenter (IV-D-67) said acid gas
control of 90 percent for HCl and 70 percent for SO2 is
achievable by "dry lime injection scrubbers" and has been
required at a recently-approved MWC in Canada.
One commenter (IV-D-154) said that while short-term tests
indicate levels of 30 ppm SO2 and HCl may be achieved on a
short-term basis, raising the level by 5 to 10 ppm would allow
for long-term variability in performance. Furthermore, a
level of 30 ppm might allow only rotary atomizers, whereas a
higher level could be achieved with either dual fluid nozzles
or rotary atomizers and therefore could reduce costs.
One commenter (IV-D-124) suggested a reevaluation of the
technical achievability and cost/benefit ratio of varying
removal efficiencies within the 70 percent to 85 percent range
for SO2 and the 90 percent to 95 percent range for HCl.
Another (IV-D-167) said the increase in lime needed to
increase control from 70 to 85 percent SO2 and from 90 to
95 percent HCl could amount to 180,000 Mg/yr (200,000 tpy) for
a 2,300 Mg/day (2,500 tpd) MWC, and EPA should evaluate the
trade-off between the incremental acid gas reduction and the
increased landfilling of lime reagent. In contrast, one
3-39
-------
commenter (IV-D-125) said the proposed 85 percent SO2
reduction is achievable, as evidenced by a corporation's
guarantee that controls at an MWC in Minnesota will remove
95 percent of the potential SO2 emission rate for that
facility.
Response: After proposal, continuous SC>2 emission data from a
new MWC with SD/FF control were obtained and analyzed. The
data were obtained by CEM's at the SD/FF inlet and outlet and
were corrected to 7 percent ©2- The long-term average percent
reduction in SO2 for the data set is about 90 percent, but due
to short-term variability in inlet SO2 levels and other
factors, both lower and higher percent reductions are observed
on a short term hourly basis. Since performance standards are
values that are not to be exceeded, allowance must be made for
this unavoidable short-term variability. Statistical analyses
of the hourly CEM data show that the hourly levels are
lognormally distributed. As a result, use of a geometric mean
rather than an arithmetic mean is statistically appropriate
for estimating minimum removal efficiencies. Review of the
data also showed that use of a 24-hour averaging period was
able to reduce the influence of short-term variability. Based
on this data, it was concluded that a level of 80 percent SC>2
reduction, on a 24-hour geometric mean basis, can be
continuously achieved. This would be the lowest 24-hour mean
value expected for a well-operated, state-of-the-art SD/FF
system, and is consistent with long-term average performance
of 90 percent S(>2 reduction. A higher percent reduction
(e.g., 85 percent on a 24-hour average basis) has not been
demonstrated to be continuously achievable.
In light of this statistical analysis and considering the
comments, a change was made to the proposed MWC acid gas
standards. The final S02 limit for new MWC's with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) is 80 percent or 30 ppmv,
whichever results in a higher emission level, as calculated
using the geometric mean of the 24 hourly averages collected
each day. (The proposed SO2 limit was 85 percent or 30 ppmv.)
As explained at proposal, the ppmv level is included
3-40
-------
because in cases where SO2 inlet levels are very low and the
specified percent reduction would result in outlet
concentration levels much below 30 ppmv, the percent reduction
may not be achievable due to limitations in the SO2 emission
measurement and control feedback loops. The 30 ppmv level was
not intended to represent a level of control equivalent to 85
percent. Facilities have the choice of meeting either the
percent reduction or ppmv limits.
The HC1 limits have not been changed since proposal.
Compliance with the HC1 limit is determined by annual stack
tests, so there is no averaging period associated with the HC1
emission limits. Performance tests for a number of MWC's with
SD/FF control indicate that 95 percent HC1 control is
achievable.
The cost and economic analysis completed prior to
proposal included the cost of lime at a feed rate sufficient
to achieve 80 percent or greater SC>2 removal on a 24-hour
geometric mean basis. Costs for disposal (landfilling) of the
reagent were also included. The cost and economic impacts of
these acid gas control systems is reasonable.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-139,
IV-D-155, IV-D-184) said the proposed acid gas emission levels
of 85 percent or 30 ppm for SO2 and 95 percent or 25 ppm for
HC1 are reflective of LAER applied to facilities to be built
in nonattainment areas under the NSR program. These
commenters said best demonstrated technology, as defined in
Section 111, is to be applicable to all new sources and is
generally less stringent than LAER. These commenters and one
other (IV-D-138) said the air-to-cloth ratio of 4:1 and
stoichiometric ratio of 1.5:1 that EPA used to develop cost
impacts in the BID'S resembled designs that would result in an
emission reduction of about 80 percent or 50 ppm for S02 and
90 percent reduction or 40 ppm for HC1. Four of the
commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-138, IV-D-155, IV-D-184) claimed
that in order to achieve the proposed levels, or LAER, lower
air-to-cloth ratios (e.g., 2.5:1) and higher stoichiometric
rates (e.g., 2.5:1) would have to be used, and this would
3-41
-------
increase costs above those estimated by EPA.
Commenter IV-D-138 said pumps, pipes, and valves would have to
be sized larger to accommodate additional lime.
Commenter IV-D-116 said in order to maintain over 85 percent
S02 control, MWC's would have to "over-feed" lime at ratios of
3:1 or higher (test results on varying stoichiometric ratios
at one MWC were attached), and that this would result in
increased costs for the lime and for disposal of the extra
lime.
The commenters also said operating and maintenance costs
would be higher to achieve the more stringent proposed limits
on a continuous basis because the technology would need to
continuously perform at the optimum level possible. One
(IV-D-116) said there would be increased wear on expensive
atomizers (or nozzles) due to operating at higher lime feed
rates.
Five of the commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-139,
IV-D-155, IV-D-184) said vendors would be unlikely to
guarantee the proposed S02 and HC1 levels for 20 years, so
liability to the MWC or community would result in increased
costs. Commenter IV-D-138 said control efficiency will
decrease as equipment ages.
The commenters also questioned the ability of systems to
continuously achieve the proposed S(>2 level. Three (IV-D-101,
IV-D-139, IV-D-155) said inlet SO2 loading to the control
device at MWC's is highly variable due to fuel composition.
Graphs of hourly average inlet S02 data for two MWC's showing
high variability were attached by Commenters IV-D-101 and
IV-D-155. The others (IV-D-116, IV-D-138, IV-D-184) said the
available SC>2 emission data represents short-term compliance
tests under closely controlled conditions and that little
long-term CEM data demonstrating these performance levels are
available.
Four of the commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-138, IV-D-139,
IV-D-155) said the proposed HC1 limits have been met by some
LAER facilities, but they have been demonstrated only on a
short-term basis, not on a long-term continuous basis.
3-42
-------
The first conunenter (IV-D-101) concluded that EPA should
change the proposed emission limits to 70 percent SO2 control
and 90 percent HC1 control. The other commenters (IV-D-116,
IV-D-138, IV-D-155, IV-D-184) recommended an SO2 level of
80 percent (measured as a 24-hour average) and an HC1 level of
90 percent. Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155) said if EPA
does not change the SO2 and HC1 levels, they should reevaluate
the technical feasibility, cost, and economic impacts of
achieving these higher levels.
Response; As explained in the previous response, analyses of
SO2 CEM data completed after proposal of the standards
demonstrate that 80 percent SC>2 control (24-hour daily
geometric mean) is achievable by SD/FF systems. In light of
this statistical analysis and the comments, the SC>2 reduction
was changed from 85 percent at proposal to 80 percent in the
final standards. This change addresses the conunenter's
concern. The Agency's cost analysis conducted prior to
proposal was based on an annual average SO2 removal efficiency
of 90 percent. This long-term average removal efficiency is
consistent with the data set analyzed prior to promulgation.
Thus, the cost analysis conducted prior to proposal is still
valid. (As stated in previous responses, the promulgated
emission limit of 80 percent SC>2 reduction on a 24-hour
geometric mean basis is consistent with long-term average
performance of 90 percent.) As stated in the previous
response, the HC1 level was not changed.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-130) said the main objective of
the MWC acid gas requirements should be to achieve HC1
control, since the sulfur content of MSW averages only
0.3 percent, less than found in most No. 2 fuel oil. He
claimed that based on stack testing it appears 95 percent HC1
control can be achieved at an SC>2 removal efficiency of 70 to
75 percent. He suggested that requiring this level of S(>2
control will still ensure HC1 control, but will allow more
flexibility in control options and will reduce costs. He said
SD/ESP systems could be used to achieve 70 to 75 percent S02
3-43
-------
control, but SD/FF systems would be needed to achieve the
proposed 85 percent SC>2 control.
Response; The standards for new MWC's with capacities greater
than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are based on SD/FF control (in
combination with GCP), however, other acid gas control
technologies may be used if they can meet the standards. This
combination of technologies represent the best control systems
for MWC emissions demonstrated at MWC's and will control all
three subclasses of MWC emissions (MWC acid gas, MWC organics,
and MWC metals). Many newer MWC's have SD/FF systems. The
cost of applying SD/FF to new MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) was considered and is reasonable, and no severe
economic impacts are expected. Therefore, this technology was
selected as the basis for the emission standards. The final
standards require 80 percent SC>2 control (24-hour daily
geometric mean), because this level has been demonstrated to
be achievable by SD/FF systems. By monitoring SC>2 performance
at these removal efficiencies, HCl removals of 95 percent or
greater are expected. However, actual measurement of the
system's HCl removal performance is required only during the
annual compliance test.
Under the promulgated guidelines for existing MWC's at
very large MWC plants, the SD/ESP option is the basis of the
emission levels. Section 7.5.5 describes the rationale for
selection of SD/ESP as part of the best demonstrated
technology, considering costs, for existing very large MWC's.
Briefly, the costs of SD/FF and SD/ESP controls would be
similar for new MWC's; but for existing MWC's that already
have an ESP, which is the most typical case, SD/ESP systems
may be significantly less costly and easier to retrofit.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.2) said the 25 or 30 ppm limit
for HCl and SC-2 may be hard for small MWC plants to achieve.
He said it is difficult to create a system sufficiently
sophisticated to handle spikes. He suggested that a more
reasonable limit for small MWC plants is 50 percent or 50 ppm.
Another (IV-D-124) said the 30 ppm SC>2 level and 25 ppm HCl
level should be raised to levels commensurate with the
3-44
-------
50-percent removals based on DSI. One (IV-D-190) suggested
the SO2 limit for very small plants be 50 percent or 100 ppm.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Standards for smaller
MWC's will be promulgated within the next 2 years, and
comments on S(>2 limits for small MWC's will be considered as
part of that rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-184) said performance levels of
DSI systems are not demonstrated on a continuous long-term
basis because little CEM data are available. He also asked
why the cost procedures BID said the DSI system costed could
achieve 40 percent SO2 and 80 percent HC1 control, whereas the
standards for small new plants specify 50 percent SO2 control
and 80 percent HC1 control.
Response; Compliance test data from both DSI/FF and DSI/ESP
systems were reviewed. The cost procedures BID
(EPA-450/3-89-27a) assumed 40 percent SO2 control as the
"reference" case. However, emissions data from actual
facilities reported in the post-combustion technology
performance BID (EPA-450/3-89-27c) demonstrates that 50 to
90 percent SO2 control is achievable with commercial DSI
systems. The available performance test data from DSI systems
as well as CEM data from a SD/ESP support the conclusion that
50 percent SO2 control can be achieved on a continuous basis.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said that data
show the HC1 level below 20 ppm has been met by at least six
MWC's in the United States and is, therefore, demonstrated.
The commenters were concerned that under the proposed
standards, MWC's with high uncontrolled HC1 emissions (e.g.,
1,000 ppm) achieving 95 percent reduction could emit levels
higher than 25 ppm. These commenters and another (IV-D-186)
suggested that the percent reduction for HC1 and SO2 be
eliminated and emission limits of 20 ppm HC1 and 30 ppm S02 be
established for all new MWC's.
Another commenter (IV-D-106) also suggested the
percent-reduction option for HC1 and SO2 be eliminated, and
3-45
-------
the same acid gas emission limits apply to small and large
MWC's. She said as amounts of plastic in the waste increase
over time, HC1 levels from MWC's may rise, and if facilities
are allowed to comply with a percent-reduction rather than an
emission limit, emissions much greater than 25 ppm HC1 may
occur.
Another commenter said the SC-2 limit should be 20 ppm and
percent reduction standards resulting in higher outlet levels
should be eliminated, however, no data or information
supporting the 20 ppm level were provided.
Response; Data from MWC's with state-of-the-art control
systems show that the percent reductions specified in the
standards are achievable using demonstrated control
technology. A percent-reduction format was chosen because it
is the most accurate and representative measure of the
performance of acid gas control systems. As stated in the
previous response, the ppm levels were set because in cases
where inlet acid gas levels are low and the specified percent
reductions would result in outlet concentrations below 30 ppm
for SO2 or 25 ppm for HC1, these percent reductions may not be
achievable.
Furthermore, inlet acid gas levels can be highly variable
over relatively short periods of time. In cases where inlet
acid gas levels are intermittently high, compliance with a ppm
level would require use of significantly more sorbent than is
generally needed, would make design and operation of the
control instrumentation for SD and DSI systems more complex,
and would require the overall emissions control system to be
larger than is otherwise required. Furthermore, the
short-term and long-term data gathered from MWC's with
state-of-the-art controls indicates that higher percent
reductions (or outlet levels of 20 to 30 ppm) are not
demonstrated to be achievable on a continuous basis by all
MWC's with best demonstrated technology.
3-46
-------
3.5.4 Good Combustion Practices
3.5.4.1 Operator Training.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that many MWC
emission problems can be attributed to a lack of operating
training and/or experience.
Response; The Agency agrees that emission problems can be
caused by operator error and the final standards require that
chief facility operators and shift supervisors meet minimum
education and experience levels and that they pass a
certification test to be independently administered by:
(1) the ASME or (2) an approved State equivalent. The
regulations also require facilities to develop and make
available an operating manual and to annually update and
review the manual with all personnel associated with the
operation of the MWC.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-F-2.8, IV-F-3.5,
IV-D-78, IV-D-146, IV-D-149, IV-D-162, IV-D-222, IV-D-246,
IV-D-286) stated that the rules should allow for approval of a
State certification program comparable to the ASME program.
Response; The final standards have been revised to allow
State Agencies to establish their own training and
certification programs. The proposed regulations allowed only
ASME certification of the chief facility operator and the
shift supervisors. The final standard allows the alternative
of State equivalent certification programs, but in that case,
the State certification would not be transferrable out of the
State as would the ASME certification. The proposed and final
regulations also require annual training of all plant
personnel who are in positions associated with the operation
of the MWC. The training would be through the use of an
operating manual which has certain necessary components.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-2.12) stated that the process of
bringing a unit into compliance and operating in compliance is
sufficient education for operators. This commenter stated
that there is no need for the additional expense and
administrative burdens associated with certification and
training.
3-47
-------
Response; The ASMS certification program has been designed by
representatives from a cross-section of interests including
MWC owners, operators, manufacturers, State and local
government, and citizens groups. The standards and guidelines
attempt to ensure that all facilities are operated at a
necessary level of competency. Facilities which have
previously established operator training programs and have
knowledgeable supervision should not find it cumbersome to
comply with the regulations. The program was designed to help
all facilities operate in an educated manner to ensure
continuous combustion control of MWC organics and reduce
emissions and upsets. Additionally, the final standards and
guidelines allow for State certification as an alternative to
ASME certification and this provides additional flexibility.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.30, IV-D-60, IV-D-84)
stated that the certification should be site-specific to
avoid, for example, testing of operators on one type of
combustor when their facility uses another type of combustor.
Commenter IV-D-84 stated that certification and training
programs for MWC's cannot be applied to cement kilns because
of significant differences in how cement kilns operate.
Response; The standards and guidelines require certification
for only chief facility operators and shift supervisors, for
whom an in-depth understanding of MWC combustion principals
and facility operations is required. Under the ASME program,
certification is granted in two stages. Provisional
certification requires that certain education and experience
requirements have been met, and satisfactory completion of a
general test on the basics of MWC operation. The provisional
certificate is valid for 5 years and is not specific for any
particular MWC technology or jurisdiction. The final stage of
operator certification involves completion of a site-specific
oral test and pertains to a specific MWC technology. The
standards and guidelines also require annual training of all
plant personnel who are in positions associated with the
operation of the MWC (including control room operators, waste
3-48
-------
and ash handlers, maintenance personnel, and crane and load
operators) by use of a site-specific operating manual.
Commentt One commenter (IV-D-62) stated that operator
training should be conducted in a classroom setting and should
be in addition to experience requirements. The commenter
further recommended that EPA or the State environmental
enforcement agency approve the industry-developed training
courses before training begins. Several commenters (IV-D-105,
IV-D-117, IV-D-190, IV-D-235, IV-D-238) believed that within
the regulations, EPA should develop an infrastructure and
curriculum which specifies how candidates for operator
certification should receive their training.
Commenters IV-D-105, IV-D-106, and IV-D-117 further
recommended that EPA address the following issues regarding
the operating manual: uniformity across the country,
enforcement of annual employee manual review, employee
training, and Agency review of the manual. Commenter IV-D-238
stated that the proposed ASME certification program was
designed based on a survey of current operators and it does
not provide incentive for improving operator quality but only
maintains status quo.
Response: The standards and guidelines, by requiring ASME
certification (or a State-approved equivalent), require that
the chief facility operators and shift supervisors pass a
written examination for provisional certification. The
certification examination will be sufficiently rigorous to
ensure that the examinee has been adequately trained and
educated regarding the theory and operation of MWC systems
until they receive full operator certification (within
5 years). The Agency does not consider it necessary or
efficient to individually approve the content of any training
programs. The standards and guidelines require development,
annual review, and updating of a site-specific operating
manual which contains a minimum of 12 elements specified in
the regulations. These include basic combustion theory,
start-up and shutdown procedures, and upset or
off-specification conditions. Annual review of this manual is
3-49
-------
required for all plant personnel who are in positions
associated with the operation of the MWC. These site-specific
manuals and records of annual manual review must be available
for inspection to ensure they meet the regulatory
requirements.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-255) stated that the
requirement for chief operator and shift supervisor
certification 24 months after ASME certification program
adoption may be too short (due to the number of chief facility
operators and shift supervisors required to be trained) unless
provisions are included for automatic extension of the time
period.
Response; Considering the limited number of people requiring
provisional certification (only chief facility operators and
shift supervisors must be certified) and that provisional
certification requires only a written examination (along with
educational and experience requirements) a 24-month period for
provisional certification after ASME program adoption is
believed to be reasonable. Once provisional certification is
obtained, the operator has up to 5 years to obtain full
certification under the ASME program since the provisional
certification is valid for 5 years.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-90, IV-D-105, IV-D-106,
IV-D-117, IV-D-164, IV-D-238) believed it was not appropriate
for EPA to incorporate a plan developed by ASME (or any other
organization) into the final regulations, until the plan has
been specifically issued for public review and comment. The
commenters recommended that the certification program and the
procedures for administering the program are given the same
opportunity for public comment.
Response; The ASME certification program was designed by
representatives from a cross-section of interests including
MWC owners, operators, manufacturers, State and local
governments, and citizens groups. Drafts were published by
ASME and made available for review. Commenters on the NSPS
and guidelines could have obtained copies. The ASME
3-50
-------
certification program standards are included in Docket
No. A-89-08. Furthermore, the final MWC standards and
guidelines allow State-approved certification programs as an
alternative to ASME certification.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-149) recommended that the
requirements include a section on minimum routine maintenance
procedures.
Response: While the Agency agrees that proper maintenance is
necessary for optimal and long-term operation, the Agency does
not believe it is appropriate to define maintenance practices
to the facilities. Instead, the standards require continuous
monitoring of key operational performance parameters and
pollutants to prevent facility deterioration (and also require
periodic emissions testing every 1 or 3 years), and allow the
facility to perform maintenance as they judge appropriate.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-26) stated the operator
requirements were inadequate. Commenter IV-D-27 suggested
that operators be retested every 2 years. The testing should
be expanded to include a physical examination, vision testing,
drug and alcohol testing, and those who fail the test should
be prohibited from unit operation. Commenter IV-D-184
recommended that chief facility operators and shift
supervisors be recertified or renew certification on a
periodic basis such as 3 to 5 years.
Response; The certification and training requirements are
judged to be appropriate as proposed. The only change made
between proposal and promulgation was to allow State-approved
certification programs as an alternative to the ASME program
to provide more flexibility. The required annual update and
review of the operating manual by all employees will keep
chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and other
personnel up to date on topics relating to the operation of
the MWC, and the monitoring of key pollutants and operating
parameters also assure that the combustor and controls are
well operated and continue to achieve the emission standards.
3-51
-------
3.5.4.2 Carbon Monoxide Limits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-159) stated that in many modern
modular system applications the CO is consistently low and
fairly insensitive to the operation due to high combustion
efficiencies and as a result, its measurement is of little
value. Commenter IV-D-116 stated that CO emission levels are
not directly correlated to dioxin/furan emission levels and
that efficiency and operating temperatures of the PM control
device are the key to controlling dioxin/furan emission
levels.
Response; The Agency is aware of modular mass burn facilities
which consistently operate at less than 10 ppm. However,
there are others which do not perform so commendably. The
monitoring requirement is deemed necessary as a demonstration
of that performance.
One intent of the MWC rules is to control the emission of
all organic pollutants from MWC facilities (MWC organics).
This is to be achieved by the continuous application of GCP
and appropriate flue gas cleaning technology. The approach
used in applying GCP to control MWC organics is to maximize
organic destruction in the furnace and minimize low
temperature formation of organics downstream of the combustor.
The purpose of the CO emission limit is to monitor the
destruction of organics in the furnace.
If the facility can continuously meet the CO CEM
requirement, and demonstrate periodic dioxin/furan compliance,
then the goals of GCP have been reached. Those goals are to
operate the combustor in such a manner to prevent and control
air pollutant emissions from MWC's. In order to meet the
continuous compliance requirements of GCP, the facility will
have to incorporate additional design and operating practices
not specifically required in this rule. These practices
include proper waste handling and feeding to minimize
variation in the waste characteristics, proper air
distribution, proper mixing of combustion air with combustion
products, proper waste feeding, proper combustor temperature,
etc.
3-52
-------
The CO level is a good indicator of the degree of organic
destruction in the furnace. There are many factors which can
cause poor combustion conditions. These factors range from
waste feed conditions to furnace temperature, and air
distribution. All of these factors will influence CO
emissions as well as organic destruction. High emission
levels of CO are associated with high organic emissions. The
regulation, by eliminating periods of high CO emissions,
reduces periods of high organic emissions.
At high levels, CO is a good predictor of dioxin/furan as
shown in the parametric test program at the Mid-Connecticut
facility in Hartford, Connecticut. That data showed an
excellent correlation of CO greater than 200 ppm with
uncontrolled dioxins/furans. A strong correlation was also
observed with CO and other uncontrolled organics. Therefore,
the Agency has chosen to regulate CO as an indicator of
organic destruction in the furnace (and thereby reducing the
amount of organics escaping the furnace). The reduction or
organics leaving the furnace reduces overall emissions and
also the amount of precursor material available for low
temperature formation. The remainder of the GCP regulations
attempt to minimize low temperature formation of organics by
reducing PM carryover and limiting the temperature into the PM
control device.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.4, IV-D-61,
IV-D-62, IV-D-80, IV-D-138, IV-D-190) recommended that a
single CO limit be set for all MWC technologies and capacities
such as was included in the EPA's draft guidelines dated
June 1987. Commenters IV-D-105, IV-D-106, and IV-D-117 stated
that the CO emission limit be changed to 50 ppm over a 4-hour
averaging time for all technologies, a value recommended in a
1987 EPA report. Commenter IV-F-2.4 recommended that the
limit be set at the level proposed for RDF combustors.
Commenter IV-D-80 believed that modular units were being
unduly penalized as a result of their more efficient
combustion process and that requiring a 100 ppm limit tl hour
average) will actually result in less CO emissions. •
3-53
-------
Commenter IV-D-61 felt than the most stringent CO limit should
be applied to all new incinerators. Commenter IV-D-78 stated
that grouping mass burn rotary waterwall, RDF, coal/RDF
cofired, and other technologies under one CO limit creates
inequity. Commenter IV-D-188 believed the higher CO limits
favor rotary waterwall over other technologies such as mass
burn waterwall. Commenter IV-D-209 stated that RDF facilities
should be held to a more restrictive CO limit due to the RDF's
capability to control its fuel input to a much better degree
than mass burn facilities. Commenter IV-D-184 felt the more
lenient emission limits for small RDF combustors may create a
preference for RDF in this size category. Commenter IV-D-235
stated that a 100 ppm limit should be established for all
technologies except RDF which should be set at 250 ppm due to
difficulty in continuous compliance with the 100 ppm limit.
Several commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-117,
IV-D-188) stated that the CO limits were not chosen in
accordance with data truly representative of the better
operated facilities and therefore this standard will not
ensure the best combustion practices. One commenter
(IV-D-131) stated that the CO limit set for RDF combustors is
insupportable and therefore the proposed emission limit can
only be regarded as an arbitrary value. Commenter IV-D-159
stated that not enough data are available for the different
size classes of modular units and that the CO limit should be
raised to 100 ppm until more data are obtained.
Commenter IV-D-188 stated that they have CEM CO data from mass
burn waterwall units of less than 50 ppm and less than 100 ppm
from rotary waterwall units. Commenter IV-D-188 further
stated that they have permitted mass burn waterwall units at
50 ppm and rotary units at 100 ppm limits. This commenter
recommends lowering the CO limit to 100 ppm for rotary
waterwall and RDF units.
Response; Different types of combustors may have inherently
different steady-state CO emission levels when applying GCP.
Average CO emissions are composed of steady-state values and
excursions to higher levels. Steady-state values are
3-54
-------
dependent on the waste properties, excess air levels, and the
manner in which the waste (or RDF) is burned, i.e.,
bed-burning, semi-suspension burning, two-stage combustion,
fluid bed combustion, etc. Excursions result predominately
from changes in waste properties, feed conditions, or a
failure to achieve good mixing of combustion air and the
burning waste constituents. Average achievable CO emissions
are determined by steady-state values and the frequency,
duration, and magnitude of excursions. Good combustion
practices attempt to address all of these factors by
establishing technology-specific CO limits based on those
levels that have been demonstrated to be achievable.
The technology-specific CO emission limits and averaging
times were developed on the basis of demonstrated performance
in existing MWC's. The specific data and analyses are in the
background document entitled, "Municipal Waste Combustion
Assessment: Technical Basis for Good Combustion Practice,"
EPA-600/8-89-063, August 1989, and in other memoranda in the
docket. To develop CO limits for various technologies, five
long-term data sets and approximately 30 short-term data sets
were analyzed. When possible, the data were obtained from
facilities determined to be incorporating recommended GCP
practices. Data were obtained from facilities determined to
be examples of the best designed systems in operation. The
data generated by EPA test programs were given greater
influence because the operating conditions were dictated by
EPA and the systems optimum performance could be determined.
This is in contrast to other test data where the facilities
were only required to meet State or local regulations which
may not have forced the facility to its optimum performance.
The EPA did not specifically consider variations in refuse
heating value but the many data sets examined included
naturally occurring changes in short term and seasonal waste
conditions. The EPA also believes that proper waste
preparation techniques, such as premixing at mass burn
facilities and appropriate processing at RDF facilities, can
minimize waste variation.
3-55
-------
The CO limit is included in GCP to ensure that good
combustion is achieved at all times. The various limits were
selected on the basis of their achievability for all
technologies from an extensive data base. The limits for new
RDF and rotary waterwall facilities have been readdressed
based on new data available to EPA. Analysis of the data
support establishing different limits for new RDF and rotary
waterwall facilities. The new regulations have been developed
based on data from the most recently constructed RDF and
rotary waterwall units. These facilities incorporate good
design practices and are believed to be well operated.
Analysis of data from an RDF unit at Detroit, Michigan,
indicates that a level of 150 ppm (corrected to 7 percent 02)
on a 24-hour average is achievable. An averaging time of
24 hours was selected for CO limits to account for the
inherent sensitivity of RDF combustors to periodic but
unpreventable interruptions in feed conditions that result in
high transient CO emission levels. It is expected that new
facilities will be designed to include CO controls and
improved feed controls, mixing patterns, and heat release
rate. These facilities are expected to have CO levels with
approximately the same average as the Detroit facility, but
have fewer excursions and less variability. Thus, the limit
for new RDF facilities has been revised to 150 ppm on a
24-hour average, corrected to 7 percent ©2-
Analysis of the data from a rotary waterwall unit
indicates that a level of 100 ppm (corrected to 7 percent ©2)
on a 24-hour average is achievable. Thus, the limit for new
rotary waterwall facilities has been revised to 100 ppm on a
24-hour average, corrected to 7 percent 03. For more
information on CO levels for new RDF and rotary waterwall
facilities, see the memorandum entitled, "Good Combustion
Practice: CO Emission Limit," in the docket.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-1.11, IV-F-2.15, IV-D-101,
IV-D-107, IV-D-111, IV-D-116, IV-D-122, IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-139, IV-D-143, IV-D-153, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-158,
IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-190, IV-D-235, IV-D-255, IV-D-257)
3-56
-------
stated that the CO 4-hour averaging period is unreasonably
short. All of these commenters recommended that the averaging
time be lengthened to simplify compliance.
Commenters IV-D-107, IV-D-111, IV-D-116, IV-D-122, IV-D-137,
IV-D-138, IV-D-139, IV-D-153, IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-184,
IV-D-255, and IV-D-257 further stated that the CO averaging
time is too short to accommodate variations in refuse heating
value and automatic combustion control response times and
recommended an 8-hour block average. Commenters IV-D-101,
IV-D-155, and IV-D-257 stated that the 4-hour averaging time
does not account for seasonal variation in the waste and
recommends an 8-hour averaging block for compliance throughout
the year. Commenters IV-D-108 and IV-D-168 stated that the CO
averaging time is too long and recommended a 1-hour averaging
time. Commenters IV-D-190 and IV-D-235 recommended an
averaging time of 24 and 28 hours, respectively.
Commenters IV-F-1.35 and IV-D-255 recommended a two-tier
implementation approach employing both short- and long-term CO
limits that recognize typical MWC operating excursions yet
provide a more realistic assessment of the CO emissions
environmental impact.
Response: A 4-hour averaging time was proposed for mass burn,
modular, RDF, rotary waterwall, and FBC facilities because it
is believed that high organics concentrations are primarily
associated with combustion excursions and not with
steady-state CO levels. The regulation's 4-hour block
averaging has as its intent the control of unstable combustion
conditions which are characterized by high CO and organic
emissions. Although a 1-hour average is desirable in forcing
facilities to control short-term peak emissions, data from
units employing current state-of-the-art combustion control
technologies indicate that setting CO emission limits at
achievable 1-hour emissions values would allow operation at
conditions which result in excessive long-term emission
averages. Also, EPA believes that a 1-hour average CO
emission limit does not provide adequate time for an operator
to correct upsets and still achieve an emission limit
3-57
-------
representative of GCP. The use of a 4-hour block average
resulted in selection of CO emission limits which provide a
balance in controlling short-term CO excursions and long-term
CO averages.
A 4-hour averaging time was originally proposed for RDF
stokers and rotary waterwall facilities, but was readdressed
based on a number of comments received and reexamination of
data. In RDF stoker facilities more than 40 percent of the
feed is burned in suspension and any variation in fuel feed
rate or in fuel heating content impacts furnace conditions and
CO emissions. All RDF combustors experience periodic feed
interruptions which result in moderately high CO emission
transients. These periodic feed interruptions are difficult
to eliminate and a longer averaging time is needed to
"average-out" these episodes. In addition, rotary waterwall
facilities experience periodic CO excursions which support
changing the CO emission limit and corresponding averaging
time. The analysis concludes that a 24-hour averaging period
is more appropriate. For these reasons, the CO emission limit
averaging time is changed to a 24-hour period for RDF and
rotary waterwall facilities. The details of the analysis are
given in the CO emission limit memorandum in the docket.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-137, IV-D-138) recommended that
the CO CEM location not be fixed at the combustor exit because
it is the most difficult CEM operational environment due to
high particulate loading and uncontrolled acid gases. The
commenters recommend allowing the facility the option to
install the CO CEM at the APCD outlet with the other CEM's
since the small delay in correlating real time CO data with
combustion conditions is meaningless.
Response; The location of the CO CEM will be left to the
discretion of the facility operator, as long as the CO monitor
and the O2 monitor (alternately the CO2 monitor) are in the
same location. The CO and O2 (or CO2) monitors are required
to be in the same location in order to accurately correct the
CO to a standard 02 (or CO2) level. It is not necessary to
locate the, CEM at a specific location in the furnace since the
3-58
-------
reactions necessary to form or destroy CO do not normally take
place beyond the furnace exit, and there are no devices which
serve as CO collectors.
3.5.4.3 Time at Temperature/Temperature.
Comment! Several commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.19, IV-D-03,
IV-D-106, IV-D-168, IV-D-186, IV-D-189) recommended that the
regulation include a time at temperature requirement such as
580°C (1,800°F) for 1 second. Commenter IV-D-134 recommended
a time at temperature requirement for new facilities. Several
commenters (IV-D-81, IV-D-86, IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-186)
stated that the'regulation should include a combustion
temperature requirement (both a minimum to ensure PIC
destruction and a maximum to reduce NOX formation) since it is
documented that temperature is critical and that technology to
measure the temperature is commercially available.
Commenter IV-D-107 also recommends that auxiliary burners be
required to maintain a required minimum temperature.
Commenter IV-D-186 recommends continuously monitoring furnace
temperature.
Response; The majority of recent State regulations and
operating permits governing air emissions from various classes
of incineration equipment have stipulated that the combustion
products be maintained at a given temperature (580°C [1,800°F]
is typical) for a given period of time (typically 1 or
2 seconds). The objective of such a regulation is to require
conditions sufficient to assure oxidation/destruction of
organic constituents escaping the primary combustion zone.
This condition might be applied to the region above the
overfire air ports on a mass burn waterwall or RDF-fired MWC
or to the secondary chamber of a modular starved air MWC.
Minimizing release of organic compounds from the MWC
combustion chamber is the critical objective of GCP. After
careful consideration, however, it has been concluded that in
some cases attempts to enforce mandated temperature
requirements may be counterproductive. Details of the various
considerations leading to that conclusion have been presented
3-59
-------
in the support documentation (EPA-530/SW-87-021a) and included
in the docket.
The Agency did consider establishing a minimum combustion
temperature requirement which is sufficiently high for all
applications and which provides a safety factor for temporal
and spatial variations. This approach, however, has several
major drawbacks. The most important drawback is its potential
impact on mixing. To increase temperatures in the upper
furnace region when operating at full load requires a decrease
of excess air in that region which can only be accomplished by
decreasing the relative amount of overfire air. If the
quantity of overfire air is decreased, the jet momentum will
also drop and thus mixing may be adversely impacted. There
are other considerations, but the major concern is that
optimal organic destruction is accomplished when the furnace
operates with sufficient temperature and with efficient
mixing. The standards and guidelines impose limits on
combustor operating load and an additional constraint on
operating temperature could negatively impact the ability to
control mixing and thus is not an acceptable approach.
The current regulation follows a philosophy that,
whenever possible, the standard should address emission
performance rather than operating or design constraints. The
regulations place limits on CO and dioxin/furan emissions. It
is believed that the furnace temperature must be maintained at
an appropriate level to achieve the CO limits. If the
manufacturer/ operator can achieve those limits, the real
objective of "time-at-temperature" will have been achieved.
If they fail to meet these objectives, modification to furnace
mixing, furnace temperature or critical process parameters may
be necessary. Regulating how the manufacturer must operate
his system to meet the standards is not consistent with GCP of
attempting to regulate performance whenever possible and may
actually force less than optimal operation.
The Agency does believe that it is necessary to measure
temperature as a means of controlling the combustion process,
but does not believe that it is necessary to require the
3-60
-------
recording and reporting of combustion temperatures to ensure
compliance with GCP at MWC facilities.
3.5.4.4 Capacity.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-F-3.5, IV-D-137,
IV-D-138, IV-D-222) believed that the proposed demonstrated
capacity measurement is overly restrictive and that operation
within a range of 80 (or 90) to 110 percent of demonstrated
capacity is more appropriate due to the variability of MSW
heat content. Commenters IV-D-101 and IV-D-155 stated that
the limit should be 100 percent plus or minus 2 percent to
account for the error band of the instrument.
Several commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-F-2.30, IV-D-78,
IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-111, IV-D-137, IV-D-138, IV-D-153,
IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-190, IV-D-222, IV-D-235,
IV-D-257) stated that the load level averaging time should be
increased or eliminated due to the variability of MSW.
Commenters IV-F-2.15, IV-F-2.30, and IV-D-164 recommended the
load level averaging time be changed to 24 hours, similar to
other EPA standards. Commenters IV-D-101, IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-190, IV-D-235 and IV-D-257
recommended that the load averaging time match their
recommended CO averaging time of 8 hours. Commenter IV-F-2.4
stated that the capacity should be established over a 4-hour
average test.
Response: The maximum operating load restriction is included
in GCP to address the potential for reduced residence times
and increased PH carryover (and associated organic emissions)
at high loads. The EPA's concern is that air flowrates are
typically adjusted to follow load and, at high loads, the
increased undergrate air or lower-furnace air flowrate could:
(1) entrain PM and carry it from the combustor and (2) reduce
the residence time of burning material in the high temperature
regions of the furnace. There is also the possibility that
excessive load reduces the mixing efficiency of overfire air
jets.
The EPA recognizes that variability in MSW
characteristics can be a problem. In response to public
3-61
-------
comments, EPA has reexamined the load requirement and
averaging period. The details of the analysis are in
Docket A-89-08 in the memorandum entitled, "Good Combustion
Practice: MWC Steam Load Requirement." Steam producing units
will be limited to a "maximum steam load." The maximum steam
load is defined as 110 percent of the mean steam flowrate
recorded during the three-run dioxin/furan performance test.
This mean steam flowrate will probably represent the highest
average continuous load at which the facility intends to
operate. The load averaging time is also changed from a
1-hour averaging time to a 4-hour averaging time. Since
facilities are to define the maximum load during the three-run
dioxin/furan performance test and each test run is
approximately 4 hours in duration, it is reasonable to base
the averaging time on a 4-hour average rather than the
proposed 1-hour average. The maximum operating load level
defined during a previous performance test can be changed by
retesting the facility if the owner or operator desires and
all compliance conditions are met during testing at the
proposed new maximum operating load.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-164) requested that
EPA clarify whether emission tests are to occur at design
capacity or available load level.
Response: The regulations require that performance tests be
conducted at the maximum load at which the facility will be
operated. The operator must recognize that the maximum
operating load allowed in the permit will be that which was
demonstrated by the performance tests. The owner or operator
of the facility will be responsible for defining the highest
continuous operating load, but they must demonstrate that
dioxin/furan emission limits are achievable at that load
level.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) stated that it is unequal to
regulate the maximum demonstrated capacity for only steam
producing units. The commenter recommends dropping the
guideline.
3-62
-------
Response; Excessive flue gas flowrates entrain additional PM
and carry it to locations in the MWC system where low
temperature formation of organics occurs. Those MWC's which
produce steam can use steam flowrate measurements to limit
operation at excessive loads. The object of the maximum load
requirement as measured by steam flowrate is to limit the
volumetric flowrate of flue gases. Several alternate
techniques for measurement of flue gas flowrate were initially
considered for units which do not generate steam, but none
were considered sufficiently accurate or easily applied for
inclusion in the original standard proposal. Further
investigation has shown that vendors are now offering a number
of different techniques for continuous measurement of flue gas
flowrate. Although none of these techniques has been
validated by EPA for use on combustion sources, one or more of
them may be applicable to all classes of MWC's including
refractory units without heat recovery. If one of these
techniques is validated for MWC facilities, EPA will require
their use at units without heat recovery for the purpose of
avoiding operation at excessive loads. For more details of
this alternative method of measuring combustor gas flowrates,
see the steam load memorandum in the docket.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-219) recommended the rules be
amended to allow exemption of steam load requirement to
facilities which generate a minimal amount of steam for a
limited use and that operate for the primary purpose of
burning MSW.
Response; For facilities where the total volume of flue gas
is not consistently passed through the boiler or waste heat
exchanger, the steam load is not representative of the total
gas flowrate. Therefore, it does not accomplish the purpose
of the requirement which is to limit flue gas flowrate. The
facilities will not at this time be subject to the load
requirements for units with heat recovery.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-134) recommended that the
requirements establish a method to define exactly how load
capacity should be measured and what calibration or other QA
3-63
-------
measures are required. Two conunenters (IV-D-149, IV-D-150)
recommend that the standard for load capacity included
consideration of the enthalpy recovered in the steam.
Response; Although enthalpy is a more accurate predictor of
heat input into the furnace, EPA believes steam load is an
adequate predictor of MWC load. The EPA will utilize the
ASME's Power Test Codes to specify measurement and calibration
methods for steam load. The ASME Power Test Codes: Test
Codes for Steam Generating Units, PTC 4.1, Section 4 contains
the method to calculate the steam output from a steam
generator. The ASME PTC 19.5 Chapter 4, "Instruments and
Apparatus: Measurement of Quantity of Materials" shall be
followed with reference to the use and location of flow
nozzles and orifices. For more information, refer to the
steam load memorandum in Docket A-89-08.
3.5.4.5 Particulate Matter Control Device Inlet Flue Gas
Temperature.
Comment; Several commenters discussed the 230°C (450°F) PM
control device inlet temperature requirement.
Commenter IV-D-03 believed that the requirement was to improve
condensation and capture of metals and organics and pointed
out that the best ESP operation is achieved at temperatures
greater than 230°C (450°F). Commenters IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.19,
IV-D-106, IV-D-108, IV-D-134, IV-D-149, IV-D-150, IV-D-186,
IV-D-188, and IV-D-238 thought that the temperature was too
high and recommended a 150°C (300°F) temperature to ensure
metals condensation and collection. Commenters IV-D-62,
IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-186, IV-D-188, and IV-D-238 also
recommended a 150°C or 135°C (300°F or 275°F) PM control
device inlet temperature in order to minimize dioxin/furan
formation and to maximize their condensation.
Commenter IV-D-168 recommended a 180°C (350°F) inlet
temperature. Commenters IV-D-190 and IV-D-235 recommended an
outlet maximum temperature of 180°C (350°F) to capture metals
and dioxins/furans. Commenter IV-D-186 further stated that
acid gas corrosion can be minimized or prevented with the use
of acid gas adsorbents or by using acid resistant surfaces.
3-64
-------
Response: Although there are other parameters which also
influence dioxin/furan formation in a PM control device, low
temperature dioxin/furan formation is strongly dependent on
the flue gas temperature and residence time within the
critical dioxin/furan temperature window (200°C to 400°C
[390°F to 750°F]). The strong dependence of dioxin/furan
formation on temperature is shown by recent EPA tests which
are discussed in detail in Docket A-89-08 in the memorandum
entitled, "Good Combustion Practice: PM Control Device Inlet
Temperature Requirement." The data show that dioxin/furan
emission levels increase approximately an order or magnitude
for every 100°C (180°F) increase in ESP operating temperature.
The manner in which the proposed standards and guidelines are
written would allow facilities to pass a dioxin/furan
performance test while operating at any PM inlet temperatures
less than 230°C (450°F). After passing the performance test
they then could operate at 230°C (450°F) PM control device
inlet temperatures and continuously exceed the dioxin/furan
emission requirements. Therefore, as discussed in the
memorandum, the maximum PM control device inlet temperature
requirement has been changed. The maximum temperature is now
defined as the mean PM control inlet temperature measured
during the dioxin/furan performance tests plus 17°C (30°F).
The 17°C (30°F) cushion is included for the benefit of those
facilities which do not directly control PM control device
inlet temperatures, but rely on heat transfer surfaces to
lower flue gas temperatures. In such cases, the heat transfer
surfaces may become fouled over time and the gas temperature
will increase. An additional 17°C (30°F) above demonstrated
performance test temperatures allows such facilities to
continue operating without exceeding the standard. For
further information, refer to the PM control device inlet
temperature memorandum in Docket A-89-08.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-D-122, IV-D-266)
indicated that no temperature limit should be required since
dioxin/furan emission limits have been established. One
commenter (IV-D-159) recommended that modern modular systems
3-65
-------
be exempt from the PM control device inlet temperature
requirement due to the high combustion efficiencies and
destruction of dioxins/furans and their precursors.
Commenter IV-D-189 stated that the maximum temperature limit
at the PM control device inlet is not relevant to GCP.
Response: There is conclusive evidence that dioxins/furans
can be formed in PM control devices such as an ESP or FF and
that the formation is strongly temperature dependent. The
temperature requirement is to aid in continuous compliance for
dioxins/furans since those organics cannot be sampled
continuously. Without that requirement, a facility could
demonstrate compliance at a low ESP (or FF) temperature and
then operate at higher ESP (or FF) temperature causing
dioxin/furan emissions greater than the limit.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) recommended that the
averaging time be lengthened to avoid constantly attempting to
correct for waste variability. Commenters IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-155, IV-D-190, and IV-D-235 recommended that the inlet
temperature averaging time be changed to an 8-hour block
average.
Response; The 4-hour averaging time for PM control device
inlet temperature is consistent with good operating practices.
If a particular facility has large swings in temperature for
extended period of time, the Agency believes it is possible to
reduce swings or to lower the PM control device inlet
temperature set point so compliance will not be a problem.
3.5.4.6 Overall Good Combustion Practices Comments.
Commentt Two commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-219) believed that
compliance with the EPA's GCP is sufficient to minimize
production of organics and that dioxins/furans testing should
not be required. Another commenter (IV-F-2.4) indicated that
operational parameters should not be dictated since specific
emission limits have been proposed.
Response: Both the dioxin/furan emission limits and the
performance requirements specified under GCP are required to
ensure that trace organic emissions are minimized. The GCP
requirements are designed to address the organic formation and
3-66
-------
escape mechanisms that have been identified through analyses
of MWC test data. The GCP requirements assist in attaining
compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit and are a key
to assuring continuous compliance since dioxins/furans cannot
be continuously measured.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-2.39, IV-D-65, IV-D-101) were
concerned about the pollutant tradeoffs between CO and NOX.
Commenter IV-F-2.39 stated that GCP for control of organics
and CO emissions includes operation at oxygen-rich conditions
which will lead to the formation of excess NOX.
Commenter IV-D-65 stated that the CO limits should be
achievable if the NOX emission limit for new incinerators is
set at 190 to 200 ppm in the final standards.
Response: Commenter IV-F-2.39 is, in general, correct in that
the mechanisms effective in controlling these two MWC
pollutants can be in conflict. However, the discussion in the
comment has been over simplified. The distribution of fuel
and air in the combustor has a significant impact on fuel NOX
(i.e., NOX produced by oxidation of nitrogen contained in the
fuel as opposed to thermal NOX, which is that resulting from
thermal fixation of atmospheric nitrogen). Because MWC's
operate at relatively low combustion temperatures, fuel NOX is
the primary contributor to MWC NOX emissions. In the
conversion of fuel nitrogen to NOX, the overall excess air
level is much less important than the level of mixing in the
early stages of the combustion process (e.g., in and slightly
above the bed). Thus, overall oxygen-rich conditions do not
necessarily imply that NOX emissions will be increased. Good
combustion practices for organics control depend on optimizing
several key components of the combustion process, one of which
is the amount and distribution of combustion air. This does
not require that excess amounts of air be introduced to the
waste bed. In fact, two-stage combustors burn quite fuel rich
in the primary chamber without violating the premises of GCP.
There is no evidence that the specific CO emission limits will
invalidate combustion techniques intended to control NOX
emissions.
3-67
-------
Commentt One commenter (IV-D-84) stated that GCP for cement
kilns is better accomplished by regulating direct combustion
controls such as excess oxygen minimums, kiln rotation speed,
and raw material feed minimums, proper draft fan operation,
and fuel feed minimums, instead of monitoring emissions.
Response; A review of data from tests on cement kilns
indicate that high concentrations of CO in stack gas may
result from cement feed material properties and process
conditions. The CO emission levels are not always a good
indication of process fuel combustion conditions in cement
kilns. The GCP provisions of the final standards and
guidelines do not include CO emission limits for cement kilns.
(See memo entitled "Good Combustion Practice: CO Emission
Limits" in Docket A-89-08.) Furthermore, since cement kilns
usually do not generate steam they would not be required to
measure load level (see Section 3.5.4.4).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-105) stated that automatic
combustion control systems should be required on all MWC's.
Response: It is believed that automatic combustion control
systems will generally be used to ensure compliance with GCP
requirements. If however, a system can demonstrate required
emission performance on a continuous basis without automatic
combustion controls, there is no justification for the
considerable associated control expense which would result
from this regulatory requirement.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-108, IV-D-159) stated that
hydrocarbon monitors should be used to ensure continuous
dioxin/furan compliance rather than CO monitors.
Commenter IV-D-189 recommended using THC as a surrogate of
organics. Commenter IV-D-189 recommended establishing a
25 ppmv limit at 7 percent 03 for a 24-hour average on the
total concentration of nonmethane hydrocarbons on facilities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
Response; The first indication of an excursion in an MWC
system will be observed by the rising CO concentration.
Following the rise in CO concentration the THC concentration
will increase. Therefore, the Agency chose the more sensitive
3-68
-------
predictor of poor combustion conditions. In general, CO
monitors are a more reliable instrument. A discussion of
using CO or THC as predictors of poor combustion is included
in "Alternative Approaches to Real-Time Continuous Measurement
for Combustion Efficiency of Hazardous Waste Incinerators,"
March 1987, written under EPA Contract No. 68-03-3365.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-110) stated that EPA does not
completely understand the process of MSW combustion and should
develop an understanding of the different furnace designs
before approval is given to build any new plants.
Response; During development of the background information,
the Agency made a concerted attempt to understand how each of
the major equipment types are designed and operated. This
included extensive discussions with the manufacturers, site
visits throughout North America, Europe, and Japan, as well as
an extensive review of all pertinent literature. This effort,
coupled with field testing programs conducted on all major
classes of MWC's provided the Agency with an in-depth
understanding of how the systems are designed and operated as
well as a sufficient data base to establish the regulations.
Commentt One commenter (IV-D-117) argued that as part of GCP
to reduce secondary dioxin/furan formation, a provision should
be required which prevents metals which have been shown to
catalyze dioxin/furan secondary formation from entering
incinerators.
Response; Sufficient data are not available to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the suggested approach in minimizing
dioxin/furan emissions.
Comment; Commenters IV-D-106 and IV-D-117 recommended
reestablishing the 6 to 12 percent range of oxygen content in
the flue gas. Commenter IV-D-186 recommended continuously
monitoring for a minimum ©2 level in the furnace.
Commenter IV-D-189 recommended establishing a minimum ©2
level.
Response; Operator control of ©2 content in the furnace
region is critical to maintaining low CO and MWC organic
emissions. The O2 content in the flue gas is not a direct
3-69
-------
emission concern and is not a direct indicator of unit
performance. Air in-leakage or other operational
considerations may directly impact exhaust ©2 without
influencing pollutant emissions of concern. Accordingly, it
is felt that the designer and unit operator should have full
control of this system variable in order to minimize pollutant
emissions since placing another operational constraint on the
system may negatively impact performance. Therefore, the
standards do not specify 02 level.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-158) stated that the field test
data do not exist (and the preliminary data do not confirm)
the ability of GCP to demonstrate a reduction in dioxin/furan
emissions to the level predicted. The commenter recommended
that numerical emission levels not be mandated at this time.
Response; There is certainly only a limited body of
verifiable field data to base a dioxin/furan emission limit
for existing MWC's. The emission standards and guidelines for
dioxins/furans are based upon application of both GCP and
enhanced APCD systems. As described in Sections 3.5.1. and
7.5.1, data support the achievability of the emission limits
for dioxins/furans.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-159) stated that insufficient
data on modern modular units exist and that extrapolation from
waterwall and older modular systems is inappropriate for
developing best demonstrated technology for modern units.
Response; Good combustion practices were developed for the
various technologies from the existing data base. The
requirements set forth in the standards and guidelines for
modular starved air systems was developed from data sets of
three different facilities; Oswego, Prince Edward Island, and
Red Wing. The facilities are considered to contain modern
modular MWC's.
3-70
-------
3.5.5 Size Categories for New Municipal Waste Combustor
Plants
Large Municipal Waste Combustor Plants.
pomme^t? Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.9, IV-F-1.19,
IV-F-1.28, IV-F-2.40, IV-D-05, IV-D-09, IV-D-101, IV-D-106,
IV-D-128, IV-D-134, IV-D-168, IV-D-186, IV-D-210, IV-D-238,
IV-D-275) said the same level of control should be required
for small MWC plants as proposed for large MWC plants, and no
size distinction should be made. Their rationale was that
small MWC plants may create as much health hazard as large MWC
plants because the small ones tend not to be maintained as
well and/or have shorter stacks.
One commenter (IV-D-106) said that the choice of the
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) size distinction is not adequately
justified. She noted that the graph of control costs in the
proposal showed four data points for plants below 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd), but that only one of these appeared to have costs
of $77/Mg ($70/ton) or more. The commenter requested
additional analysis on the marginal cost increase of SD/FF
relative to DSI/FF control.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.19, IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-128,
IV-D-134, IV-D-138, IV-D-186) also stated that the size cutoff
would encourage the proliferation of less well-controlled,
small MWC plants.
One commenter (IV-D-107) said if emission reductions are
judged to be cost effective as a whole, uniform standards
should be applied to the industry as a whole. He claimed that
"microeconomic decision making" by determining cost
effectiveness for each competitor is beyond the EPA's
authority.
Another (IV-F-1.35) said SD/FF technology is applicable
to all size MWC plants. One commenter (IV-D-101) said the
"best" APCD's have been applied to a number of small plants
(such as one in Jackson County, Michigan) and that they are
economically viable. Another (IV-D-210) said a 90 Mg/day
3-71
-------
(100 tpd) MWC in California will be equipped with SD/FF
control.
Response: As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated affect only MWC's with MWC unit capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). This is consistent with
the CAA Amendments of 1990 (Section 129). Under Section 129,
standards for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will
be promulgated with 2 years. The emission standards for small
plants may be different than those for large plants. As
written in Section lll(b)(2) of the CAA, "[t]he Administrator
may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within
categories of new sources for the purposes of establishing
such standards". Section 129, which addresses solid waste
combustion, contains similar wording. The proposed and final
standards for large new plants are based on the performance of
SD/FF technology while the December 1989 proposed standards
for small plants were based on the performance of DSI/PM
control. The rationale for the decision that these controls
represented best demonstrated technology for large and small
MWC's was discussed in the proposal Federal Register notice
(52 FR 52251, December 20, 1989). During the next 2 years,
the level of control for small MWC's will be reconsidered in
light of the CAA Amendments of 1990, and comments on the size
category distinction between small and large MWC plants will
be addressed as part of that rulemaking.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.7, IV-D-101, IV-D-137,
IV-D-138, IV-D-155, IV-D-188) suggested all MWC plants larger
than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) should be required to have the same
control level. Commenter IV-D-188 said costs for SD/FF are
higher for MWC plants smaller than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) than
they are for plants between 45 and 225 Mg/day (50 and
250 tpd), and suggested a 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) category
distinction. He said their State has an application from a
plant with two 32 Mg/day (35 tpd) units that plans to use
SD/FF control. Commenter IV-D-106 also mentioned that if a
size distinction is needed, 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) would be
preferable to 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
3-72
-------
Some commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-199, IV-D-200) said small
plants should be defined as those with capacities below
90 Mg/day (100 tpd) rather than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). The
commenter said plants between 90 and 225 Mg/day (100 and
250 tpd) have similar environmental impacts to plants over
225 Mg/day (250 tpd), and that control costs, on an
incremental basis, are not significantly different. Two of
the commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-200) claimed the proposed NSPS,
like the PSD rules, will cause many MWC's to be sized just
below the 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity level.
On the other hand, one commenter (IV-F-1.34) said that
from studying Figure 1 in the proposal preamble, a size
category breakpoint of 450 Mg/day (500 tpd) plant capacity
rather than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) seems supportable on the
basis of control cost per Mg (ton) of MSW combusted. He
commented that cost for MWC plants above 650 Mg/day (720 tpd)
are relatively stable, but that control costs increase more
rapidly for plants below 650 Mg/day (720 tpd). For example,
costs for SD/FF control of a 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) plant, at
$33/Mg ($30/ton) is over twice that for a 650 Mg/day (720 tpd)
MWC (about $15/Mg [$14/ton]). He thought a breakpoint at a
level between 225 Mg/day and 650 Mg/day (250 and 720 tpd) was
reasonable, and suggested 450 Mg/day (500 tpd).
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Under the CAA Amendments
of 1990, standards for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) are to be promulgated within 2 years. Comments on
the level of control for small MWC's will be considered as
part of that rulemaking.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-190, IV-D-235) suggested there
should be three size categories for new plants. Those above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) should have one control level (e.g.,
34 mg/dscm [0.015 gr/dscf] for PM and 80 percent SO2 control),
those below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) should have a lower level
(e.g., 69 mg/dscm [0.03 gr/dscf] for PM and 50 percent S02
control), and intermediate size plants between 45 and
3-73
-------
225 Mg/day (50 and 250 tpd) would have emission limits set
proportionally between these limits. Another commenter
(IV-D-242) said further analyses should be conducted for
communities with MWC's below 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) and
additional size categories should be created. Control
requirements should be the most stringent levels affordable
for communities of each size.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Under the CAA Amendments
of 1990, standards for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) are to be promulgated within 2 years. Comments on
the level of control for small MWC's will be considered as
part of that rulemaking.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-129) said there should be a
third size category for new plants that would require that
very large new MWC plants (e.g., 2,040 Mg/day [2,250 tpd])
have more stringent controls than proposed.
Response; The standards for large new plants are based on
performance GCP and SD/FF control technology. No control
technologies have been demonstrated to achieve greater
reductions in MWC acid gases, MWC organics, or MWC metals
emissions. Therefore, the standards could not require more
stringent emission levels for larger new plants.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-257) said that in
determining whether a plant is small or large, the aggregate
daily capacity should be used, however, any physical
restrictions or enforceable permit conditions that effectively
limit combustion capacity should also be considered.
Response; Under the standards currently being promulgated,
capacity of the individual MWC unit determines whether or not
an MWC is subject to the standards (Aggregate plant capacity
is used in the guidelines to differentiate between different
plant sizes). The size category distinction is determined by
the design capacity of new combustors assuming continuous
operation. Permit limits, operating schedules, or physical
limits of parts of the MWC other than the affected facility
•
3-74
-------
(which is the combustor) would not be considered in defining
size categories. This is a more straightforward approach for
both local waste planning and enforcement purposes because it
would not result in changes in the required level of control
each time a permit is modified or the MWC operating schedule
changes. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, standards for MWC
units of 225 Hg/day (250 tpd) or less will be promulgated
within 2 years. As a part of that rulemaking the Agency will
determine whether aggregate plant capacity distinctions are
necessary for those smaller MWC's.
3.5.5.2 Lower Size Cutoff.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-60) suggested that the proposed
standards and guidelines include a total facility capacity
below which MWC plants not be regulated. The commenter
suggested using one or more criteria including total facility
capacity less than 23 Mg/day (25 tpd), batch-type combustion,
no heat recovery, or serving less than 10,000 population.
Another commenter (IV-D-289) suggested populations below
10,000 and communities with MWC capacities below 18 Mg/day
(20 tpd) should not be required to meet the proposed
standards. These commenters said very small MWC plants often
have only one operator, operate intermittently (e.g., 6 hours
per day or less), and would experience high cost and economic
impacts under the proposed standards and guidelines. (See
additional comments on cost and economic analyses in
Section 3.6.4). Other commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-276) also
suggested a 23 Mg/day (25 tpd) cutoff.
Response: As explained in Chapter 1, the standards currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's of the
size discussed by the commenters will not be subject to this
standard. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, standards applicable to MWC units smaller than
250 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. The
inclusion of a lower size cutoff will be considered as part of
that rulemaking.
3-75
-------
Comment; One State agency commenter (IV-F-3.1 and IV-D-146
and IV-D-246) said that there should be a lower size cutoff
between 1 and 11 Mg/day (1 and 12 tpd), because the intent
probably was not to prohibit "backyard burning" and the
resources would not be available to enforce a rule with no
lower size cutoff. A report was submitted with
Comment IV-D-146 and IV-D-246 showing the size range of
municipal and commercial incinerators in Washington. The
commenter said by the proposed definition, there would be over
100 MWC's in the State, many below 9 Mg/day (10 tpd). Another
commenter (IV-D-08) suggested a cutoff of 11 Mg/day (12 tpd),
and one (IV-D-108) suggested 9 Mg/day (10 tpd).
Other commenters (IV-F-3.8, IV-D-63, IV-D-242) also
favored a lower size cutoff in the range of 5 to 11 Mg/day (5
to 12 tpd). These commenters said Alaska has four existing
MWC plants with capacities of 4 to 65 Mg/day (4 to 72 tpd) and
are planning at least four more with capacities of 5 to
23 Mg/day (5 to 25 tpd). Commenter IV-D-242. also said several
military facilities in Alaska operate their own combustors,
and at least 41 very small communities with populations
between 14 and 1,100 people burn MSW. Furthermore, small
coastal Alaskan communities may need to use very small MWC's
to burn waste from ships that under MARPOL rules may no longer
be dumped at sea. They and another commenter (IV-D-188)
suggested different rules for MWC plants with capacities below
45 Mg/day (50 tpd) and no rules below a range of 5 to
11 Mg/day (5 to 12 tpd) and suggested further analysis of
impacts on very small MWC's to determine size cutoffs.
Alternatively, Commenter IV-D-242 suggested that units below 5
to 11 Mg/day (5 to 12 tpd) (or 230 to 360 kg/hr [500 to
800 lb/hr]) could be certified at the factory, similar to
woodstoves, but not be subject to any emission testing
requirements. The commenters (IV-F-3.8, IV-D-63, IV-D-242)
felt Alaska would have particular problems if these very small
MWC plants were not used because landfilling of raw waste
attracts bears and the large amount of rain and permafrost
conditions make landfill operation difficult and expensive.
3-76
-------
Another commenter from Alaska (IV-D-216) knew of four sites
with small duplex burner incinerators at radar stations with
populations of 10 to 30 persons. He said these burn much less
than 110 Kg (250 Ib) of MSW per day and should not be covered
by the standards.
Response; See the response to the first comment under this
section (Section 3.5.5.2, "Lower Size Cutoff").
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.2) suggested a lower size
cutoff in the range of 360 to 450 kg/hr (800 to 1,000 Ibs/hr)
charging rate. He arrived at this limit by reviewing data on
the population of hospital incinerators. He said for small
size units, the hourly rate is easier to determine and more
meaningful than Mg/day (tpd) capacity. He also commented that
without a lower size cutoff the proposed rules could be
interpreted to apply to burning mixed paper in a backyard
grill.
Another (IV-D-97) said that a size cutoff of 45 to
90 Mg/day (50 to 100 tpd) should be established in order to
avoid covering over 100 hospital waste incinerators in one
State. The commenter also said hospital waste could be
regulated under a separate NSPS.
Response; See the response to the first comment under this
section (Section 3.5.5.2, "Lower Size Cutoff"). Medical waste
combustors are being investigated for regulation under a
separate standard.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.4 and IV-D-159) suggested that
the proposed standards be limited to MWC plants larger than
45 Mg/day (50 tpd) that burn typical MSW (i.e., with a heat
content of about 10,500 kJ/kg [4,500 Btu/lb]). He said that
the best demonstrated technology specified in the proposed
rules have not been demonstrated on facilities designed to
process less than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd). He also said the
economic impacts of air pollution control on small modular
combustion plants used at hospitals, industries, and small
rural communities had not been addressed in the EPA's studies,
and the costs of the proposed rules would preclude the use of
such combustors. Other commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-101,
3-77
-------
IV-D-138, IV-D-149, IV-D-155, IV-D-221) also suggested a
45 Mg/day (50 tpd) size cutoff. Some of them said this would
be consistent with Subpart E. Commenter IV-D-101 said
facilities below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) are usually batch charged,
operate intermittently, and are quite different from large
plants. Commenter IV-D-149 said their State has four MWC
plants with 27 Mg/day (30 tpd) capacities and one with an
8 Mg/day (8.5 tpd) capacity serving small rural communities
with populations below 15,000, and that impacts on such
communities would be significant. There are also very small
incinerators at hospitals and in commercial and industrial
applications.
The first commenter (IV-F-3.4 and IV-D-159) also
suggested that, alternatively, different standards could be
applied to plants below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) based on
consideration of combustor size, technology, and application
(see following comment).
Response; See the response to the first comment under this
section (Section 3.5.5.2, "Lower Size Cutoff").
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-159) suggested a regulatory
strategy for MWC plants smaller than about 45 Mg/day (50 tpd).
The commenter suggested that facilities smaller than
4.5 million Btu/hr (11 Mg/day [12 tpd]) should have a PM limit
of 23 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf), an SOX limit of 50 ppm, an HC1
limit of 44 kg/day (96 Ib/day), as well as CO limits of
100 ppm, and furnace temperature requirements to ensure GCP.
Those plants between 4.6 and 18 million Btu/hr (12 and
44 Mg/day [13 and 48 tpd]) would have a more stringent PM
limit of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) as well as the same HC1 and
SOX limits and GCP requirements. He said these levels are
achievable and affordable.
The commenter said advanced wet scrubber technologies
have been designed in the past 5 years. He claimed these can
achieve good acid gas, PM, and metals control at small modular
MWC's for much lower costs than SD/FF systems and also use
less energy. Furthermore, he claimed that SD/FF or DSI/FF
controls have not been demonstrated for MWC's smaller than
3-78
-------
45 Mg/day (50 tpd) and may have operating and maintenance
problems caused by acid condensation in situations where
combustors operate intermittently. The commenter, therefore,
urged that the emission limits be set at the levels he
suggested to allow wet scrubber systems at very small plants.
Two other commenters (IV-D-118, IV-D-220) also suggested that
MWC's below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) be given emission limits based
on wet scrubber/ESP control. They said dry scrubber/FF
technology has not been well demonstrated for small MWC's and
will be very expensive.
In support of the suggested PM level of 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf) (at 7 percent ©2) the first commenter
(IV-D-159) said this is similar in stringency to the
34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) limit for larger plants because the
oxygen correction factor required by modular units is
typically 2 times greater than the mass burn waterwall systems
due to equipment characteristics and oxygen levels that
provide high combustion efficiencies and lower CO levels. The
commenter also submitted a dispersion modeling study to show
that his suggested PM limits would result in negligible
impacts on ambient air quality.
The commenter recommended against establishing
dioxin/furan limits for MWC plants below about 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd) because of a lack of data on either controlled or
uncontrolled dioxin/furan emission rates from very small
plants.
Information on the designs, sizes, and uses of very small
MWC's was also provided by this commenter. He said there are
various designs, but most modern modular MWC's employ a
two-staged design to maximize control of the combustion
process and minimize air emissions, resulting in lower CO,
organic, and particulate emissions than many larger MWC's.
Many very small combustors are used at hospitals. There are
6,870 hospitals in the United States, and over two-thirds use
on-site combustion facilities for waste disposal. Infectious
wastes are typically less than 10 to 15 percent of hospital
wastes, and many hospitals combust their other wastes along
3-79
-------
with infectious wastes. Almost half of the hospitals in the
United States use modular combustors to process less than
3 Mg/day (3 tpd) of waste on-site. The combustors operate
intermittently. The commenter also said very small modular
MWC's are also well suited to serve rural communities with
population densities below about 55 people per square mile,
because such areas would not generate enough waste to support
large mass burn MWC's. Industrial and commercial operations
may also use very small MWC's to dispose of wastes produced
on-site. No estimate of the number of combustors used in
these applications was provided.
Response; As described in the previous responses, the
standard currently being promulgated applies only to MWC units
with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) of MSW, and
will therefore exclude the vast majority of hospital waste
combustors. Smaller MWC's and medical waste combustors are
being investigated for regulation under separate standards.
The control levels for small MWC's and the need for a lower
size cutoff will be considered as part of these rulemakings.
Furthermore, the definition of MSW excludes combustors burning
industrial process wastes or manufacturing wastes only, since
these wastes often have quite different characteristics from
MSW and the same standards may not be applicable. The revised
definition of MSW addresses many of the commenters' concerns.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-118) suggested that very small
MWC's serving rural communities should be required to have GCP
and meet a PM Limit in Subpart E (180 mg/dscm [0.08 gr/dscf]),
but that costs of more stringent controls are prohibitive to
small communities. He said several small communities have
commented on costs of proposed State standards, which are
similar to the proposed NSPS, and the State planned to change
their standards to address this concern. The commenter said
MWC's in typical rural communities serve 10,000 to
25,000 persons, combust 23 to 45 Mg/day (25 to 50 tpd) of MSW,
and operate twice weekly for 8 hours/day.
Another commenter (IV-D-232) said EPA should consider
exempting small facilities (less than 45 Mg/day [50 tpd]) from
3-80
-------
the standards and guidelines and should also consider
alternative emission requirements and monitoring requirements.
The commenter specifically suggested considering an
alternative that would require very small MWC's to use GCP,
but not require specific emission limits and monitoring for
PM, acid gases, and organics.
This commenter also said EPA should work with the Small
Business Association and trade associations representing small
businesses and local governments in its evaluation of small
MWC requirements.
Response; See the response to the first comment under this
section (Section 3.5.5.2, "Lower Size Cutoff").
In response to the final paragraph of the comment, during
the public comment period on the proposed standards, comments
were received from manufacturers of small combustors and their
trade association. Comments were also received from operators
of small MWC's, governments of small communities, and State
and local regulatory agencies with small combustors in their
jurisdictions. These are all contained in Docket No. A-89-08
and were carefully reviewed and considered during development
of the final standards.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-10) said the standards and
guidelines will affect small combustors in their State which
operate only 1 or 2 hours per day and burn 45 to 230 kg/hr
(100 to 500 Ib/hr) of wastepaper and cardboard. He suggested
that EPA establish a lower size cutoff, and said that without
a size cutoff these combustors would likely close and increase
the amount of MSW landfilled. Another commenter (IV-D-292)
manufacturers small incineration units that burn 23 kg/hr
(50 Ib/hr) of paper such as classified documents. He did not
believe such small units should be covered by the standards.
Response: See the response to the first comment under this
section (Section 3.5.5.2, "Lower Size Cutoff").
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-2.40) did not believe the
proposed standards require control of very small combustors at
stores, apartments, or gasoline stations. He said EPA should
specifically address and regulate these combustors. However,
3-81
-------
Commenter IV-D-178 said a lower size cutoff should be included
to exempt these sources from the regulations.
Response; See the response to the first comment under this
section (Section 3.5.5.2, "Lower Size Cutoff").
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-149) said the small size cutoff
should be based on actual capacity utilized (i.e., amount of
waste burned per day given the actual hours of operation of
the MWC) rather than potential capacity based on continuous
operation. He said most small MWC's operate intermittently
and would never approach their potential design capacity.
Response; The capacity is calculated as the maximum daily
(24-hour) design capacity. Operating schedules or permit
limits would not be considered in defining whether an MWC*is
above or below the cutoff. This is a more straightforward
approach for both local waste planning and enforcement
purposes because it would not result in reevaluation of
whether an MWC is subject to the regulation each time the
operating schedule changes.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-159, IV-D-242) said a lower
size cutoff should be specified in terms of design heat
release rate or thermal capacity because mass throughput for
the same combustor will change depending on waste type.
Response; A change has been made to the standards that
clarifies the heat content assumptions to be used in
calculating design capacity in Mg/day (tpd) for determining
applicability of the standards. These comments raised the
concern that, as proposed, the standards might not be
equitable in all cases. For example, one MWC unit may be
designed assuming 9,300 kJ/kg (4,000 Btu/lb) specific heat
content for MSW and would appear to have a combustion capacity
above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Another unit may be designed for
12,800 kJ/kg (5,500 Btu/lb) waste and would appear to have a
total combustion capacity below 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). After
start-up, both units may actually fire 10,500 kJ/kg
(4,500 Btu/lb) waste and therefore may actually fire the same
amount (in Mg/day [tpd]) of waste. But because one has a
design capacity greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) and the
3-82
-------
other has a design capacity below 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) (due to
the different design heat content assumptions) one would be
subject to the standards and the other would not even though
they can actually fire the same amount of waste.
To prevent this potential circumvention, the final
standards require MWC capacity be based on firing a "design"
municipal waste with a specific heat of 10,500 kJ/kg
(4,500 Btu/lb). This will result in a uniform method of
determining design capacity. The actual heat content of waste
fired may vary above and below this level, but this level is
typical of MSW. One unique waste is medical waste, which has
a different composition from conventional MSW and typically
has a* much higher specific heat (e.g., 19,800 kJ/kg
[8,500 Btu/lb]). The standards specify that combustors
cofiring medical waste calculate capacity based on a "design"
medical waste with a specific heat of 19,800 kJ/kg
(8,500 Btu/lb). Thus, a combustor which fires a mixture of
medical waste and other MSW would prorate the specific heats.
For example, if a plant fires 50 percent medical waste and
50 percent conventional MSW, then the design specific heat
used in determining Mg/day (tpd) capacity is 15,100 kJ/kg
(6,500 Btu/lb) (calculated as 19,800 kJ/kg x 0.50 +
10,500 kJ/kg x 0.50 = 15,100 kJ/kg). Medical waste is defined
as "any solid waste which is generated in the diagnosis,
treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in
research pertaining thereto, or in the production or testing
of biologicals." (The term biologicals refers to preparations
such as vaccines that are made from living organisms.)
Medical waste does not include any hazardous waste identified
under Subtitle C of RCRA or any household waste as defined in
regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA. This definition is
consistent with standards for the tracking and management of
medical waste (54 FR 12339, March 24, 1989).
3.5.6 General Comments on Emission Limits
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-102) rather than suggesting a
small size cutoff, suggested exclusion of hospital waste
3-83
-------
incinerators. He described several differences between
hospital incinerators and MWC's.
First, hospital incinerators typically have capacities of
100 to 900 kg/hr (220 to 2,000 Ib/hr), or 0.2 Mg/day to
11 Mg/day (0.2 to 12 tpd), while most MWC's are over 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd). Hospital incinerators typically run intermittently
for 4 to 12 hours per day, 5 days a week or less.
Second, the commenter said hospital combustors are
designed differently from MWC's and employ fixed hearths,
starved air, and refractory furnaces that retain gases at
higher temperatures for a longer period of time. He claimed
this may lower uncontrolled emissions. He also said most
hospital incinerators employ wet scrubbers, a control
technology that was not evaluated in developing the MWC NSPS.
The commenter also said the proposed regulations would have
high cost impacts on a large number of hospitals, since
50 percent of hospitals incinerated either medical or a
combination of medical and general hospital waste on-site. He
claimed that the costs could cause hospitals to stop
incinerating.
The commenter, therefore, believed hospital incinerators
should be evaluated for regulation under separate standards
where issues specific to medical waste incineration could be
addressed.
Another (IV-D-108) said small MWC's burning hospital or
medical waste should not be covered. Another (IV-D-64) said
on-site combustion of medical waste should be encouraged
rather than regulated out of existence.
Response; Because the standard currently being promulgated
applies only to MWC units with capacities greater than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd), very few hospital or medical waste
combustors would be included. Both MWC units smaller than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) and medical (including hospital) waste
combustors are being investigated for regulation under
separate standards. However, if hospital combustors are
larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) and are burning wastes that
fit the definition of MSW, they would be covered just like any
3-84
-------
other MWC and would have to meet the same standards of
performance.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-64) said the NSPS focuses on
large grate incineration systems with waterwall boilers
serving large metropolitan areas, and that in determining best
demonstrated technology, more detailed consideration should be
given to other combustion technologies used to incinerate:
rural community MSW; hospital waste (on-site and regional);
hazardous waste; LLRW waste; and crematoriums.
Response: The BID'S contain performance and cost information
for a variety of types and sizes of combustors including
modular, RDF, and FBC as well as small and large mass burn
waterwall combustors. The vast majority of combustors at
hospitals or crematoriums or that serve small rural
communities are not covered by the standards currently being
promulgated because they will be smaller than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd). Furthermore, hazardous waste and LLRW incinerators
would not be covered if they burn industrial process or
manufacturing waste only, since industrial process wastes are
excluded in the definition of MSW. Combustors larger than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) that combust MSW, as defined in
Section 60.51a, are subject to the standards. Under this
definition, facilities burning medical waste, hazardous
wastes, or LLRW would only be covered if they are larger than
this size and burn wastes discarded by residences, commercial
establishments, or institutions. If they burn waste fitting
the definition of MSW, they would be subject to the same
standards as any other MWC. Hazardous waste and LLRW
combustors would also be subject to any applicable standards
promulgated under the authority of RCRA.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-74) said that use of source
separated paper and wood pallets as fuel has not been
adequately considered in establishing the MWC standards. He
said tests show that firing of corrugated paper results in
lower emissions of SO2, NOX, HC1, and metals than firing RDF,
and firing of mixed wastepaper also decreases emissions
relative to coal or RDF firing. The commenter, therefore,
3-85
-------
felt that this practice should be encouraged and new
combustors firing or cofiring less than 90 Mg/day (100 tpd) of
source-separated waste materials should be exempt from the
requirements for acid gas control. Another (IV-D-236) said
burning separated nonrecyclable wastepaper has less
environmental impact than burning MSW, and therefore this
practice should not be regulated as an MWC. (Additional
comments specifically discussing cofiring as opposed to firing
pure mixed wastepaper are included in Section 6.2).
Response; The standards cover combustors burning fuel feed
streams that are more than 30 percent MSW by weight. This is
consistent with the CAA Amendments of 1990 (see Section 6.2 on
cofiring). The definition of MSW includes wastes discarded by
households, commercial establishments, and institutions,
whether the waste is a mixture or a single material. Paper
discarded by these types of facilities is a component of MSW
and so would be regulated as MSW. However, the definition of
MSW excludes wood pallets and construction and demolition
wastes, which typically do not enter the municipal waste
stream. It also excludes industrial process or manufacturing
wastes so, for example, wood or paper waste generated during
paper manufacturing would not be covered. These standards
were not intended to cover the large number of waste
wood-fired boilers. It should be noted that the standards
currently being promulgated cover only MWC's with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd), so facilities burning
smaller amounts of wastepaper (or other MSW) from residential,
commercial, or institutional facilities would not be subject
to these standards. However, in the future, they may be
subject to standards for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) that are scheduled for promulgation within 2 years.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-87) said that all final emission
limits should be shown to be consistently attainable over the
lifetime of an MWC rather than only when the MWC is new.
Response; The emission levels were set after consideration of
test data on performance of control systems that are properly
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained. The
3-86
-------
specified levels are achievable over the lifetime of such
systems.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-2.31, IV-D-69, IV-D-106,
IV-D-178, IV-D-241, IV-D-253) stated that EPA should consider
more stringent emission standards and should consider control
technologies (or combination systems including multiple
technologies) used in Europe in determining best demonstrated
technology. One (IV-D-135) said other technologies such as
sodium-based wet scrubbers should be evaluated.
Response; The best control systems for MWC emissions (i.e.,
MWC acid gases, MWC organics, and MWC metals) were considered
in developing the standards. No technologies have been
adequately demonstrated that result in greater reductions of
MWC emissions than the combination of GCP and SD/FF systems.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-135) said SD/FF and SD/ESP
systems have poor reliability and significant maintenance
problems. He cited materials handling problems in the
FF/hopper area, scaling and plugging of process lines, spray
nozzle failures, and a duct collapse which occurred at one
MWC.
Response: Both SD/FF and SD/ESP systems have been installed
and operated on MWC's for the past several years and have been
demonstrated to be reliable when properly designed, operated,
and maintained. Problems such as those cited by the commenter
can occur if proper care is not taken. To avoid these
problems, regular inspection and maintenance of these systems
will be required. These requirements, however, are no
different than those generally exercised for other types of
industrial process equipment. The cost of maintenance for
SD/FF and SD/ESP systems was included in the Agency's analysis
of the acid has control requirements and is considered
reasonable.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-103) supported the proposed NSPS
(Regulatory Alternative 4 in the proposal preamble) because
this alternative is consistent with State programs.
3-87
-------
Response; This same regulatory alternative is the basis of
the proposed and final standards for MWC's larger than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.33) said that his company's
bubbling bed FBC's burning RDF can meet the proposed emission
limits.
Response; The commenter's support for the emission standards
is acknowledged.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-61) objected to the use of a
particular type of control equipment in deriving the
standards, and said EPA should establish limits and not
"endorse" equipment. Others (IV-D-69, IV-D-141, IV-D-153)
said EPA should clarify that the standards specify emission
limits rather than SD/FF technology. Commenters IV-D-69 and
IV-D-153 said the long discussion of this type of control in
the preamble leaves the impression that this is the only
equipment than can be used, whereas dry injection, enhanced
wet scrubbers, ESP's, or emerging technologies may also be
able to meet the limits. Another (IV-D-124) said other
control technologies, such as ESP's and wet scrubbers should
not be eliminated from consideration as best demonstrated
technology if they can meet the specified standards.
Response! Any technology that can meet the applicable
performance standards can be used to comply with the
standards. Municipal waste combustors are not required to use
SD/FF systems or any other specific type of control system as
long as the applicable standards can be met.
Comment: Two commenters (IV^D-144, IV-D-294) said that for
circulating bed FBC's that burn RDF, in-furnace limestone
injection and injection of hydrated lime ahead of a FF cooled
to 150°C (300°F) can achieve equivalent acid gas control to
SD/FF on conventional MWC's. However, the commenters have
experienced difficulty in getting State and regional EPA
offices to consider these techniques as BACT for FBC's. The
commenters suggested the documentation of the NSPS
specifically state that scrubbing techniques other than SD can
be used by FBC's to achieve the NSPS performance levels.
3-88
-------
The first commenter (IV-D-144) also requested that for
innovative designs such as FBC, the NSPS allow a period of
time after the first units come on line in the United States
to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS.
Response; The standards do not specify that a particular type
of control equipment must be applied, and FBC's (or any other
type of MWC) can use any control technique that can meet the
standards. This could include scrubbing techniques other than
SD. With regard to the time allowed for new sources to
demonstrate compliance, Section 60.8(a) of the General
Provisions requires that compliance tests must be conducted
"within 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at
which the affected facility will be operated, but not later
than 180 days after start-up of such facility..." and
facilities must report the results of such performance tests.
However, under Section lll(j) of the CAA, the compliance test
can be delayed up to 4 years after a new facility commences
operations when an innovative control technology is used and
other conditions in Section lll(j) are met. This avenue is
available for the commenter to explore.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-101) said the expenditure of
$510 million per year to control less than 1 percent of the
Nation's S02 and NOX emissions and produce a negligible
improvement in public health is not a wise use of resources.
Response; Municipal waste combustors were selected for
regulation because they emit pollutants that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. (Responses
in Section 3.1 present further information on their
selection.) Once a source category has been selected for
regulation, the language of Section 111(a) of the CAA
specifies the development of standards achievable with the
"best technological system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, any nonair quality health and
environmental impact, and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated."
Technologies have been demonstrated to significantly reduce
3-89
-------
emissions of SO2, NOX, and other pollutants from MWC's. These
technologies have been applied at commercial MWC's in the
United States, and cost and economic impacts are not
unreasonable. Therefore, standards have been specified
based on the performance of these technologies.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.18, IV-F-1.22, IV-F-1.23,
IV-F-1.25, IV-F-1.25, IV-F-1.28, IV, F-1.31, IV-F-2.18,
IV-F-2.19, IV-F-2.20, IV-F-2.28, IV-F-2.44, IV-F-2.45,
IV-F-2.55, IV-D-20, IV-D-136, IV-D-218) suggested banning all
MWC's or said zero emissions from MWC's is the only way to
protect public health from mercury, lead, and other toxic
pollutants. One (IV-D-24) said emissions must be 100 percent
clean, not 99 percent clean.
Response; The use of MWC's is a potentially useful part of
national and local strategies for dealing with disposal of
MSW. Municipal waste combustors are included in the hierarchy
of integrated waste management options in "The Solid Waste
Dilemma: An Agenda for Action" (EPA/-530-SW-88-052), which
was developed by the MSW Task Force with public involvement.
Source reduction and recycling are highest in the waste
management hierarchy. However, it is not practical or
technically possible to recycle all wastes. Combustion is
useful in reducing the bulk of municipal waste prior to
landfilling. This is important because many existing
landfills are nearing capacity and siting of new landfills,
particularly in urban areas, has become increasingly
difficult. Up to one-third of existing landfills are expected
to become full and then close within the next 5 years.
Furthermore, combustion of MSW has the added benefit of energy
production.
Combustors are being regulated under Sections lll(b) and
(d) of the CAA (NSPS and emission guidelines for existing
sources) rather than Section 112 (NESHAP). As described in
the Federal Register (52 FR 25399, July 7, 1987) and
54 FR 52251, December 20, 1989) this decision was made
because: (1) MWC emissions may reasonably be anticipated to
contribute to the endangerment of public health and welfare,
3-90
-------
(2) the range of health and welfare effects and the range and
uncertainties of estimated cancer risks do not warrant listing
of MWC emissions as a hazardous air pollution under
Section 112, (3) Section 112 could not be used to address
particular constituents or subgroups of emissions including
lead and HC1, and (4) the development of emission guidelines
for existing MWC's under Section lll(d) would permit a more
thorough evaluation of existing MWC's at the State level than
would be feasible in a general rulemaking at the Federal
level. (Under Section lll(d), States develop standards based
on Agency guidelines.)
Section 111 of the CAA directs the Agency to establish
standards of performance that reflect the emission limitation
"achievable through application of the best technological
system of continuous emission which (taking into account the
cost...) has been adequately demonstrated." This section of
the CAA does not suggest or require the elimination of all
risk. The standards are based on best demonstrated
technologies that will significantly reduce MWC emissions
including compounds with the potential to cause health
impacts. However, it is not technically possible for any
source to have zero emissions.
Commentt Some commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-2.9, IV-F-2.24,
IV-F-2.26, IV-F-2.42) said no new MWC's should be permitted in
nonattainment areas. One commenter (IV-D-16) said MWC's
should only be permitted if site-specific studies are done and
show that a specific MWC would produce less health risk than
other waste disposal options.
Response; In nonattainment areas, each new MWC would have to
be permitted under nonattainment area NSR authority in
Section 173 of the CAA. A determination of LAER on a
site-specific basis is required under NSR. The decision on
whether to permit a particular MWC can be made under that
program. The purpose of NSPS is to set emission standards
applicable at a national level to all new sources and require
application of best demonstrated technology or the equivalent,
and not to determine whether a new source should be located in
3-91
-------
a particular type of area or whether additional controls may
be warranted due to local considerations.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.21, IV-F-2.6, IV-F-2.47,
IV-D-07, IV-D-120, IV-D-218, IV-D-234) stated that EPA had
made its decisions based on available technology; however,
because of the nature of emissions from MWC's, the standards
should be health based. One (IV-D-234) addressing mercury in
particular, said that if technology could not meet
health-based mercury standards, facility shutdown may be
appropriate. Some commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-D-110) said cost
and economic factors should not be considered by EPA.
Commenter IV-F-1,24 added that the environment should be
protected at all costs.
One commenter (IV-D-135) said site-specific health risk
assessments should be required because emission levels and
percent reductions are not adequate in and of themselves.
Others (IV-D-176, IV-D-182) suggested establishing emission
limits for each metal that are risk-based considering
source-specific emission parameters and meteorology as was
proposed under RCRA for hazardous waste incineration. A third
commenter (IV-D-178) said site-specific multimedia risk
assessments should be required as part of the permit review
process. Another (IV-D-191) said detailed background sampling
studies should be done within a 5-mile radius of proposed
MWC's.
Response: As explained in previous responses, MWC's are
regulated under Section 111 of the CAA, which is based on the
performance of demonstrated control technology. The language
of Section 111 clearly states that costs and technological
feasibility are to be considered in establishing standards.
Section 111(a) states "a standard of performance shall reflect
the degree of emission limitation and the percentage reduction
achievable through application of the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction,
any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy
3-92
-------
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated."
Furthermore, the language of this section does not
contemplate or require performance of site-specific risk
assessment or establishment of risk-based standards; rather,
standards are to be technology based. The hazardous waste
incinerator standards the commenters refer to are established
under RCRA, an entirely different regulatory authority than
the CAA, and therefore may have a very different format than
this NSPS.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-164) thought Section 111 of the
CAA specifies application of BACT and asked why EPA had based
the standards and guidelines on best demonstrated technology.
The commenter also said the acid gas and dioxin/furan
limits appear to be based on LAER and that these stringent
limits are not justified since MWC's emit only 0.10 percent of
national SO2 emissions.
Response t Section 111 standards are based on best
demonstrated technology. Best available control technology is
the level of control required under the PSD program and is
defined in Section 169 of the CAA. The BACT must be at least
as stringent as the best demonstrated technology specified in
NSPS, but BACT is determined on a site-specific basis through
a permitting process and may be more stringent than best
demonstrated technology. As explained in Section 3.5.3, the
levels of SC-2 control required by the standards are consistent
with application of best demonstrated technology.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-232) said the regulations for
MWC's appear to be more stringent than RCRA rules for
hazardous waste incinerators and TSCA PCB incinerator rules,
and that this stringency is not justified from an emissions or
health risk standpoint. He claimed MWC's have low emissions
relative to other sources.
One commenter (IV-D-176) said that inconsistencies in the
approach used to regulate hazardous waste incineration
(proposed under RCRA on October 26, 1989) and MWC's should be
reconciled. The commenter said it would be appropriate to
3-93
-------
consistently regulate metals and specific organic compounds of
concern from all combustion sources.
Response; As described in previous responses, MWC's were
determined to be a significant source of emissions that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare. Therefore, they are being regulated under
Section 111 of the CAA. Section 111 requires development of
standards of performance based on the best demonstrated
technology of continuous emission reduction considering costs
and other factors. The technologies on which the standards
are based have been demonstrated and applied to MWC's, and
costs of control are not unreasonable. Therefore, the
standards have been established. There will be different
regulatory approaches when combustion sources are regulated
under RCRA or TSCA rather than the CAA because the statutes
are different.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-129) said EPA should not rely
only on demonstrated technology, but should encourage
development of new and better technologies. One commenter
(IV-F-3.4) said that the very low emission limits proposed in
the NSPS would discourage development of new combustion and
APCD technologies. Another commenter (IV-D-158) said the
standards and guidelines should allow and encourage the use of
innovative alternative control technologies or practices if
they have a substantial likelihood of achieving equivalent
overall pollution reductions and will result in equivalent or
lesser levels of risk.
Response; The standards allow the use of any technology,
including innovative or new technologies, that achieve the
applicable emission limits and other requirements. In fact,
the standards will encourage the development of new advanced
technologies that can meet the applicable limits at
competitive costs, because the standards establish a market
for such technologies. Furthermore, NSPS are periodically
reviewed, and any new developments in technologies can be
considered during such reviews.
3-94
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) asked if she understood
correctly that with SD/FF technologies all types of MWC's
(e.g., mass burn and RDF) can meet the same emission levels.
The commenter said it appears all three types of combustors
are being equated since the same best demonstrated technology
is applied to all.
Response; Emissions data for SD/FF systems applied to mass
burn, modular, and RDF combustors were reviewed in developing
the standards. The same performance levels can be achieved by
all three types of MWC's with this control technology.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-60) said it was inequitable that
an existing small 9 Mg/day (10 tpd) MWC would not be required
to retrofit acid gas controls, but if a 5 Mg/day (5 tpd) MWC
upgraded its capacity to 9 Mg/day (10 tpd) it would be
required by the NSPS to add acid gas controls. The commenter
did not believe acid gas controls were justified for new MWC's
with capacities below 23 Mg/day (25 tpd).
Response; The standard being promulgated covers only MWC's
larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.9) supported the proposed
emission limits and said they could be achieved by a new type
of combustor technology his company has developed. The
combustor is a batch, starved-air process capable of handling
23 to 450 Mg/day (25 to 500 tpd) of MSW. The outlet gas
stream is then combusted. Processing of each batch of waste
takes about 16 hours. The commenter said no other add-on
controls, such as SD/FF, are required to meet low emission
levels. The commenter said testing of a 5 Mg (5 ton) unit
shows PM levels below 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf), HC1 of
0-024 ppm, SO2 of 18 ppm, NOX of 0.25 ppm, CO less than 2 ppm,
and dioxins/furans less than 5 ng/dscm (2 gr/billion dscf).
Some test results were submitted in Comments IV-D-28 and
IV-D-295. The tests in Comment IV-D-295 showed higher HC1,
NOX, and CO levels than cited in Comment IV-F-3.9, but the
measured values were still below the proposed limits.
3-95
-------
Response: If compliance with the standards can be
demonstrated, the technology described by the commenter can be
used.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-172) asked whether their system
would be classified as an MWC. The system includes a
recycling and feed preparation area, a thermal treatment (or
combustion) step, and emission controls including particulate
controls and wet or dry scrubbers. The commenter said PM
levels are less than 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) and over
90 percent HC1 removal can be achieved. Emission rates (in
kg/hr [lb/hr]) were also presented for SO2, NOX, hydrocarbons,
and CO for units with and without scrubbers. The commenter
said a "char" was produced rather than "ash," and that this
material is nontoxic according to EP toxicity tests and can be
used as a fuel additive, soil conditioner or landfill base, or
upgraded to become activated carbon. Analyses of the char
were attached.
Response; Any equipment burning waste that meets the
definition of MSW contained in Section 60.51a of the final
standards is considered to be an MWC and would be subject to
the standards. However, only MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are subject to the standards
currently being promulgated.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-12) submitted general
information on a scrubber technology they claim could be
applied to MWC's to reduce PM to below 23 mg/dscm
(0.01 gr/dscf) and remove "nearly 100 percent" of acid gases.
Response; In developing the standards, test data and
information on the best control systems were gathered and
reviewed. Emission limits have been set based on the
performance of best demonstrated technologies. An owner or
operator may use any control technology that can achieve
compliance with the standards.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-108) said best demonstrated
technology should include an automatic interlock system for
waste feed that stops waste feed if critical operating
parameters or emission levels which should never be exceeded
3-96
-------
are exceeded. Such a system would encourage proper operation,
eliminate enforcement discretion, and minimize excess
emissions.
Response; The combination of emission limits, performance
tests, and continuous monitoring of emissions and operating
parameters that are specified in the standards were judged
adequate to ensure that combustors and control systems will be
well designed, operated, and maintained and continuous
emissions reductions will be achieved. An equipment
specification such as that described by the commenter is not
necessary to ensure control. While not required by the NSPS,
such equipment could be used and could be considered by State
agencies.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-116) said GCP and operator
training cannot be considered pollutants or emissions so they
should not be regulated under "MWC emissions" but as a
separate category in the regulation.
Response; Good combustion practices are part of best
demonstrated technology to reduce MWC emissions. Therefore,
they are included in the regulation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-214) said that all MWC's should
be required to monitor quantities of all ozone-depleting
substances, and that emissions of these substances must be
controlled. He said combustion conditions are unlikely to
destroy ozone-depleting compounds like CFC's and halons in the
MSW.
Response: The standards for new MWC's do limit emissions of
NOX which are a suspected "greenhouse" gas. Total
environmental influx of CO2 is also reduced to the extent the
MWC's reduce consumption of fossil fuels. The CFC's
associated with refrigeration systems are generally removed
from the waste already as "white goods." State and local
initiatives encouraging source separation and recycling is
expected to further reduce the influx of such materials.
Levels of CFC's in consumer products are small and difficult
to monitor, but are expected to decrease in the future.
3-97
-------
3.6 IMPACTS OF MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS STANDARDS
3.6.1 Environmental
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-110) said the November 30, 1989,
EPA press release statement that the standards will cause
removal of over 227,000 Mg (1/4 million tons) of pollutants by
1994 does not take into account that many new incinerators
will come on line.
Response: The figure cited in the press release for the
proposed standards compares national emissions from new and
existing MWC's with the standards in place, to the predicted
level of emissions from new and existing MWC's if no NSPS was
in force when the new MWC's were constructed. The predicted
level of emissions in the absence of an NSPS is termed the
"baseline." As described in the proposal preamble, in the
absence of an NSPS, baseline MWC emissions from new MWC's
would be about 99,000 Mg/yr (109,000 tpy). The proposed
standards for new sources would have reduced this by
89,000 Mg/yr (98,000 tpy). The proposed guidelines would have
reduced MWC emissions from existing MWC's by about
132,000 Mg/yr (145,000 tpy). The total reduction for new and
existing MWC's compared to baseline would therefore be over
220,000 Mg/yr (240,000 or about 1/4 million tpy). These
figures have been revised slightly because of changes in the
emission levels between proposal and promulgation and because,
as explained in Chapter 1, the standards and guidelines
currently being promulgated control only MWC units larger than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity. However, when standards and
guidelines for smaller MWC's are promulgated (scheduled for
late 1992) additional emission reductions will result.
In response to-the commenter's question about the net
change, the final standards and guidelines for MWC's larger
than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will result in a net decrease of
over 126,000 Mg/yr (140,000 tpy) of MWC emissions despite the
new MWC's coming on line. The guidelines will decrease MWC
emissions from existing MWC's by about 134,000 Mg/yr
(140,000 tpy) (combined S02, HC1, and PM).
3-98
-------
Over the next 5 years, over 30 new MWC plants (over
70 new combustors) with MWC unit capacities above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are expected to commence construction.
Under the regulations, total MWC emissions from these new
plants (SO2, HC1, and PM) will be about 7,500 Mg/yr
(8,300 tpy). The net decrease in national MWC emissions
would therefore be about 126,000 Mg/yr (140,000 tpy).
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.28) said combustion increases
emissions of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer and
contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming. He
also said an area in his State where an incinerator is
proposed is already on the EPA's suspect hazardous waste list
site, and combustion will only make environmental pollution
worse. He favored a ban on new combustors.
Response: As described in one of the responses in
Section 3.5.6, combustion is a necessary part of local and
national waste management strategies. Source reduction and
recycling are preferred, but it is not practical or
technically feasible to recycle all wastes. Combustion
reduces the volume of waste prior to landfilling, which is
important because many existing landfills are approaching
capacity and siting of new landfills is difficult. Combustion
also has the benefit of electric power generation. While not
completely risk free, combustors complying with the standards
would result in minimal risks.
As previously explained, NSPS are developed under
Section 111 of the CAA and are uniform national standards
based on the performance of the best demonstrated control
technologies. State permitting programs can deal with local
siting issues like the concern about locating a particular MWC
at a suspect hazardous waste site.
In response to the comment on emissions of pollutants
that contribute to global warming, if waste were not combusted
most of it would be landfilled. Landfills also emit
significant quantities of methane and C02 which contribute to
global warming.
3-99
-------
One commenter (IV-F-3.4 and IV-D-159) said that
small modular MWC's have lower emissions of CO and unburned
hydrocarbons than many other combustion sources such as wood
stoves and trucks. He also presented the results of a table
of dispersion modeling analysis and said emissions from small
MWC's result in ground level pollutant concentrations that are
negligible relative the Federal ambient air quality standards.
Another commenter (IV-D-22) said he had seen no real
information in the BID's indicating that emissions from MWC's
smaller than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) are a problem.
Response; Municipal waste combustors emit significant
quantities of pollutants which may reasonably be expected to
contribute to the endangerment of public health and welfare.
As described in the ANPRM (52 FR 25339, July 7, 1987) and the
preamble to the proposed rule (54 FR 52251, December 20,
1989), it was decided in 1987 to regulate MWC emissions under
Section 111 of the CAA. Subsequently, the CAA Amendments
of 1990 directed the Agency to promulgate standards for MWC
units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) as scheduled and to
promulgate standards for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) within 2 years of enactment of the CAA Amendments
(i.e., November 1992). Standards developed for MWC's under
Sections 111 and 129 will be based on performance of the best
control technologies considering costs, nonair quality health
and environmental impact, and energy requirements. The goal
of Section 111 is not to reduce emissions to the same level
from all sources (e.g., wood stoves or trucks versus MWC's).
Rather each source category is examined and the appropriate
technology for that category forms the basis of the standards.
As stated in Section 3.5.5.2, inclusion a lower size
cutoff may be considered in the development of standards for
MWC's smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.20) was skeptical that the
proposed regulations could reduce organic emissions by
99 percent and metals emissions by 97 percent. He said it was
probably an advertisers claim and nothing more.
3-100
-------
Response: Actual test data from 10 MWC plants with SD/FF
control systems were gathered and analyzed in developing the
standards. Dioxins/furans, PM, acid gas, and metals emissions
were measured in these tests. The data support the conclusion
that these control systems achieve roughly 99 percent
dioxin/furan control, or outlet levels below 30 ng/dscm
(12 gr/billion dscf), and 98 percent or better removal of
metals (except mercury). Data for SD/FF and other types of
control systems are summarized in the BID, "Municipal Waste
Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Standards:
Post-Combustion Technology Performance" (EPA-450/3-89-27c) and
in the appendix to this promulgation BID, and test reports
contained in Docket A-89-08.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-135) said SD/FF or SD/ESP
technology results in large quantities of unreacted reagents
(lime) that must be disposed of.
Response; The study of cost, emissions, and environmental
impacts of control alternatives included consideration of the
increase in the quantity of solid waste (ash) from MWC's due
to the addition of lime. Costs for disposal of this added
amount of waste were included in the estimates of the cost of
control. The study, "Municipal Waste Combustors - Background
Information for Proposed Standards: lll(b) Model Plant
Description and Cost Report" (EPA-450/3-89-27b) shows the
increase in the quantity of solid waste and the cost of its
disposal for each model plant. For most model plants the
amount of solid waste was increased by 5 to 8 percent.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.34) said that FF's only
transfer pollution from the air to the ash, but the chemicals
are still hazardous. Others (IV-F-1.21, IV-F-1.23, IV-F-2.57,
IV-F-2.58, IV-F-3.13, IV-D-56, IV-D-136) said stack air
pollution controls will make ash more toxic than it currently
is.
Another commenter (IV-D-135) said that overfeeding of
lime is common with SD/FF or SD/ESP technology, and that this
results in higher pH of ash residues which can change the
solubility/leachability of heavy metals in the ash.
3-101
-------
Response; Few data are available on the effects of lime
addition for acid gas control on the leaching of metals from
MWC ash. The addition of lime may alter the pH of ash which
may change the solubility of some metals such as lead and
cadmium. However, any change in solubility depends on the
levels of these metals in the ash as well as the relative
amounts of lime, chloride, and sulfate in the scrubber solids,
and the environmental conditions in the monofill or
co-disposal facility where the ash is disposed. All of these
characteristics are highly variable and site-specific. It is
therefore unclear what, if any, effect acid gas control will
have on ash quality. However, increased scrutiny and control
over waste disposal in landfills will result in
environmentally adequate ash disposal practices. Ash disposal
issues are being addressed under other regulatory authorities
rather than as part of this NSPS.
Comment; Several commenters said ash disposal is a major
issue for MWC's, and that EPA should address ash disposal.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.23, IV-F-1.28, IV-D-129) were
concerned that the high concentrations on metals present in
ash generated by MWC's could lead to impacts on water quality
when the ash is landfilled. Others (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-2.57,
IV-F-2.58) claimed that any kind of ash landfill or monofills
will eventually leak and create a health hazard. Another
commenter (IV-F-2.57) said transport of ash was hazardous and
described an ash trailer that tipped over after depositing ash
at a landfill and got ash on the roadsides.
Several commenters suggested ash classifications and/or
ash disposal methods. Two commenters (IV-F-2.38, IV-D-191)
said incinerator ash should be put in separate monofill cells
and treated as hazardous waste. Others (IV-F-1.21, IV-F-2.6,
IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.53, IV-F-2.57, IV-D-129, IV-D-136, IV-D-191)
said ash should be classified as Subtitle C or hazardous
waste, rather than Subtitle D wastes. However, another
(IV-D-171) said incinerator ash should be managed as a special
waste under Subtitle D, and national ash management standards
should be issued under Subtitle D of RCRA. Some commenters
3-102
-------
(IV-F-1.21, IV-F-1.24) said fly ash should be classified as
hazardous waste and should not be allowed to be mixed with
bottom ash or any other waste material. Two commenters
(IV-F-1.20, IV-D-135) said EPA should clarify the toxicity
classification of ash. Another commenter (IV-F-2.52, IV-D-57)
submitted a paper entitled, "Recommendations for Policy and
Regulations for Residue from Municipal Solid Waste
Incineration" adopted by resolution in August 1988 by the
Toxic Substances Control Commission of the State of Michigan.
One commenter (IV-D-62) said ash could be detoxified and
used as fillers in cement for cement blocks and roadways.
However, another (IV-D-191) said it is hazardous and should
never be used in this manner. One commenter (IV-D-141) said a
process has been developed to stabilize fly ash which combines
mechanical, chemical, and molecular bonding of heavy metals
such that metals cannot leach.
One commenter (IV-D-78) said if add-on control required
by this regulation causes ash to be classified as a hazardous
waste, it would have large cost and economic impacts. For
example, the city's MWC produces 127,000 Mg (140,000 tons) of
ash each year, and they estimate that transport and disposal
of this ash in a hazardous waste landfill would cost
$25 million per year. The commenter urged that ash disposal
regulations be finalized and any impacts of the NSPS and
guidelines on ash disposal and associated costs be considered
before finalizing the NSPS and guidelines.
Response; While ash management is an important issue
associated with MWC's, it is outside the scope of this NSPS,
which focuses on MWC air emissions. 'The classification and
disposal of ash is being addressed by Congress in pending
legislative actions including the RCRA reauthorization. The
EPA's Office of Solid Waste has also initiated studies and
rulemaking programs to address ash management and disposal
issues. The MWC NSPS and guidelines will not have any
significant impacts on the quantity of ash generated or on the
techniques appropriate for ash disposal.
3-103
-------
3.6.2 Health (and Risk Assessment)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-64) said small MWC's may not be
built due to the standards, and increased waste transport will
result in hazards and spills. Also, use of regional
combustors near large populations may increase resulting in
greater health risks.
Response; The final standards are not expected to discourage
small MWC's from being built. Thus, the Agency disagrees with
the commenter's contention that waste transport and the use of
large regional combustors will increase.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.42) said risk estimates for
MWC's should consider the already existing pollution levels in
industrialized or nonattainment areas.
Response; Background risk levels are not considered in
developing NSPS in accordance with Section 111 of the CAA. In
1987, the Administrator determined that MWC's would be
regulated under Sections lll(b) and lll(d) rather than
Section 112 partly because the development of emissions
guidelines under Section lll(d) would permit a more thorough
evaluation of existing MWC's at the State level than would be
feasible in a general rulemaking at the Federal level. The
Section 111 standards are technology based, however, States
may adopt more stringent standards, and hence, can better
consider local existing pollution levels in site-specific
standards.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.20) said health risk
assessments are imprecise, and that even if the analysis is
correct, the plants may not meet the emission levels used in
the analyses. Another (IV-D-110) disputed the predictive
value of health risk assessments and said that until there is
a validated body of data and health risk assessments are shown
to have predictive value, no MWC's should be built in
populated areas.
Response; The comments imply that risk assessment played a
role in the development of these Section 111 standards. This
is incorrect. In 1987, the Administrator determined that the
magnitude of estimated cancer risks, including consideration
3-104
-------
of the inherent scientific and technical uncertainties, did
not warrant listing of MWC emissions as a hazardous air
pollutant under Section 112 of the CAA. Section 111 was
considered to be the appropriate authority for the control of
MWC emissions. The intent of Section 111 is to reduce
emissions to the lowest levels achievable with the best system
of continuous emission reduction, considering cost and other
factors. Risk assessment plays no role in the development of
Section 111 standards.
In response to the latter comment, current data indicate
health risks associated with well-controlled MWC's are low. A
recent review of risks using data and information gathered to
support development of the NSPS found that cancer risks for
MWC's are likely at the lower end of the ranges cited
previously in the ANPRM (52 FR 25339). In cases where there
is a local concern, States are free under Section 116 of the
CAA to require more stringent controls. However, a State
standard may not be less stringent than the Federal standard.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-120) said there needs to be a
comprehensive analysis of cumulative risks from the many
existing and planned MWC's, considering both inhalation and
indirect risk pathways. This commenter and one other
(IV-F-1.24) were concerned with bioaccumulation of dioxins in
the food chain (particularly contamination of dairy products).
Response; The Agency did consider the bioaccumulation of MWC
emissions in the environment when making the decision to
regulate MWC emissions. During the assessment of air
emissions from MWC's, the Agency recognized the potential for
exposure from the deposition of emitted pollutants and
subsequent human contact through indirect exposure pathways
(e.g., bioaccumulation into the human food chain). To address
this issue, a preliminary analysis was undertaken which used
mathematical models to predict multiple routes of human
exposure. Because the models used are still undergoing
development and predicting multiple routes of exposure is so
complex, the results of the analysis cannot be interpreted
quantitatively. However, the preliminary results do suggest
3-105
-------
that for some persistent organics such as dioxins/furans,
indirect exposures to emissions deposited over long periods
may be comparable to exposures due to direct inhalation.
However, the control techniques specified in the standard
being promulgated today result in over 90-percent reduction in
dioxin/furan emissions, which will significantly reduce both
direct and indirect exposures.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.25) expressed concern that
lead emitted from MWC stacks and other sources does not
degrade and eventually is deposited and enters drinking water.
Response; National ambient air quality standards for lead
were first established in 1978 based on concerns about lead
exposure. In 1987, the Administrator determined that MWC's
would be regulated under Sections lll(b) and lll(d) of the
CAA, partly because Section 112 could not be used to address
certain constituents of MWC emissions such as lead. Today's
standards require PM control that reduces lead emissions by
more than 97 percent which will significantly reduce both
direct and indirect exposures. The ban on incineration of
lead-acid vehicle batteries should also result in additional
reductions in lead emissions from MWC's.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.31, IV-D-106, IV-D-183,
IV-D-234, IV-D-244) raised issues concerning the environmental
and health impacts of mercury emissions. The commenters
argued for more stringent mercury control, citing health
effects as well as instances of surface water contamination
and bioaccumulation of mercury in the human food chain.
Another (IV-D-178) suggested that risk assessment for mercury
considering multiple exposure routes should be conducted in
order to develop emission limits.
Commenter IV-D-244 criticized the EPA's past use of ISCST
and the HEM to model mercury emissions, and said these models
do not accurately predict ambient concentrations and do not
address multimedia environmental health risks. Furthermore,
the commenter said there are some tests showing higher
uncontrolled mercury levels than included in the EPA data base
considered prior to proposal (e.g., levels of 6,000 to
3-106
-------
7,000 jig/dscm [0.0026 to 0.0031 gr/dscf]). He said SD/FF
would not necessarily control mercury, and stated that the
uncontrolled and controlled emission inputs used in the EPA's
risk modeling were too low. He concluded that modeling is not
a valid approach and suggested monitoring of the air, soil,
water, and wildlife near several representative MWC's.
Response; The EPA did consider the bioaccumulation of MWC
emissions (including mercury) in the environment when making
the decision to regulate MWC emissions. During the assessment
of air emissions from MWC's, EPA recognized the potential for
exposure from the deposition of emitted pollutants and
subsequent human contact through indirect exposure pathways
(e.g., bioaccumulation into the human food chain). To address
this issue, a preliminary analysis was undertaken which used
mathematical models to predict multiple routes of human
exposure. Because the models used are still undergoing
development and predicting multiple routes of exposure is so
complex, the results of the analysis cannot be interpreted
quantitatively. However, the preliminary results do suggest
that indirect exposures to emissions deposited over a long
period of time may result in health risks similar to direct
inhalation. These results served as an additional basis for
the Administrator's finding that MWC emissions warrant
regulation under Sections lll(b) and (d) of the CAA.
Under Section 129 of the CAA, as amended in 1990, mercury
emission limits for MWC's must be promulgated within 12 months
of enactment of the CAA Amendments. The standards to be
proposed under Section 129 will assure mercury emission
reductions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-218) said EPA should
comprehensively assess environmental health concerns of MWC's
including health effects of respirable particulates, methyl
mercury in water bodies, groundwater pollution from heavy
metals in MWC ash, and contributions to global warming, acid
rain, and ozone problems.
Response; The MWC emissions encompass a wide range of diverse
pollutants. The standards being promulgated today address MWC
3-107
-------
metals, MWC organics, and MWC acid gases. The control
technologies and GCP requirements required by the standards
have broad benefits that address most of the concerns raised
by the commenter. For example, an overall reduction in
emissions will reduce pollutant deposition on surrounding
areas, including bodies of water. The MWC metals standard
addresses respirable particulates and the NOX standard has
positive benefits for both acid rain and ozone formation. As
discussed in the preamble to the proposed standard, the
question of ash disposal and groundwater pollution will be
adequately addressed by separate waste disposal management
standards.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-120) pointed out that small MWC
plants are often located in more rural areas nearer to
agricultural lands. He said that since the food chain pathway
(ingestion of dioxins in contaminated crops and dairy
products) often accounts for greater dioxin risks than
inhalation, small MWC's near agricultural areas should be
required to have the most stringent dioxin/furan controls.
Response; New source performance standards implement
Section lll(b) of the CAA. An NSPS requires sources to
control emissions to the level achievable by best demonstrated
technology considering costs and other impacts. The standards
selected for small MWC's have been identified as best
demonstrated technology considering economics and adverse
impacts. Although additional reductions of MWC emissions
(including dioxins/furans) would be achieved by applying the
most stringent controls to all MWC's regardless of size, the
reductions attributable to small plant emissions would be
relatively small, and the cost impacts unreasonably high.
However, as provided in Section 116 of the CAA, States are
free to establish more stringent emission standards and could
consider site-specific local factors.
3.6.3 Energy
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-101) said that in establishing
the standards and discussing impacts, EPA had not considered
that when MSW is combusted it has the beneficial effect of
3-108
-------
reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned or nuclear energy
produced.
Response: It is true that MWC's generate energy and can
supply some of the power that might otherwise be supplied by
burning fossil fuels.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-169) disagreed with the
implication that a 2.6-percent increase in energy required to
operate control equipment is insignificant. The commenter
said this energy would be replaced by electricity generated
elsewhere, often by plants emitting higher rates of S02 and
NOX.
Response; The Agency has considered the energy impacts
associated with emission control requirements and believes
they are reasonable relative to the reductions in MWC
emissions achieved. The Agency acknowledges that the power to
operate the MWC emissions control equipment will ultimately
result in somewhat higher emissions from another source, but
believes these increases are reasonable relative to the
overall reduction in MWC emissions.
3.6.4 Cost and Economic
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-117) said the estimated costs of
the NSPS (or $1.50 per household per month) are reasonable,
and are a fairly small increase relative to baseline costs.
The commenter said the $66/Mg ($60/ton) baseline cost cited in
the EPA press release probably does not include transportation
of MSW since this can cost as much as $110/Mg ($100/ton).
Therefore, the commenter said the $13/Mg ($12/ton) increased
cost of pollution control should actually be compared to a
baseline cost of about $180/Mg ($160/ton).
Response; The $66/Mg ($60/ton) of MSW cost was meant to
include transportation (about $22/Mg [$20/ton]) as well as the
tipping fee (about $44/Mg [$40/ton]). However, there is wide
variation by geographic location in both tipping fees and
transportation costs. As stated in the preamble to the
proposed standards (54 FR 52251), typical waste disposal costs
including collection, transportation, combustion, and ash
3-109
-------
disposal range from about $40/Mg to over $100/Mg ($36 to over
$90/ton) of MSW.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-138) submitted a table showing
his estimate of costs for a SD/FF for a mass burn MWC with
three 680 Mg/day (750 tpd) units. His annualized cost
estimate was $12.8 million or $61/Mg ($55/ton) of MSW compared
to the EPA's estimate of $7.8 million or $36/Mg ($33/ton) of
MSW. Major differences that the commenter included were:
(1) a reverse air type baghouse with an air-to- cloth ratio of
2.5:1 rather than a pulse jet with a ratio of 4:1, (2) higher
lime consumption rates to compensate for short-term spikes in
uncontrolled S02 levels, and (3) different operating and
maintenance costs. The dollar year of the costs was not
specified.
Response; Differences in estimated annualized cost can
reflect differences in capital cost, financing assumptions,
and operating costs. The cost estimates prepared by the
Agency were based on procedures developed over a period of
time and have been used for standards development activities
for more than 10 years. These procedures have been used by
the Agency to develop standards for dozens of source
categories. The particular procedures used to estimate model
plant costs for this project were based on the Agency's cost
procedures mentioned above and recent vendor-supplied cost
information.
The Agency did reevaluate the level of acid gas control
achievable by SD/FF systems as a result of variability in
waste composition. Based on this analysis discussed in
Section 3.5.3, the acid gas control requirements for SC>2 have
been revised.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.35) said that the stringent
acid gas limits will greatly increase costs to MWC customers
because the vendors will build high risk premiums into the
costs of control technologies. He said risk premiums will be
included because the proposed acid gas limits for large new
MWC's are not well demonstrated and the technology vendors
will need to protect themselves against permit compliance
3-110
-------
liabilities associated with guarantees of this performance
level. He also said that in cases where there is not a vendor
guarantee, customer costs will increase because of the
assumption of public financial liability.
Another commenter (IV-F-2.15) said individual MWC's will
be forced to assume great risks and potentially high costs
because vendors will not guarantee compliance with the
proposed acid gas levels.
Response; The acid gas levels included in the final standards
have been demonstrated. As explained in Section 3.5.3, the
SC>2 percent reduction standards for MWC's larger than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) was changed from 85 percent at proposal
to 80 percent (block 24-hour geometric mean) under the final
standards. The 80-percent (24-hour geometric mean) level has
been demonstrated based on statistical analyses of long-term
CEM data. Furthermore, the MWC industry has stated that this
level is achievable. Test data also show that the 95-percent
HC1 level (demonstrated by annual performance tests) is
achievable. Since the acid gas control levels in the final
standards are well demonstrated, vendors should not include
high risk premiums in the costs of the control technologies.
Communities and vendors are free to negotiate vendor
guarantees.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-60) said the cost and economic
analyses for the proposed standards and guidelines do not
adequately address MWC's with capacities below 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd). The commenter said EPA did not estimate costs for
MWC's below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) and did not include cities with
populations below 10,000 in the economic analysis. The
commenter believes impacts on small communities with very
small MWC's will be severe. This commenter provided more
detailed comments on the guidelines (see Section 7.6.4).
The first commenter (IV-D-60) and others (IV-F-2.3,
IV-D-22, IV-D-196, IV-D-289) also said application of the
proposed standards and guidelines to very small MWC's will
halt building of new small MWC's, and result in closure of
some existing small MWC's and force more waste into landfills.
3-111
-------
They point out that this is contrary to the waste disposal
hierarchy in the "Agenda for Action."
One commenter (IV-D-14) said the proposed standards and
emission tests will make small MWC's prohibitively expensive
and will cause smaller towns in Alaska to continue open
burning and landfilling. Another (IV-D-149) said five rural
Oklahoma town with populations below 15,000 operate MWC's and
that the standards could make combustion economically
infeasible and increase illegal roadside and other types of
dumping. He said very small MWC's may be the only viable
option for remote rural locations because transport of waste
to regional facilities is prohibitively expensive.
Other commenters (IV-D-64, IV-D-159) said the standards
will deter small MWC's, resulting in increased transport of
waste, which will be costly. One commenter (IV-D-276) said
the financial burden will cause small MWC's to close and ship
wastes to larger mass burn MWC's.
However, another commenter (IV-D-142) disagreed that
control costs for small Alaskan communities were unaffordable
and said that if costs were not paid for controls, the public
would instead pay increased costs for health care and
environmental degradation.
Response t As explained in Chapter 1, the standards presently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's and
communities of the size discussed by the commenters will not
be subject to this standard. However, under Section 129 of
the CAA Amendments of 1990, standards applicable to MWC units
smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within
2 years. Impacts on small communities will be considered as
part of that rulemaking.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-220) said the proposed standards
may cause small manufacturers of very small MWC's with wet
scrubber systems to go out of business. According to the
commenter, wet scrubber systems are typically used on the
small MWC's because dry scrubber systems may be two to three
times as expensive as wet scrubber systems. He said small
3-112
-------
rural communities with very small MWC's will not be able to
afford the more expensive dry scrubbers required under the
NSPS.
In addition, the conunenter said that making the proposed
NSPS retroactive to December 20, 1989, resulted in virtually
all of his projects having to be put on hold.
Response; Section lll(a)(2) of the CAA, in the definition of
"new source," establishes the applicability date of these
standards to be the date of proposal. The Agency recognizes
that uncertainty regarding the ultimate level of emission
control for new facilities may result in postponement of some
MWC projects and temporary reduction in sales of MWC's and
pollution control equipment. However, this regulatory
uncertainty applies to all firms, not just small firms or
small MWC facilities. Furthermore, promulgation of the
standard will ultimately eliminate this regulatory uncertainty
and probably boost future sales. Finally, it is not clear how
much relief to firms might result from adopting the implicit
suggestion that facilities under construction or in planning
stages before promulgation be treated as existing facilities.
The guidelines for existing firms are themselves at the
"proposal" stage and also, therefore, subject to regulatory
uncertainty.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-64) said cost and economic
analyses are needed to determine impacts of the proposed
stringent standards for small MWC's on medical health care
costs and small rural communities.
One commenter (IV-D-202) said small hospitals will face
relatively high capital costs due to the proposed controls and
CEM's, and that this may encourage a shift to regional
facilities. He said larger MWC's may be better from an
environmental standpoint, but are difficult to site.
Response; Since the standards currently being promulgated
apply only to MWC's with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd), very few medical waste combustors would be covered.
Impacts on small medical waste combustors and small rural
3-113
-------
communities will be considered in the planned rulemakings for
small MWC's and medical waste combustors.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-3.4, IV-D-64, IV-D-149,
IV-D-159) concluded that the proposed rules will preclude the
use of modular combustors for many small cities and hospitals,
and special commercial and industrial applications. They said
that as a result, small communities and hospitals will be
faced with disproportionate waste disposal costs and be forced
to rely on less environmentally sound waste disposal options
than modular MWC's.
Response; Since the standards currently being promulgated
apply only to MWC's with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd), very few medical waste combustors would be covered.
Impacts on small medical waste combustors and small rural
communities will be considered in the planned rulemakings for
small MWC's and medical waste combustors.
Comment! Some commenters (IV-F-3.8, IV-D-63, IV-D-64) said
the cost of emissions testing will affect costs and tipping
fees at small MWC's more than estimated by EPA.
Response; The standards currently being promulgated do not
cover small MWC's.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-74) said that an analysis of one
industrial boiler showed that the break-even cost to use mixed
wastepaper as a replacement for coal would be $21/Mg
($19/ton). However, if acid gas scrubbers were required, the
break-even cost for replacing coal would be $56/Mg ($51/ton)
rendering the use of mixed wastepaper as a fuel infeasible.
Response; Mixed wastepaper generated from residential,
commercial, or institutional discards is MSW. Combustors that
fire or cofire MSW (including mixed paper) in amounts greater
than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) and have fuel feed streams
containing more than 30 percent MSW, by weight, are subject to
the standards. The extent of emissions control would depend
on the amount the boiler fired. Because of the size-related
requirements, many smaller existing industrial boilers may be
able to fire MSW without having to install acid gas scrubbing
equipment. However, the intent of the standards is to control
3-114
-------
emissions from combustion of MSW. The MSW (including mixed
paper) would cause roughly the same emissions per Mg (ton)
fired whether combusted in a modular, mass burn, or RDF-fired
MWC or cofired with fossil fuels. Therefore, it is
appropriate to require controls on all units firing MSW,
whether by itself or as a cofired fuel.
3.7 SELECTION OF FORMAT OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-108) supported regulation of
dioxins/furans as total emissions. He maintained that
regulation as a group addresses the risk posed by the
compounds and the use of TEF's is an unnecessary refinement
for the purpose of NSPS.
In contrast, many commenters (IV-F-1.19, IV-F-1.20,
IV-D-62, IV-D-69, IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-116, IV-D-117,
IV-D-119, IV-D-122, IV-D-134, IV-D-135, IV-D-139, IV-D-143,
IV-D-144, IV-D-145, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-210,
IV-D-235, IV-D-255, IV-D-277) thought the dioxin/furan limits
should be expressed in terms of toxic equivalents. Several
(IV-F-1.19, IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-143, IV-D-155, IV-D-164)
pointed out the worldwide data base focuses on TEF's and past
EPA and State actions have used TEF's. One commenter
(IV-D-154) said before a standard is established using total
dioxins/furans, additional testing and evaluation is needed to
compare the TEF technologies to the new data base. One
commenter (IV-D-119) stated that there is insufficient data on
total dioxins/furans to establish emission limits on that
basis. In addition, dioxin/furan emissions data which have
been collected on a toxic equivalent basis cannot be directly
converted to a total dioxin basis because, in many cases, only
toxic isomer emissions were measured. Thus, he said, there is
little known about the ability to control these nontoxic
isomers. Others (IV-D-62, IV-D-101, IV-D-104, IV-D-107,
IV-D-117, IV-D-144, IV-D-235) added that the use of total
emissions ignores the inherent variability in the toxicities
of the dioxin/furan isomers. One commenter (IV-D-144) stated,
in most cases, use of total emissions would over dramatize the
3-115
-------
importance of low toxicity isomers. He said there may also be
circumstances where use of total emissions could mask toxic
impacts that would have been more accurately revealed by the
use of TEF. Three other commenters (IV-D-154, IV-D-184,
IV-D-235) objected to the inclusion of octa-chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in the standards because
of their negligible toxicities. The commenters said TEF is a
more appropriate measure to use because it is a better index
of health hazards.
One commenter (IV-D-189) said a limit for just
2,3,7,8-tetra chloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin would be more meaningful
from a toxicity standpoint, but still reduce test complexity.
One commenter (IV-D-107) said EPA justified the use of
total dioxin/furan emissions because "studies have shown a
direct relationship between dioxins/furans and TEF so
reduction in dioxin/furan health risks will be achieved using
either approach." The commenter asked for an opportunity to
review the unnamed studies. He presented data from field
tests to show that total dioxin/furan emissions significantly
in excess of 5 to 30 ng/dscm (2 to 12 gr/billion dscf) range
can occur without proportionate increases in the TEF's of the
emissions. Another commenter (IV-D-145) also felt toxic
equivalents are not proportional to total dioxins/furans.
Some commenters (IV-D-107, IV-D-116, IV-D-144) suggested
setting a limit of 2.0 ng/dscm (1 gr/billion dscf) using the
EPA's current TEF methodology. Other commenters (IV-D-27,
IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-142) suggested the standards require
a TEF limit in the range of 0.1 ng/dscm (0.04 gr/billion dscf)
based on European data (see comments on specific dioxin/furan
levels suggested in Section 3.5.1).
Response; As explained in responses in Sections 3.2 and 3.5,
this regulation is pursued under Section 111 not Section 112,
and therefore, is a technology-based rather than a
health-based standard. The emission limit for total
dioxins/furans reflect the achievable performance levels of
specific types of control technologies, and are not derived
from any target levels of health risks. There is no
3-116
-------
indication that TEF would be a better measure of emissions
control performance than total dioxins/furans. In addition,
there is no way to select or operate technology for control of
specific isomers given current knowledge. A principal reason
for not expressing emission limits as TEF is that some
accommodation would have to be included in the standards for
possible future changes in the values of TEF. Different
agencies use different methodologies for calculating TEF, and
the Agency recently (in 1989) changed the procedures it uses
to calculate TEF based on new toxicity information. Emission
limits based on TEF could be referenced permanently to the
current (1989) TEF, but this would likely generate confusion
when future permits, State regulations, etc., may use
post-1989 TEF values. Alternatively, TEF emission limits
could be revised each time the TEF are revised (based on no
changes in total dioxins/furans and no intended changes in
control technologies), but this presents some technical
uncertainties regarding achievability of the revised emission
limits if there are major changes in TEF for some groups of
dioxin/furan compounds. Furthermore, a review of tests from
several MWC's included in Docket No. A-89-08 shows that total
dioxins/furans (specifically total tetra- through
octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans)
correlate with TEF and will therefore assure control of toxic
emissions. Total emissions are also simpler to calculate.
The reference test method for total tetra- through
octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans requires
measurement and reporting of some 31 groups of the
210 chemical compounds that comprise dioxins/furans. This
information gives total dioxin/furan emissions, and when
combined with a set of TEF values is also sufficient to permit
the calculation of TEF emissions and estimation of associated
health risks, if this is desired.
The total dioxin/furan emission standard set for new
MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) in this rulemaking
(30 ng/dscm [12 gr/billion dscf]) is approximately equivalent
to 0.5 ng/dscm (0.2 gr/billion dscf) TEF. It is more
3-117
-------
stringent than the 2 ng/dscm (1 gr/billion dscf) TEF limit
suggested by two commenters and less stringent than the
European TEF standards suggested by other commenters. The
selection of this limit is based on performance of
demonstrated control technologies as explained in
Section 3.5.1 of this chapter.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-27) objected to establishing
emission limits based on ppm measurements. The commenter felt
this approach perpetuates the concept that the solution to
pollution is dilution. Instead, the commenter suggested that
pollution standards be based both on specified limited amounts
of pollutants per unit of garbage incinerated and on total
pollution per year, by substance, at rated load.
Response: When analyzing possible formats for the standard,
it was determined that the most appropriate format would limit
the concentration of emissions (specified in ppm for SC>2, HC1,
and CO; gr/dscf for PM; and ng/dscm [gr/billion dscf] for
dioxin/furan) in the exhaust gases discharged to the
atmosphere. All of these measurements are corrected to
7 percent O2, which will prevent dilution from influencing the
calculated ppm or other values used to determine compliance.
The major advantage of this format is its simplicity of
enforcement. The type of format suggested by the commenter,
placing a limit on the mass of emissions per mass of waste
combusted, would require more data collection and calculations
and would prove burdensome to the MWC owner or operator
without offsetting benefits.
Furthermore, it would be a violation of the standard for
an MWC facility or any other source to intentionally dilute
its emissions to achieve compliance as stated in Section 60.12
of the General Provisions.
3.8 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
3.8.1 Periodic Testing
Comment: Many commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-2.52, IV-F-3.13,
IV-D-26, IV-D-56, IV-D-57, IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-115,
IV-D-117, IV-D-168) stated that small new facilities (and
3-118
-------
existing facilities) should not be allowed to skip annual
compliance tests. One commenter (IV-F-1.19) said small MWC's
should be required to test as often as large MWC's. Three
commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-D-56, IV-D-106) pointed out that
testing also serves the purpose of identifying malfunctions or
maintenance problems. Three commenters (IV-D-137, IV-D-155,
IV-D-164, IV-D-184) felt testing requirements should be the
same for all MWC's regardless of size. One (IV-D-164) thought
they should be the same regardless of age as well.
One commenter (IV-D-178) thought new facilities with
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacities should have the
option of skipping compliance tests. The commenter said these
facilities are required to meet the most stringent limits and
install state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment and
thus are most likely to meet the regulations on a long-term
basis. The commenter said he understood the philosophy behind
the 2-year exemption is to reduce costs for smaller
facilities. However, he and another commenter (IV-D-184) felt
all facilities, regardless of size, should be granted the same
opportunity for exemption from testing.
Response; The standards currently being promulgated apply
only to MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity.
Annual stack tests for PM, HC1, and dioxins/furans are
required. An annual test for these three pollutants would
costs about $30,000 total (including preparation, test runs,
analyses, and a report). For MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day
250 tpd this test cost would equate to a range of about $0.10
to $0.45/Mg ($0.10 to $0.40/ton) of MSW. For large MWC's this
cost is reasonable given the added assurance annual testing
will provide that the emission limits are being met.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-137) thought that after initial
compliance tests, annual performance testing for PM, organics,
and HC1 is unnecessary. He felt that continuous monitoring of
opacity, S02, NOX, CO, steam flow, and temperature will
guarantee that facilities are maintaining compliance. The
commenter suggested that if EPA policy requires periodic
testing that a 3-year interval would be adequate.
3-119
-------
Another commenter (IV-D-222) felt it was not clear that
frequent testing was needed. He said the tests are very
costly and thought the costs should be evaluated in
conjunction with the amount of control achieved. Another
commenter (IV-D-266) said that testing costs at the proposed
frequency exceed projections of his facilities' net income.
The two commenters suggested that testing every 5 years (upon
permit renewal) would be more reasonable. One commenter
(IV-D-255) thought monitoring requirements should be more
flexible and allow State regulatory agencies to defer required
annual testing if compliance is demonstrated over a period of
years and remains supported by continuous emission monitoring.
Response; The periodic stack tests are required to assure
that emission limits are met by direct measurement of the
pollutants. The test costs were considered and are
reasonable. Furthermore, periodic testing is already required
in some States and has proven to be practical.
In the case of dioxins/furans, the monitoring of CO,
temperature, and load will indicate that the combustor is
designed and operated to reduce MWC organic emissions.
However, these will not produce a measurement of dioxin/furan
emissions. Periodic stack testing is needed to ensure that
dioxin/furan emission limits are being met.
In the case of PM, opacity is an indicator of PM and MWC
metals emissions, and the monitoring of opacity would detect
significant problems with control equipment. However, opacity
is not a direct measurement of the PM concentration in
gr/dscf. This can only be obtained through periodic stack
testing for PM. Similarly, while continuous monitoring of S02
is required, periodic testing for HC1 will provide assurance
that all MWC acid gases are being controlled.
For MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) the costs of
annual stack testing is a small portion of total control costs
and is reasonable in light of the additional compliance
information provided.
Commentt Two commenters (IV-D-106, IV-D-108) recommended a
9-month testing schedule to address the seasonal variations in
3-120
-------
the waste stream. One (IV-D-108) said the full cycle of four
tests should be required before skipping is allowed. The
commenter would support less frequent testing if compliance is
demonstrated in this manner.
Response: The standards require annual tests of PM (to
indicate MWC metals control), HC1 (an MWC acid gas), and
dioxins/furans (to demonstrate MWC organics control) for MWC's
larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). While there is some
variability in MWC control device outlet emissions of PM, HC1,
and dioxins/furans, this variability does not appear to be
seasonal. Furthermore, the standards require continuous
measurement throughout the year of several other pollutants
and parameters. Therefore, annual testing of PM, HC1, and
dioxins/furans is judged to be frequent enough to ensure
compliance. If individual States wish to require more
frequent testing, they can do so.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-F-1.20, IV-F-1.22, IV-D-05,
IV-D-201) favored stack testing more often than once per year.
One commenter (IV-F-1.20) recommended stack testing every
6 months, with retesting after 30 days if an incineration unit
failed the first stack test. If the unit failed the second
test, the commenter said the incinerator should be shut down
until compliance could be demonstrated. One commenter
(IV-D-201) suggested monthly stack tests for metals,
dioxins/furans, and HCl due to seasonal variations in the
make-up of MSW and to monitor changes in the APCD. Another
commenter (IV-F-1.22) said monthly emissions testing for
dioxin/furan should be required. One commenter (IV-D-05) felt
annual emission tests were not sufficient.
Response; Annual stack testing for PM, HCl, and
dioxins/furans is performed frequently enough to ensure
compliance with the standards. The requirements for
continuous monitoring of opacity, SO2, CO, load level, and
temperature will ensure that combustors and control devices
are operating properly between annual tests. Requiring stack
testing for all pollutants to be performed every month or
every 6 months would increase the cost and monitoring burden
3-121
-------
of operating the MWC. If a plant does, however, fail the
stack test and violate the standards, normal enforcement
procedures would be followed.
ecnrnnen-hi Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said EPA should
require all stack tests to be conducted concurrently so that
facilities will not adjust operating parameters to obtain a
favorable outcome for a specific pollutant.
Response; Within the range of normal MWC operating
conditions, an MWC operator would not be able to significantly
adjust the operating parameters to control emission rates of
individual pollutants to a specific level. As a general rule,
MWC operating conditions that are favorable for controlling
emissions of one pollutant (e.g., lower flue gas temperature
to control acid gases) are also beneficial in control of other
pollutants (e.g., organic emissions). It is not clear that an
operator can readily adjust operating conditions in such a way
that emissions of one pollutant can be lowered at the expense
of increasing the emissions of another pollutant. Moreover,
it would not be practical for logistical reasons to perform
simultaneous sampling. This is due to space constraints
normally associated with stack sampling procedures, the
limited number of sampling ports, and limited personnel
available to perform the simultaneous testing.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-135) felt that compliance tests
should be run under worst case pollutant loadings within the
normal operating parameters of the combustor and APCD to
guarantee that emission standards are being met on a continual
basis.
Response; Section 60.8(c) of the General Provisions states
that: "Performance tests shall be conducted under such
conditions as the Administrator shall specify to the plant
operator based on representative performance of the affected
facility." In addition to this General Provisions requirement
to test under representative MWC operating conditions, MWC's
are also required by Section 60.55a to establish their maximum
load level during their performance tests and may not operate
above 110 percent of this load level (4-hour average).
3-122
-------
Conducting the performance test under representative
conditions at high load is sufficient to guarantee that the
emission standards can be met on a continual basis.
CoTflffi^1?*1• one commenter (IV-F-1.20) advised EPA to pay more
attention to stack testing procedures. The commenter
mentioned being present at a new facility when it was being
tested for acceptance. The facility was burning commercial
waste, primarily paper, to improve emissions in order to pass
the stack test.
Responsei As discussed in the preceding response, stack
testing is required by the General Provisions to be conducted
under representative MWC operating conditions. The
enforcement officer reviewing the test data should question
whether the MWC was operating under normal operating
conditions (such as burning excess amounts of paper to improve
emissions). The enforcement officer could require further
testing, and has full authority to do so.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-121) stated baghouses are
vulnerable to failures which may go undetected in normal
operation. He suggested more frequent measurement of metals
and PM as well as other engineering changes.
Response; Any significant failures of baghouse operation
would be detected during continuous monitoring of opacity,
which is required by the standards. Therefore, frequent
measurement of metals and PM or requirements for specific
engineering changes are not necessary.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.19, IV-F-1.20, IV-D-134)
suggested periodic testing for individual metals. They noted
that some States or local governments require testing for
metals and toxic organics every 6, 9, or 12 months. Two
commenters (IV-F-1.20, IV-D-134) thought the stack testing
requirements comparable to New York's for metals and organics
should be included.
Response; As explained in Section 3.5.2, establishing an
emission limit for and monitoring PM emissions would also
ensure that individual metals, except mercury, are controlled.
Because individual metals are controlled with the PM limit,
3-123
-------
limits for each individual metal are not needed. However,
under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990, emission
limits for mercury, lead, and cadmium are to be promulgated
within 12 months of enactment. It States wish to adopt
emission limits and require testing for additional individual
metals, they may do so. In regard to organics, the annual
dioxin/furan test and continuous monitoring of other
parameters are adequate to ensure organics control without
being burdensome.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.32) said the proposed emission
test frequencies and monitoring requirements are appropriate.
He said tests are conducted every 9 months in his State, at a
cost of $125,000 per test, and little variation is seen from
year to year.
Response; The Agency agrees with the commenter that the
proposed frequency and monitoring requirements are appropriate
for ensuring compliance.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-3.8 and IV-D-111, IV-D-130,
IV-D-164, IV-D-219, IV-D-246) said that dioxin/furan testing
would be a major cost for MWC's. One commenter (IV-D-130)
said his State does not require dioxin/furan testing for
permits because of the test cost and because the same level of
control could be obtained through acid gas control and GCP.
He suggested that dioxin/furan emissions be tested for
2 consecutive years for all facilities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) and the result correlated with CO data. If the
organic emissions comply with the standard then the commenter
felt CO could be used as a surrogate. He suggested retesting
for dioxins/furans on a 5-year cycle. One commenter
(IV-D-164) felt that compliance with the EPA's GCP is
sufficient to minimize organic emissions from MWC's. He added
that modern, well operated MWC's emit organics at
concentrations below ambient urban levels. He urged EPA to
relax the regulation or require testing only if an MWC fails
an annual CO compliance test. Two commenters (IV-F-3.8,
IV-D-242) suggested that small MWC plants should have to test
for dioxins/furans initially but should not have to retest
3-124
-------
unless the character of the ash changes in such a way as to
indicate decreased combustion performance. Alternatively,
they suggested testing for dioxins/furans every 5 years at
small MWC plants. One commenter (IV-D-242) also suggested
that for small units testing and certification be conducted at
the factory or that dioxins/furans limits be waived in
consideration of low emissions due to low waste discharge
rates and application of GCP. Another commenter (IV-D-111)
thought no dioxin/furan limit should be set for any size MWC.
He said if a standard were set it should only apply at initial
start-up to demonstrate GCP will achieve the limits. One
commenter (IV-D-219) thought compliance tests for organics are
useful only as an after-the-fact assessment of combustor
design and operation.
Two commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-246) suggested that CO and
temperature CEM measurements be considered for use as an
alternative method to Method 23 for the demonstration of
compliance with the dioxin/furan standard subsequent to the
initial compliance testing.
Response; Periodic testing for dioxins/furans is not
unreasonably costly. The cost of conducting a typical
dioxin/furan compliance test at an MWC facility is about
$30,000 per test. This average cost estimate includes travel,
preparation, sampling, analysis, reporting, and program
management. This cost is a small percent of the total cost of
combustion and control. For example, for a typical 450 Mg/day
(500 tpd) MWC an annual test would be less than 1 percent of
total annualized capital and operating cost of the combustor
and control equipment and about 2 percent of the annualized
cost of control. Annualized costs for stack tests would
typically be about $0.10 to $0.45/Mg ($0.10 to $0.40/ton) of
MSW, depending on plant size.
Although MWC parameters such as CO and temperature
indicate good combustion which leads to lower organic
emissions, no consistent relationship between CO and stack
dioxin levels has been demonstrated. Furthermore, certain
site-specific factors may affect the amount of dioxin
3-125
-------
emissions so that periodic testing at individual MWC's is
needed to track this variation. It has been determined,
therefore, that periodic stack testing is the most reasonable
method of ensuring that the MWC facility is actually meeting
the dioxin/furan limit.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-120) stated that an average CO
level that meets the standards does not guarantee a similar
condition for dioxin/furan emissions because the 4-hour CO
averaging period could smooth over significant variations and
dioxin/furan emissions are probably not linearly related to CO
level.
Response; An average CO level maintained in accordance with
the standard would ensure continuous compliance with GCP and
thereby would result in lower MWC organic emissions. There
may be some variation in dioxin/furan emissions (as there is
with emissions of any pollutant) when monitored on a short-
term basis; however, no method exists for continuously
measuring dioxin/furan emissions. Because no method exists,
the combination of continuous monitoring of CO (and other
parameters) to achieve GCP and periodic stack testing for
dioxin/furan is judged to be adequate to measure compliance
with the standard.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-D-09, IV-D-96)
thought that testing should be administered by an unbiased
government or independent agency.
Response; As described in Section 60.13 of the General
Provisions, all emission testing must follow specified
procedures and be well documented. Enforcement officers may
attend any test and, if submitted test-results appear
questionable, enforcement officers may request further
testing. It is believed that these required test procedures
together with enforcement review are sufficient to ensure that
testing to determine compliance is being performed accurately.
3.8.2 Continuous Monitoring
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.3) contended that MWC plants
with more than one MWC burning a given waste type should only
be required to install an SOX emission monitoring device on
3-126
-------
one of the combustors. The commenter pointed out that SO2
emissions are dependent on waste feed characteristics rather
than specific combustion conditions.
Response; The control device outlet S(>2 emissions are a
function not only of sulfur content of the waste feed, but
also of combustion conditions, as well as design and operation
of add-on acid control devices. Even if two combustors of the
same design are fed waste from the same batch, differences in
the waste may exist. Furthermore, differences in the control
device performance may occur between the two combustors due to
small differences in operation and repair of the controls.
Testing at two combustors located at the same MWC has
usually shown somewhat different emission rates because of the
large number of variables. In view of this, the percent
removal or outlet SC>2 level must be monitored separately for
each combustor and its accompanying control device. The cost
of monitoring each combustor is considered reasonable in light
of the additional enforcement capabilities acquired and the
potential excess emissions detected.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-108, IV-D-168) recommended a
4-hour compliance period for acid gas. One commenter
(IV-D-108) said 24-hour averaging times for SC>2 and HC1 are
not supported by test data or operational considerations.
However, several commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-139,
IV-D-155, IV-D-190, IV-D-257) supported the 24-hour averaging
time for SO2 and NOX. Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155)
said anything shorter is unwarranted and technically flawed
because of the reaction time inherent in the combustion/APCD
train.
Response; The focus of Section 111 of the CAA is to require
continuous long-term emission reduction based on the
performance of best demonstrated technology. Even when the
best acid gas control technology is installed and operated
correctly, there will be short-term variability in S(>2
emissions, and short-term peak values that are higher than the
average emission rate. Therefore, when continuous emission
monitoring data are collected, an averaging period must be
3-127
-------
specified for the purposes of determining compliance. The
shorter the averaging time used, the more a standard would
represent short-term peak values rather than long-term
performance. Therefore, if compliance were measured on a
4-hour as opposed to a 24-hour or longer basis, achievable
emission limits would be higher (and required percent S<>2
reduction would be lower). The selected 24-hour averaging
period is long enough to be more representative of long-term
control technology performance as opposed to short-term
variation, but is short enough to provide for timely
calculation of performance levels and enforcement information.
Therefore, this averaging period was chosen for SO2« Since
HC1 is not continuously monitored, but is determined annually
using a stack test (average of three or more test runs), there
is no averaging period associated with HC1 emissions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-134) asked why SO2 emissions
will be determined on a 24-hour daily average when
corresponding limits in PSD permits are required to be set at
1 or 3 hour intervals.
Another commenter (IV-F-1.4) stated the averaging times
appear inconsistent with the EPA policy of requiring States to
include short-term limits on pollutant emissions. This
commenter also thought the averaging times were inconsistent
with permits to insure protection of short-term ambient
standards and PSD increments. This commenter argued for
short-term (1-hour averaging time) limits for S(>2, HC1, NOX,
and CO. The commenter believed health effects from peak
short-term emissions can be serious and high short-term
emissions should be prevented. These 1-hour averages could be
determined and enforced using CEM's or stack tests. The
commenter noted that the proposed emission levels could be
adjusted to account for the greater variability in 1-hour
averages as opposed to longer averaging times.
Response; The PSD and NSPS programs have different
objectives. The aim of the NSPS program is to regulate
emissions based on technological performance, whereas the PSD
program seeks to protect the ambient air quality against peak
3-128
-------
emission values. By using short-term tests (1 or 3 hour
intervals) in the PSD program, peak values would be detected
more easily because they would not be smoothed over by
averaging them into a longer-term (e.g., 24 hour) averaging
period.
If a State recognizes that an exceedance problem exists
with a certain pollutant, that State can require short-term
testing to reduce emissions of that problem pollutant.
Because the NSPS program is concerned with performance of a
given technology, a different averaging time may be used. In
this case long-term averaging times are more appropriate. As
explained in the previous response, a shorter averaging time
would require a lower performance level.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-200, IV-D-231)
opposed the use of block averages for acid gases. Two
commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-200) contended that block averages
are easier to meet than rolling averages and a facility has
the capability to operate in such a way that nighttime
compliance might not be attained. One commenter (IV-D-231)
added that rolling averaging times should be long enough so
that occasional upsets due to normaj. variations in the waste
stream would not result in a violation.
Response; The Agency believes that the averaging time for SO2
and emission limits for MWC acid gases in the final standards
requires careful operation of the APCD's throughout the entire
averaging period and is stringent enough to achieve continuous
compliance, including at nighttime. No significant benefits
would be gained by using the 24-hour rolling average.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-108, IV-D-135) advocated the
use of continuous monitoring requirements for HCl. One
commenter (IV-D-108) said the EPA RCRA branch has been
studying them for 4 years and recommends them for hazardous
waste incinerators. Several permits have been issued which
require the use of HCl CEM's which the commenter thought
indicated the monitors meet NSPS criteria as best demonstrated
technology. The other commenter (IV-D-135) said continuous
monitoring, of HCl is common in Europe and Japan.
3-129
-------
Two commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-255) urged EPA to
establish a standard CEM method for HC1 and defer continuous
compliance requirements until the method is well established.
One commenter (IV-D-154) stated he was not aware of any
HC1 certifiable continuous monitors operating in the United
States on a waste-to-energy scrubber inlet. He said EPA needs
to define the method of measuring percent removal if these
monitors do not exist on the market.
Response; The Agency's OSW requires control of HC1 emissions
in its regulations for hazardous waste incinerators. The
regulations do not require HC1 CEM's. Rather, the provision
recognizes that HC1 monitors are available but does not
consider them demonstrated for determining continuous
compliance as required by the CAA. Application of HCl CEM's
under RCRA is left to the decision of the individual permit
writer based on site-specific considerations. The provision
allowed currently available HCl monitors to be given special
consideration by the regional administrator and evaluated for
use on a site-specific basis.
The determination not to require continuous HCl
monitoring under this NSPS.is, therefore, consistent with the
OSW hazardous waste incinerator guidelines. Based on review
of data from MWC's with acid gas controls, it has been
determined that a correlation exists between SO2 and HCl
control. Most acid gas control systems preferentially control
HCl (i.e., for any given percent SO2 control achieved, a
higher percent-HCl control is achieved). Because SO£ CEM's
also indicate HCl control, it has been determined that HCl
CEM's are not necessary.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-116) said using CEM's to
determine compliance with the acid gas standards is not a
demonstrated technology. The commenter argued that the data
EPA used to determine best demonstrated technology was based
on manual, closely controlled, short-term compliance tests and
that performance data obtained from CEM's during continuous
operation has not been available to any great extent.
3-130
-------
Response: The Agency has reviewed the status of OEM's for SO2
and has determined that available data indicate they are
demonstrated for monitoring SO2 emissions. Many MWC's use S02
CEM's. In developing the standards, long-term data obtained
using CEM's were reviewed and analyzed. (The basis for the
SO2 limits is explained in responses in Section 3.5.3.)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-199) thought daily weights of
MSW load should be required to provide a representative
assessment of the waste profile.
Response; Determining daily weight of MSW load is not
necessary to assess the waste profile. It would be burdensome
to require this for MWC operators, especially in addition to
all of the monitoring requirements. The Agency believes that
meeting the required emission limits and GCP parameters
(including steam load) would be sufficient to ensure that
emissions are being controlled to the desired level.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) questioned why
EPA permitted CEM's to be operated only 75 percent of the
time. Several commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-103, IV-D-104,
IV-D-199, IV-D-200) requested that the compliance and
performance testing standards for SOX, NOX, and operating
standards be amended to require data collection 90 or
95 percent (rather than 75 percent) of the hours per day for
95 or 100 percent (rather than 75 percent) of the days of the
month. The commenters felt this reflects the capability of
modern instrumentation. One commenter (IV-D-188) thought it
was unlikely that the public would accept a requirement which
allows sources to operate 6 hours each day with no available
emissions data. He suggested the use of redundant or backup
monitoring systems, if necessary, to meet a higher data
availability standard.
Response: The commenters have apparently misinterpreted the
wording in Section 60.58a(f)(6). Data are to be gathered
continuously and every valid piece of data is required to be
used in determining compliance and must be recorded as part of
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The 75-percent
requirement is a separate requirement to ensure that an
3-131
-------
acceptable minimum amount of data are collected and to prevent
prolonged periods of operation without a working CEM. It is
expected that monitors at MWC's will typically be in operation
and data will be recorded over 90 percent of the time;
however, monitors occasionally need maintenance or repair. To
allow for this, the standards specify that data shall be
gathered for at least 75 percent of the operating hours per
day and for 75 percent of the operating days per month. If
data are gathered during less than 75 percent of the total MWC
operating hours, this omission is directly enforceable as a
violation of the standard, just as if an emission limit had
been violated.
The 75-percent requirement does not mean that only
75 percent of the collected data must be recorded and used to
calculate average emission rates. Rather, 100 percent of all
valid data collected must be used to determine compliance.
This 75-percent requirement also does not allow sources that
operate 24 hours per day to routinely cease collecting data
for a period of 6 hours (or 25 percent of the day).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-168) supported the minimum data
requirement for CEM's and thought it should be expanded to
require incinerators to summarize, analyze, and submit data to
the permitting agency.
Response; The MWC owner or operator is required by the
reporting and recordkeeping provisions of the standards to
record all CEM's data and to determine and report compliance
for all regulated pollutants by analyzing and summarizing the
data. These emission reports are submitted to the Agency or
delegated State air agencies and become public information.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) requested that the
75-percent data collection requirement for CEM's be on a
quarterly not a monthly basis. He explained that CEM's
repairs cannot always be completed in 1 week.
Response: The monthly 75-percent data collection requirement
is considered to be reasonable in light of the increased
enforcement capabilities it provides with little additional
cost. The CEM's technology is reliable and repairs can
3-132
-------
generally be completed within a few days. In order to
expedite CEM's repairs so they can be completed during 25
percent of the MWC's monthly operating hours, the owner or
operator may wish to keep spare CEM's parts on hand so that he
does not have a lag time waiting for parts to arrive.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-207, IV-D-270) pointed out that
no specific minimum guidelines are outlined for computer-based
DAS which are routinely used to acquire and process data from
CEM sensors. The commenter said the DAS output of emissions
data reports (or Appendix F reports) may be all that a
regulatory agency will see on a regular basis. He recommended
minimum requirements include: minimum scan and digitizing
rate of sensor outputs (typically 1 second scan of each
parameter); minimum accuracy (typically 0.1 percent full
scale); minimum system availability (typically 90 percent);
and call-in capability or call out on alarm to allow
regulatory agencies immediate access to current data.
Response; The Agency does have requirements for frequency and
kinds of data that have to be reported, but it does not
believe it is necessary to specify operating requirements for
e DAS.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-162) thought that reliance on
CEM's for compliance purposes is inappropriate and that States
should be allowed the flexibility to require compliance to be
demonstrated through alternative methods. He said his State
has one of the most stringent and comprehensive air toxics
programs in the country and it requires stack testing every
2 years to demonstrate compliance.
Response; As a method of measuring continuous emission
reduction, CEM's are used widely to determine compliance. A
compliance requirement of stack testing once every 2 years is
a much less stringent and comprehensive testing regime than
CEM's. These infrequent stack tests would not detect
immediate emission excursions or give an indication of the
long-term performance of the technology. The use of CEM's
gives immediate and continuous feedback of the emission levels
achieved, which increases enforcement capabilities. In view
3-133
-------
of this, OEM's are the most reasonable compliance method for
ensuring that the standard is being achieved on a consistent
basis. (Periodic stack tests are also required to measure
pollutants for which OEM's are not available.) The General
Provisions in 40 CFR 60 do include provisions for use of
alternative test methods.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-232) suggested establishing
alternative methods for small communities that reflect
economies of scale in monitoring, the intermittent use of
MWC's by these communities, and the difficulties in
maintaining expensive and complex CEM systems. He thought,
for smaller communities, money would be better spent on
pollution control equipment. Another (IV-D-122) said that for
smaller facilities the certifying of quarterly reports of
CEM's is very expensive. One commenter (IV-D-188) thought
CEM's for SO2, CO, and opacity are not warranted for very
small combustors. One commenter (IV-D-159) stated sufficient
information has not been provided in the ANPRM and the BID'S
to support the performance testing and monitoring systems for
MWC's with capacities less than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd). He said
extensive pollutant specific monitoring is not always
necessary to assure effective operation and in many cases
there are measurable operating parameters which accurately
reflect combustion efficiency. He pointed out as system size
decreases, the proportion of the cost associated with
monitoring requirements becomes significant and could possibly
equal to or exceed the cost of the waste system itself.
Response; The standards currently being promulgated apply
only to MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity. For
these MWC's, CEM's are needed to ensure compliance. The costs
for monitors and data reduction systems were included in the
estimates of the cost of control in the model plant study.
The monitoring costs are reasonable in light of the
information gained.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.20) said CEM readings should
be displayed to the public in front of the plant, like is done
in Japan.
3-134
-------
Response: Although the public display of CEM readings is not
being required by the standards, all CEM data must be recorded
and average daily values reported to the Agency or the State
agency. Once this emission data is reported, it becomes
public information to be made available upon request and
cannot be kept confidential. The state may publish the data
if they wish.
Pomniftn-h• one commenter (IV-D-210) thought that COM's, which
are used to continuously monitor PM, may not be able to detect
particulate emissions until they are well in excess of the
standard. Because the PM standard is used to limit metal
emissions, the commenter felt a more sensitive monitoring
method is warranted.
Response; Continuous opacity monitoring is used to detect any
significant control device malfunctions. As long as control
devices are functioning properly, PM and metals will be
removed. If the COM shows an exceedance which indicates that
the control device is malfunctioning and PM and metals are not
being removed adequately, then normal enforcement procedures
would be followed.
Comment: • One commenter (IV-D-82) pointed out that the
statement "[t]he opacity standard allows continuous
monitoring, since there are no systems for continuous
monitoring of PM mass emissions" needs to be changed because
it is not true. He said systems for the continuous extractive
monitoring of PM mass emissions have been used for many years
at nuclear facilities and should work equally well for
incinerators. All that is needed is some development work to
facilitate their application to incinerators on a routine
basis. He explained with this type of system a representative
sample of suspended particles is withdrawn from the stack
continuously, using low deposition loss techniques, and put
through an external collection device such as a filter. This
is then analyzed for the substances of interest, providing a
quantitative record of what has been emitted to the
atmosphere. In the case of heavy metals the analysis can even
3-135
-------
be done in "real time" as the particles arrive at the filter,
by using X-ray fluorescence equipment.
Another commenter (IV-D-207, IV-D-270) thought PM should
be continuously monitored. He said reliable in-situ optical
techniques for monitoring particular mass concentration have
been available for years and are accepted in other countries.
The commenter submitted a brochure on one model of particulate
monitor.
Response; The Agency does not believe that PM mass monitors
have been adequately demonstrated to allow development of the
necessary performance specifications. Opacity monitors are
adequate for demonstrating that proper operation and
maintenance procedures are being followed, and performance
specifications have already been developed for opacity
monitors.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-188) stated Section 60.58(b)(7)
gives the impression that results from the required' opacity
monitoring systems are not to be used to determine direct
compliance with the opacity standard. He said that the
experience in his State is that such use is essential for
enforcement of standards. The commenter felt the standards
should be changed to indicate that results from all monitoring
systems will be used to determine compliance with applicable
standards.
Response: It is true that opacity monitoring is required as
an indicator of excess PM emissions, whereas the other CEM
requirements (CO, S02, NOX) are required to indicate whether a
direct violation of the standard has occurred. Violation of
the opacity standard as measured by COMS could trigger a
Method 9 opacity reading or another PM test but would not be
considered a violation in and of itself. However, direct
enforcement of opacity standards can be done when opacity is
measured by Method 9 and found to violate the opacity limit.
Violation of the other CEM requirements would be a violation
of the standards and normal enforcement procedures would be
followed.
3-136
-------
One commenter (IV-F-3.1) suggested that opacity
should meet a level of 5 percent as measured by EPA Method 9
and 10 percent as measured by a transmissiometer.
Response: The Agency believes that opacity levels measured by
Method 9 and by transmissometer should be the same.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-111) thought reporting emission
levels at 7 percent O2 and a dry basis should only apply to
stack test data and not CEM data, otherwise data from each CEM
will need to be dependent on and integrated with the data from
an O2 CEM and a moisture CEM.
Response; A wide variation in the amount of air leakage has
been noted between MWC facilities. To correct for this
variation and to ensure that all MWC facilities are complying
with a uniform standard, it is necessary to require CEM
measurements to be adjusted to 7 percent 02.
Moreover, it is believed that to improve combustion
performance, most MWC's would install an O2 or CO CEM's
independent of the required regulatory requirements. In view
of this, it is not unreasonable to require CEM measurements to
be adjusted to 7 percent O2. This is commonly done with CEM's
at combustion sources. Costs for O2 monitors were included in
the Agency's control cost estimates.
comment-. * One commenter (IV-F-1.20) suggested that facilities
be required to keep a complete inventory of spare parts for
CEM's, and to require incineration units to be withdrawn from
service if malfunctioning CEM's are not repaired and
functioning within 24 hours.
Response : The standards require continuous monitoring for
specified pollutants and parameters and further require that
data be collected a minimum of 75 percent of the operating
hours per day and 75 percent of the days per month. While
data will typically be collected much more than 75 percent of
the time, if it falls below this, it is considered a violation
of the standards. These requirements are adequate to ensure
continuous monitoring without including specific provisions on
what spare parts must be kept. However, owners or operators
3-137
-------
may wish to keep spare parts or stack test equipment on hand
in order to meet the data collection requirements.
one commenter (IV-D-155) thought CEM requirements
should apply to all facilities equally. One commenter
(IV-p-1.19) stated small MWC plants should be subject to the
same continuous monitoring requirements as large MWC plants.
Response: The promulgated standards for MWC's with capacities
above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) require continuous monitoring for
S02, opacity, NOX/ CO, load, and temperature. Monitoring
requirements for small MWC's will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking for MWC's smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
Comment ; One commenter (IV-D-96) recommended the development
of requirements for continuous monitoring of control equipment
performance. The commenter stated that while it is not
possible to directly measure particulate and acid gas control
efficiency on a continual basis, it is possible to
continuously monitor and regularly report operational
parameters for the particulate and acid gas control devices.
Response ; The standards already require continuous monitoring
of control equipment performance through SO2 and opacity
CEM's. Continuous monitoring of SO2 will indicate performance
of the acid gas control system and compliance with MWC acid
gas standards, and continuous monitoring of opacity is an
index of PM (and MWC metals) emissions and the performance of
the PM control device. Specific values and procedures for
measuring the operating parameters of the control devices
(e.g., stoichiometric ratios) are not described in the
standards. Because control device performance is directly
monitored by the CEM's for S02 and opacity, the MWC owner or
operator may operate the controls however they choose as long
as the prescribed emission levels are being achieved.
Comment ; One commenter (IV-D-135) wanted continuous
monitoring of all regulated pollutants.
Response ; There are no technologies available to continuously
monitor some of those pollutants for which emission levels
have been specified in the standards (e.g., dioxin/furan, PM) .
Moreover, the standards specify surrogate pollutants or
3-138
-------
parameters to monitor as indicators of the regulated
pollutants (e.g., CO, load level, and temperature for MWC
organics, and opacity for MWC metals). These continuous
monitoring requirements in combination with annual stack tests
will ensure continuous emission reduction even though it is
not possible to continuously monitor all of the regulated
pollutants.
Comment! One commenter (IV-F-2.41) stated that enforcement of
the continuous emission requirements would be simplified if
operators were required to submit emissions data on a
computer-readable disk, rather than solely on paper.
Response t The Agency agrees that enforcement of the
continuous emission requirements would be simplified if
operators were required to keep CEM data in computer-readable
form. In view of this, the recordkeeping provisions of the
standards outlined in Section 60.59a have been modified to
\
specify that hourly CEM readings and reported averages of CEM
data must be retained on paper and in computer-readable form.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-27) was not convinced that
monitoring surrogates would give a true picture of actual
emissions. He felt a research program was needed to develop
CEM's for heavy metals, dioxin, and other toxic pollutants.
Response; Municipal waste combustors are being regulated
under Section 111 of the CAA, which is based on technology
performance, rather than Section 112, which is based on health
effects of individual toxic pollutants. Monitoring of every
pollutant is not needed to ensure control technology
performance. The monitoring provisions required by the
standard will provide a representative picture of control -
technology performance with regard to MWC metals and MWC
organics. As discussed in the proposal preamble, MWC metals
are associated with PM in the flue gas and are removed by PM
control devices. Achieving the prescribed levels of PM
control would result in greater than 97 percent control of the
range of MWC metals, including heavy metals. This regulatory
approach is more practical than setting separate limits for
each individual metal. Opacity can be monitored continuously
3-139
-------
and will indicate PM and metals emissions. Therefore,
continuous opacity monitoring in combination with annual PM
testing is an acceptable surrogate for monitoring heavy metal
emissions. There are no technologies for continuously
monitoring individual metals.
Likewise, although a CEM's for monitoring dioxin is not
presently available, requiring a dioxin/furan emission limit
and annual testing in conjunction with continuous monitoring
of GCP operating standards would ensure sufficient reduction
in dioxin and other MWC organic emissions to achieve
compliance levels.
comment! Several commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-128,
IV-D-235) thought that acid gas control is effectively
monitored using SO2 as an indicator. They stated that since
HC1 is always removed at greater rates than SC>2, annual
testing for HC1 is not needed.
Response; While S(>2 is a good indicator for acid gas control
technology performance, the results of the HC1 annual test
will provide additional assurance that all of the acid gases
are being controlled to the prescribed level. Furthermore,
because the MWC operator will have to perform annual tests for
PM and dioxins/furans, testing set-ups will be required on an
annual basis, and the additional cost of conducting a
performance test for HC1 at the same time is small.
3.8.3 Comments on Test Methods
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.3, IV-D-113) expressed
support for the option of correcting emission levels to a
percent C(>2 rather than 7 percent 02 on a dry basis. However,
the commenter felt the combustion relationship between 02 and
CC>2 has been well demonstrated and, therefore, verification at
the time of each stack test is not needed.
Response: Available data indicate that the exact relationship
between 02 and CC>2 varies between MWC's. Although a general
relationship between 02 and CO2 exists, this approximate
relationship is not sufficient to allow emission levels to be
corrected to 12 percent CO2 rather than 7 percent 02 on a dry
3-140
-------
basis without site-specific determination of the relationship
during testing.
flrminiftiThi Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155) said EPA should
specify that HC1 is only to be measured using Method 26 during
annual stack testing since there are no long-term data which
demonstrate the capability of continuous compliance with a
25 ppm or 95 percent removal limit. The commenter added that
if EPA certifies HC1 CEM equipment then EPA must determine the
appropriate emission limit. Four other commenters (IV-D-116,
IV-D-137, IV-D-138, IV-D-164) thought the HC1 compliance test
procedures and method are inconsistent with the emission
standards. They said the Method 26 compliance test is based
on three 1-hour tests, while the percent reduction and/or
emission guideline specifies that daily inlet and outlet HCl
emission rates be used. Two of the commenters (IV-D-137,
IV-D-138) thought Method 26 should only be used to determine
hourly HCl emission rates to establish the SO2 and HCl removal
correlation. The 24-hour SC>2 performance test should then
serve as the 24-hour HCl test.
Response: Concerning the HCl compliance procedures, no
specified averaging time is necessary. The measurement
protocol detailed in Method 26 requires a short-term stack
test as opposed to continuous monitoring. In view of this,
any references to an averaging time for HCl have been removed
from the final standards.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-2.40) stated that a substantial
portion of HCl emissions may be in aerosol form, therefore,
the HCl rule and test method should be rewritten to address
both HCl gas and hydrochloric acid aerosol.
Response; The Agency has compared Method 26 and Method 5,
sampling isokinetically, at an MWC and found that the two
methods gave the same results. However, at other MWC's where
the HCl aerosol may have a larger aerodynamic diameter,
isokinetic sampling may give higher HCl results than
Method 26. Therefore, we are continuing to assess the method
in this respect and are evaluating an isokinetic sampling
method for future use.
3-141
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-108) thought procedures to
determine uncontrolled emissions of S(>2 and HCl are
inadequate. He said for FBC's SO2 and HCl removal occurs in
the combustion bed so that it is not possible to conduct
emissions testing upstream and downstream of a control device.
Even for other types of combustors, some consideration must be
given to variability in the waste, if an MWC is operating
pursuant to the removal efficiency standard. The commenter
suggested at a minimum this should entail classification of
the waste at the time of emissions testing. This would enable
significant changes in waste composition to be identified, and
additional testing to be performed.
Response; The Agency agrees that where FBC's or furnace
sorbent injection is used, simultaneous acid gas control
device inlet and outlet values cannot be obtained and used to
calculate a percent reduction. However, alternate procedures
to demonstrate compliance can be used in these cases. Under
the General NSPS Provisions, "After receipt and consideration
of written application, the Administrator may approve
alternatives to any monitoring procedures or requirements of
this part" [see 40 CFR 60.13(i)]. Owners or operators of
MWC's may develop and apply to use alternative methods under
this provision. Alternatively, owners and operators of FBC's
could choose to comply with the 30 ppmv S02 and 25 ppmv HCl
limits rather than the percent reduction requirements.
In order to aid owners or operators of facilities using
FSI, a memorandum describing one potential procedure for
demonstrating compliance has been included in the docket (see
Docket A-89-08, Item No. IV-B-22). In general, the procedure
described in the memorandum involves measuring S02 emission
levels for a period of time without sorbent addition to
establish the uncontrolled emission level. The sorbent
injection system would then be turned on at predetermined
system operating conditions, and the resulting 803 level would
be recorded. The key operating conditions (e.g., sorbent feed
rate and flue gas temperature) during the test would also be
recorded. By repeating this procedure several times at
3-142
-------
different system operating conditions (e.g., different sorbent
feed rates) a relationship between measured outlet SO2
concentration and the key operating variables versus the
uncontrolled SO2 concentrations would be established.
Future compliance with the S(>2 percent reduction
requirements would be based on the measured outlet SC>2 level
and measured values of key control system parameters. This
data would then be compared to the data collected during the
compliance test to estimate the uncontrolled SC>2
concentration. The measured outlet S(>2 concentration and
estimated uncontrolled S(>2 concentration would then be used to
calculate S02 percent reduction and compliance with the
percent reduction requirement. In order to use this or other
alternative procedures, MWC owners or operators would need to
submit a written application as specified under 40 CFR
60.13(i).
Not operating the control device while testing in order
to demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction standard
could conflict with KSR provisions governing modifications to
major stationary sources. To avoid such a conflict, not
operating the control device for such purposes is exempted in
the final standards from being considered a "physical change
or change in the method of operation" for NSR purposes.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-124, IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-155) challenged the selection of Method 23 as the
compliance test method for dioxins/furans. One commenter
(IV-D-124) felt that EPA has not adequately addressed the
potential differences in results derived from Method 23, the
new dioxin/furan compliance test method, and the existing
population of regulatory test data. Others (IV-D-101,
IV-D-137, IV-D-138, IV-D-155) said all the dioxin/furan data
used to develop the proposed organic standards and guidelines
was collected using ASME modified Method 5 sampling and
analytical protocol. Method 5 specifies the use of a final
methylene chloride solvent rinse for sample recovery. In
contrast, Method 23 requires a final toluene solvent rinse.
They pointed out the EPA's own Method 23 evaluation studies
3-143
-------
show that the toluene rinse provides significantly greater
dioxin/furan results, primarily octa-chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Therefore, the use of
Method 23 with the toluene rinse could adversely impact a
source's compliance status. Another commenter (IV-D-154) said
EPA has reported there have been sampling and analytical
problems associated with measuring octa isomers. Two
commenters (IV-D-137, IV-D-138) stated EPA cannot develop a
guideline based on one test method and then require that
compliance be determined by another method.
Response; Although Method 23 requires a final toluene rinse,
it also requires that this QA rinse must be analyzed and
reported separately from the rest of the sample. The results
from the toluene rinse will not be used to determine the
compliance status of a source. It is, as its name implies a
QA measure, to demonstrate that sources are not emitting
significantly higher dioxins/furans than were measured using
methylene chloride as the rinse solvent. Because the results
from the toluene rinse are not used in determining compliance,
Method 23 is not inconsistent with the ASME protocol.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-137,
IV-D-155) said both Method 23 and the ASME protocol were
developed to obtain isomer specific results required for
health risk assessments, and that both methods are very
complicated and tremendously expensive for determining only
total dioxins/furans. They added that there are very few
laboratories in -North America that have the capability to
perform the analyses. They concluded that a simpler and less
costly method could be specified for determining compliance
with respect to a total dioxin/furan limit, but added that
this "simpler" method would need to be validated with respect
to the ASME protocol. However, one commenter (IV-D-101) said
there would not be a cost savings in many cases because
Method 23 would still be required by States for permit and
risk assessment use.
Response; The Agency believes it is important to retain the
capability of identifying individual isomers even though only
3-144
-------
total dioxins/furans are being regulated. In addition, as the
commenters noted, this is the method that was used to collect
the data on which the dioxin/furan limit is based. It would
be inconsistent to specify a different method unless a
consistent relationship between the two methods had already
been established. Of course it is always possible to request
an alternative method, but this is not the appropriate time
for this request. An application to use an alternative method
should be made after the compliance test method becomes final
and should be accompanied by supporting data.
Commenti Three commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-137, IV-D-155) said
one problem with Method 23 or the ASME protocol is that the
availability of the required isotopic QA/QC standards and EPA
audit samples may lead to problems and delays in completing
compliance tests.
Response: The Agency believes that there are adequate
supplies of both isotopically labeled standards and quality
assurance audit samples to prevent any unreasonable delays in
performing compliance tests.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-137, IV-D-155) said
EPA should clearly and definitively state in any final
compliance method that nondetectable levels of dioxins/furans
are treated as zero and not use the detection limit as an
actual value. This is consistent with the EPA's current
practice, and all of the EPA's data is used on this data
interpretation.
Response; Method 23 has been revised to clarify that
nondetectable levels are to be treated as zeroes.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-124, IV-D-155) said
that in Section 1 of Method 23 a new Section 1.3 should be
added to remind the users that this sampling method eliminates
any possibility of obtaining a vapor/particle distribution of
total dioxin/furan or any of the isomers or congeners.
Response: Method 23 has been revised to make it clear that
the method cannot determine a vapor/particle distribution of
dioxins and furans.
3-145
-------
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155) said that in
Section 5.1.1, it appears that the reference to "the
concentrate from Section 5.1.2" is really from Section 5.1.3.
Response; Section 5.1.1 has been revised to refer to
Section 5.1.3.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-116) reported that it had been
necessary to extend the sampling time required by EPA Method 5
for PM in order to capture enough PM to adequately measure PM
emissions from new MWC's. He said that the final PM limit
should not be any lower than the proposed limit (34 mg/dscm
[0.015 gr/dscf]) because much lower concentrations could not
be measured with the available test method.
Response: The PM standard for new MWC's will remain at
34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf). A PM standard at this level would
require a minimum sample of only 1.7 m3 (60 ft3) which could
be collected in less than 3 hours of testing.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-280) stated the time required to
collect the minimum sample volume of 3.4 m3 (120 ft3) for
Method 5 for PM is too long and cannot be met by some batch
MWC's. The commenter described a batch loaded modular starved
air MWC for which the total burn time is only about 5 hours.
with a stack velocity of 15 feet per second, a 1/2-inch
sampling nozzle, and a pressure of 78 kilopascals (11.3 psi),
the required sampling time could exceed 6 hours for the unit.
The commenter recommended the sampling volume be 0.85 m3
(30 ft3) (the old standard) or 1.7 m3 (60 ft3).
Response; The Agency agrees that 3.4 m3 (120 ft3) is a larger
sample than is necessary. The regulation is being revised to
require 1.7 m3 (60 ft3).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-108) stated that PM emissions
between 23 and 34 mg/dscm (0.01 and 0.015 gr/dscf) reported in
the literature frequently appear to be the result of
"modified" Method 5 testing. Therefore, he felt the modified
Method 5 should be used to determine compliance with the
34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) limit.
Response; The data examined in developing the PM limit were
collected using Method 5, and this is the appropriate test
3-146
-------
method. In general, samples collected using "modified" Method
5 are collected for determining emissions of organics such as
dioxins/furans. Because of the special handling requirements
associated with these samples, it is not possible to use these
same samples to determine compliance with the PM emission
limit. If "modified" Method 5 were used for both emissions
determinations, the organic emissions contained in the PM
sample would be driven off when the sample is heated up,
thereby compromising the validity of the dioxin/furan
measurements.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-104, IV-D-200,
IV-D-246) thought COM's should be specified as the compliance
method for opacity. Another commenter (IV-D-199) felt COM's
should be listed as an alternative method. He said Method 9
evaluations cannot be used accurately after dark, with
combined plumes or where sun angle and terrain create
obstructions. The others (IV-D-103, IV-D-104, IV-D-200) added
that visual observations are subject to interferences by
clouds, stack configurations, wind direction, and background.
They thought the 6-minute observation time tells very little
about the facility. The commenters said COM's are widely used
and inexpensive. They suggested given the 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) emission standard, a 5-percent opacity limit
should be set.
Response: Method 9 was selected as the compliance method
because it allows independent observation and flexibility for
the MWC operator and the Agency and State enforcement
personnel. By using this visual method, it is easy for
enforcement personnel to determine, even from an off-site
location, whether or not an MWC is in compliance and to take
actions based on their observations. The procedures outlined
in Method 9 do include specific instructions for visual
reading with regard to sun angle and terrain. However,
continuous monitoring of opacity is also required as stated in
Section 60.58a of the regulation. It is used as a continuous
indication of excess PM emissions. A level of 10 percent
3-147
-------
opacity can be achieved at MWC's and if this level is
exceeded, a problem usually exists.
3.9 ENFORCEMENT, REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR.EMISSIONS
3.9.1 Enforcement
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-188) said Section 60.59a(b)(5)
allows a facility to exclude CEM data from calculation of
averages provided a reason for the exclusion is given. He
felt this effectively gives the facility, not the Agency, the
authority to determine compliance with the standards. The
commenter thought all data should be required to be reported.
The facility could request exclusion of data but the Agency
should retain the authority to decide which data are used.
Response; Section 60.59a(b) requires that all valid emissions
data must be used in calculating the SO2 and NOX emission
rates. Also, Section 60-59a(b)(5) requires that the MWC owner
or operator identify all data excluded and the reasons for
excluding such data. If the reasons for excluding these data
are not considered sufficient, the enforcement officer has the
authority to require that such data be included in the
emission rate calculations.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) asked for
clarification of the enforcement provisions when CEM's show
exceedances of standard levels. The commenters asked who
oversees CEM calibration and CEM data on a continual basis.
They suggested telemetering CEM data instantaneously via
computer to EPA or the nearest government control agency.
Another commenter (IV-D-27) agreed and wanted 24 hours a day
unrestricted public access to the monitors.
Response; For SO2, NOX, and GCP operating parameters, the
compliance test method required and used for enforcement is
CEM's. The initial compliance test data and subsequent annual
compliance reports must be submitted to enforcement personnel
for review. The MWC owner or operator is also required to
submit Appendix F CEM QA specifications each quarter for
Agency review. All of these submitted emission data are
available to the public upon request. Additionally, the State
3-148
-------
agency can require any additional data reporting they think is
useful. If the reports of CEM data indicate violations of the
standards, they are enforced just like any other violation of
a standard.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-27) asked what measures would be
taken in the event the incinerator fails to comply with the
requirements. He said the industry record is replete with
plants operating on variances from day one. The commenter
wanted strict emission limits with harsh measures for
violators.
One commenter (IV-D-09) said severe penalties should be
levied against facilities that fail to meet the standards.
Response: If an MWC facility fails to meet the prescribed
emission limits, the Agency would balance the seriousness of
the violation against the potential impacts associated with
various remedies. One of the primary objectives of an
enforcement action is to prevent further noncompliance with
the emission limits, and this is often achieved by negotiating
a settlement agreement with the noncomplying source to ensure
that the source will achieve compliance. However, in cases of
continued and repeated noncompliance with the emission limits,
enforcement actions seeking severe penalties, such as shutdown
of the MWC, may be taken.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-119) asked EPA to establish a
protocol for MWC operators and permitting agencies to follow
in the event that MWC's meet all emission limits except the
limit for dioxins/furans. The commenter said vendors are very
reluctant to guarantee dioxin/furan levels, leaving MWC
owners, municipalities, and financiers in a risky position.
The commenter believed financing would not be obtainable,
unless investors were given reasonable assurance that MWC's
would not be shut down if dioxin/furan limits were exceeded.
They suggested that actions specified in the protocol should
include review of combustion conditions, improvements in
operating practices (if needed), and additional testing of
dioxin/furans to set a course of action to bring emissions
into compliance.
3-149
-------
Response; Available data support that the dioxin/furan
emission limits are achievable, and MWC's have been financed
in States that have permit limits for dioxins/furans.
Therefore, it is expected that financing will be available
even if vendor guarantees are not obtained. If an MWC
violates the standard, enforcement action would follow. In
taking enforcement action when violations of the standards
occur, the Agency would balance the seriousness of the
violation against potential impacts associated with various
remedies. Because one of the primary objectives of an
enforcement action is to prevent further noncompliance,
oftentimes a settlement is negotiated with the noncomplying
source to ensure future compliance.
Although no specific enforcement protocols have been
developed in the case of emission violations, actions such as
the ones suggested by the commenter are usually followed.
3.9.2 Reporting and Recordkeepinq
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-116) agreed with the
recordkeeping guidelines of collecting daily operational
information. However, the commenter thought that, in order
not to place an undue burden on State regulators, the
quarterly report should be a summary document rather than one
including operating data for all periods of compliance. The
commenter said the excess emissions quarterly report should be
sufficient to verify the 75-percent data collection
requirement.
Response; The quarterly compliance report requires only that
the following information be included: (1) any period where
emissions exceeded the standards, or where values of
monitoring parameters were in violation of the standards;
(2) results of all annual performance tests; and (3) all
average SC>2 emission rates and percent reduction values, 4-
hour average CO emission rates and temperatures, and 1-hour
average load levels calculated during the reporting period.
Each quarterly report would also include the results of the
daily CEM drift tests and quarterly accuracy determinations as
required under Appendix F, Procedure 1.
3-150
-------
The quarterly report is actually a summary report because
it requires submittal of only a summary of the averages for
the specified averaging period for each pollutant or parameter
.and information on any exceedances; individual data points
collected hourly are not included as part of this quarterly
report.
Because the 75-percent data collection requirement
applies to all of the OEM's requirements and not just opacity,
the excess emissions quarterly report would not be sufficient
to verify the 75-percent data collection requirement.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-266) thought the reporting
requirement was unreasonable. He said small facilities cannot
generate enough revenue to pay for report certification.
Response; Quarterly and annual reports are required by the
standards. However, no certification of the reports is
required. The recordkeeping and reporting burden for a
typical plant was estimated and considered reasonable.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-168, IV-D-222) thought that the
rules should accept a State's CEM reporting program as an
alternative to Federal requirements to avoid duplication of
reports being prepared.
Response: All information specified in the regulation must be
reported. If a State requires the same information, then the
same report could be used for both purposes. This will reduce
duplication of effort.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-27) contended that even a
20-year recordkeeping requirement is inadequate for monitoring
of long-term health effects. He pointed out the correlation
between adverse health effects and exposure to Agent Orange
was not identified until 24 years after the first spraying.
In addition, some health problems end up being of genetic
concern in the next generation. The commenter suggested
amending the recordkeeping requirements to 40 years.
Response; Municipal waste combustors are being regulated
under Section 111 of the CAA. The focus of this and other
NSPS developed under Section 111 is the performance of
emissions control technology, not long-term health impacts.
3-151
-------
The 2-year recordkeeping requirement is adequate for the
purpose of monitoring the performance of MWC emissions control
technology. Requiring records to be retained beyond this
2-year cutoff would prove burdensome for the MWC owner or
operator. However, if States feel that records should be
retained for longer than 2 years, they could include this
provision in their regulations.
3.10 START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-96, IV-D-169) supported the
limitation of 3 hours for excess emissions during start-ups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions. Another commenter (IV-D-153)
thought the 3-hour limit was appropriate for malfunctions and
shutdowns.
One commenter (IV-D-164) supported the 3-hour exemption
for malfunctions, but not for start-ups and shutdowns (see
following comment). Many commenters (IV-F-2.3, IV-F-2.30,
IV-D-101, IV-D-103, IV-D-104, IV-D-113, IV-D-116, IV-D-122,
IV-D-124, IV-D-137, IV-D-139, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-231,
IV-D-235) thought the 3-hour malfunction exemption is too
short. Four commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-155,
IV-D-257) said there was no analysis to support the 3-hour
maximum. Some commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-137, IV-D-155) felt
the choice appeared to be arbitrary and capricious and three
commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-154, IV-D-257) pointed out that no
other NSPS establishes a time limit. Another commenter
(IV-D-137) said EPA has not explained why 3 hours was chosen.
He asked what other time periods were considered and why they
were rejected.
One commenter (IV-D-124) said if the malfunction occurred
at the end of a shift, it will take more time to -fix because
the next operator will have to get acquainted with the
problem. He requested a 6-hour exemption.
Response; Under the General Provisions, NSPS apply at all
times, except during start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. The
MWC standards additionally place a limit of 3 hours per
occurrence on the time that a plant can claim an exemption
from standards due to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
3-152
-------
This provision will prevent unreasonably long periods of
operation at elevated emission levels.
In selecting the 3 -hour period, the Agency considered how
long it would reasonably take to correct the types of
malfunctions that may occur at MWC's. Most new MWC's will use
SD/FF control systems. Due to the configuration of these
systems, maintenance can be performed on-line to repair most
malfunctions, for example, replacing a rotary atomizer or
spray nozzle can be completed in less than 3 hours. If a bag
failure occurs, the compartment containing the failed bag can
be isolated and taken off-line for repair without requiring
complete shutdown of the MWC. If any malfunction would take
more than 3 hours to repair, the MWC could shut down to
complete the repair, but this would not be expected to occur
frequently. The 3 -hour limit is therefore reasonable for
malfunctions. The following comment and response discuss the
adequacy of the 3 -hour period for combustor start-up.
several commenters thought the 3 -hour exemption
period for start-ups and shutdowns is too short, or questioned
whether the time limits applied during start-up periods when
fossil fuels rather than MSW are fired. Four commenters
(IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) said fossil fuels are
used to bring the combustor up to temperature, which may take
6 hours. They said that during this time, no MSW is being
combusted; therefore, the unit should be exempt from the NSPS.
Another commenter (IV-D-153) felt the 3-hour limit was
reasonable for start-ups only if the timing commences when MSW
enters the combustor after the use of ignition fuels. Several
commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-113, IV-D-190, IV-D-195, IV-D-235)
thought start-up should include thermal warming as well as
attainment of steady state operating conditions.
Four commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-155, IV-D-257)
said compliance with emission limits as measured by OEM's
should not be required during an 8 to 12 hour start-up period.
They said that after the combustor is heated with fossil fuel
(which may take 6 hours) an additional 4 hours can be required
to bring the unit up to full load, during which time fossil
3-153
-------
fuel may also be fired. They explained that when both MSW and
fossil fuels are being combusted during start-up and stream
flow is increasing to maximum load, CO excursions are common.
Some CO excursions are related to operation of the fossil fuel
burner and not the combustion of MSW. Two commenters
(IV-D-101, IV-D-155) therefore recommended a start-up
exemption of 8 to 12 hours, while one commenter (IV-D-116)
recommended 12 to 16 hours. Two other commenters (IV-D-22,
IV-D-139) also thought an 8-hour exemption was reasonable.
Three commenters (IV-F-2.3, IV-D-113, IV-D-195) said most
of the combustion equipment has refractory construction and
slower rates of temperature change during start-up will
preserve equipment life. Two of these commenters (IV-D-113,
IV-D-195) thought perhaps up to 12 or 16 hours are needed.
The other commenter (IV-F-2.3) thought 5 hours were needed.
One commenter (IV-F-2.30) stated much more than 3 hours are
required for cure-out following reconstruction of a
refractory-lined incinerator. One commenter (IV-D-154) stated
cold start-up on large waste energy facilities takes 6 to
8 hours. In addition, if the NOX controls are installed on
the boilers, conflict develops between CO control, start-up
and NOX control. He said on most boilers the ammonia
injection nozzles on cold start-up would be located in the
area of the start-up burners. The commenter has found that by
putting the ammonia system on while the gas burners are still
firing tends to burn the ammonia and actually cause more NOX.
Therefore, he would recommend a longer start-up period.
One commenter (IV-D-164) said depending on combustor size
and design, start-up and shutdown could take 4 to 24 hours.
Another commenter (IV-F-2.15) stated that both start-up and
shutdown should be excluded from the CO requirements. Another
(IV-D-60) stated that CEM readings taken during start-up and
shutdown may not be of any value.
Response; The standards and guidelines allow a 3-hour
exemption period from emission requirements for start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction. The 3-hour exemption period starts
when continuous MSW feeding begins. Therefore, the time
3-154
-------
period the unit is being fired strictly on fossil fuels prior
to waste feeding is not included in the 3-hour exemption
period. The Agency examined characteristic start-up time
period of each MWC technology and determined that a 3-hour
exemption period after the commencement of continuous waste
feeding is reasonable. To comply with the continuous emission
limits at the end of the 3-hour exemption it is expected that
most units will be preheated with auxiliary fuel before
continuous waste feeding begins. Preheating with auxiliary
fuel will also allow the operator to control the rate of
temperature increase to preserve equipment life and comply
with the CO emission limit during the first averaging period
after the start-up exemption.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-104, IV-137,
IV-D-199, IV-D-200) recommended the 3-hour exemption period be
deleted. They suggested rather than including a specific time
limit, operators should be required to demonstrate that
reasons for noncompliance are due to start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction. It would be the operator's responsibility to
comply continuously with the NSPS. They thought allowing a
particular time period for noncompliance would only encourage
sources to claim violations were the result of a start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction. One commenter (IV-D-137) said the
general provisions of NSPS (40 CFR 60.8 and 60.11) provide
tough but reasonable requirements to regulate start-
up/shutdown and malfunction events and, therefore, a true
limit is unwarranted. However, if EPA required a time limit,
the commenter recommended it be 8 hours.
One commenter (IV-D-188) felt that all violations of the
standard should be considered as such, with enforcement
discretion being used to determine the EPA's response to the
violation. He said the cause of the violation does not
mitigate the effect on the public or environment, and ignoring
the violations will only add to the public's apprehension
concerning MWC's.
Response; As outlined in Section 60.7(c)(2) of the General
Provisions, each owndr or operator required to operate a CEM's
3-155
-------
shall submit a written report to include: "specific
identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs
during start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the affected
facility. The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known),
the corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted."
In the report, the owner or operator is required to explain
what caused the episode of excess emissions, why it could not
have been prevented, and what steps could be followed to
prevent a similar episode from happening again.
It is clear that if an episode of excess emissions
occurs, the owner or operator must prove that the MWC was
undergoing start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. The 3-hour
time limit will not encourage violations. Rather, it will
reduce the duration of emission exceedance levels by keeping
operators vigilant.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-121) asked what would keep an
unscrupulous operator from fabricating artificial malfunction
explanations for exceedances of emission limits. He thought
an analysis of the types and frequencies of start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction should have been done along with
measurements or estimates of emissions for specific episodes.
Response; In reviewing questionable data and claims of
malfunctions, enforcement personnel would consider the
frequency of the reported excess emissions episodes and
justifications of the malfunctions provided in the written
report required by the General Provisions. A recurring,
preventable exceedance of the emission limits would not be
considered a malfunction, and proper enforcement action would
be taken.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-D-03) expressed
concern over the lack of guidance during start-up and
shutdown. Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) stated there do
not appear to by any shutdown provisions except for during
annual stack testing. One commenter (IV-D-189) recommended
specifying an upper CO limit for start-up and shutdown so
there are national emission limits for all periods of
operation. •
3-156
-------
Response: The standards and guidelines allow a 3-hour
exemption period for start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. In
addition, the standards and guidelines require that start-up
and shutdown procedures are documented in an operating manual.
This provision will ensure that operators have guidance during
periods of start-up and shutdown. The CO emission limit for
continuous operation is commonly exceeded during periods of
start-up and shutdown. Special start-up and shutdown emission
limits could be established but defining limits which are
achievable cannot reasonably be done due to the diversity of
unit types and start-up/shutdown procedures. The need to
protect equipment against thermal stress and the need to
comply with the CO emission limits after the 3-hour start-up
exemption will require operators to use auxiliary fuel during
start-up and ensure that organic emissions are not excessive.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-3.1, IV-D-106, IV-D-117,
IV-D-146, IV-D-149, IV-D-150) stated the proposed regulations
should include a minimum temperature below which waste cannot
be introduced into the system and recommend that auxiliary
burners be required during start-up.
Response: In development of the 3-hour exemption period for
start-up, a minimum temperature and an auxiliary fuel
requirement were considered. The standards and guidelines do
not include a minimum temperature requirement or auxiliary
fuel requirement because it is expected that in order to
comply with the continuous emission limits at the end of the
3-hour exemption period, most units will be preheated with
auxiliary fuel.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-2r20,
IV-D-121, IV-D-191) recommended that EPA set a limit to the
number of start-up/shutdown cycles per year. They pointed out
that periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction are the
times when the maximum amount of pollutants are emitted. One
commenter (IV-D-191) stated the malfunction provision
exemption should be reduced from 3 to 2 hours and that no more
than 2 exceedances per year be allowed. She said additional
3-157
-------
exceedances should be treated as violations with hourly fines
or revocation of operating permits.
Two commenters (IV-D-183, IV-D-244) thought the
malfunction provision, which sets no limit to the number of
incidents, demonstrates to the public that incinerators are
complex and unreliable.
Response; It would be impossible to establish a limit on the
number of start-up/shutdown cycles allowed each year for
MWC's. The number of start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
cannot be predicted. The number can vary depending on many
factors, such as operation schedule, age of equipment, or
amount of MSW received. The General Provisions requires
written reports of exceedances during start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction. Each excess emission incident that is reported
will be reviewed individually to ascertain that is was indeed
a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction and that excess emissions
could not have been reasonably avoided.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-85) thought the malfunction
provision is a license to pollute.
Response; The malfunction provision is not a license to
pollute. Rather, this provision allows an exception in the
event of "any sudden or unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment or of a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner" as stated in the General
Provisions. Without this provision, brief emissions
exceedances due to equipment malfunction would cause a
facility to be in noncompliance. The malfunction provision
is 3 hours, which limits an MWC facility from emitting an
exorbitant amount of pollution. If any malfunction would take
longer than 3 hours to repair, the MWC could shut down to
complete the repair to avoid excessive emissions.
The General Provisions also specify that failures "caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation,
or any other preventable upset condition or preventable
equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions."
These provisions also specify that "at all times, including
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction," owners or
3-158
-------
operators shall operate and maintain the affected facility and
air pollution controls to minimize pollution.
3.11 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-232) stated that the Agency has
not complied with the RFA because EPA has neither performed an
IRFA nor certified that the proposed standards and emission
guidelines will not affect a substantial number of small
entities. The commenter feels that the technological
feasibility, cost, economic impact, and benefit analyses used
to support the standards and guidelines are not applicable to
MWC's with capacities less than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd). He said
that there are thousands of such facilities owned by small
entities; that some modular combustors smaller than 90 Hg/day
(100 tpd) may be owned by communities smaller than 50,000; and
that many private MWC operators may be small firms. He said
EPA did not properly analyze the scope and application of the
standards and emission guidelines, whose broad definitions of
MWC and MSW cover thousands of incinerators at shopping
centers, industrial sites, and apartment buildings. He
suggests exempting small facilities from the standards and
emission guidelines until adequate impact analyses have been
conducted. The commenter said that, as alternatives to the
proposed rules, the IRFA should discuss simplified compliance
and reporting requirements for small facilities, the use of
performance rather than design standards, and the exemption of
small MWC's from some or all of the requirements. The
commenter added that EPA failed to address the broader
question of how small local governments that do not now own a
MWC will be affected by the regulations in the future. He
said that although the regulations do list alternative ways of
disposing of MSW for small governments that cannot afford
incineration, the cost impacts for those options were not
analyzed. Finally, the commenter stated that although the
preamble says EPA has taken appropriate steps "to involve
small entities in the regulatory development process," the
commenter has found no evidence that representatives of small
entities were ever alerted to the requirements.
3-159
-------
Response; The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Public
Law 96-354, September 19, 1980) requires consideration of the
impacts of regulations on small entities, which are small
businesses, small organizations, and small governments. The
major purpose of the RFA is to keep regulatory requirements
from getting out of proportion to the scale of the entities
being regulated, without compromising the objectives of, in
this case, the CAA. If a regulation is likely to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA may give special consideration to those small
entities when analyzing regulatory alternatives and drafting
the regulation. Small businesses are identified by the Small
Business Association general size standard definitions. For
Standard Industrial Code 4953, Refuse Systems, small business
concerns are those with annual gross revenue less than
$6 million per year. Small organizations are not directly
affected by the final regulations. A small government is
defined by the RFA to be one with a population less than
50,000. These definitions are flexible.
Subsequent to proposal of the standards and emission
guidelines, the Agency added a lower size cutoff that answers
the commenter's concerns. Municipal waste combustion units
less than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are not covered by the
standards and emission guidelines.
The Agency knows of only one planned MWC that will be
owned by a small business and that will have a capacity
between 35 and 90 Mg/day (39 and 100 tpd), and projects from
this information that the number of planned small business
MWC's affected by the standards is insubstantial or zero. The
Agency knows of fewer than five existing MWC's that are owned
by small businesses and that have capacities between
35 and 90 Mg/day (39 and 100 tpd), and projects from this
information that the number of existing small business MWC's
affected by the emission guidelines is insubstantial or zero.
The Agency, believes that no small government has or will
be building an MWC that would be covered by the standards or
emission guidelines. Most MWC plants have two or more MWC
\
3-160
-------
units. This means that for all practical purposes the
smallest size MWC plant that will be affected will have a
capacity of 450 Mg/day (500 tpd). A 450 Mg/day (500 tpd) MWC
plant would serve a community of 200,000, assuming each person
generates 1.8 kg (4 Ib) of municipal solid waste per day,
recycles nothing, and sends all municipal solid waste to the
MWC, which would be operated at 80 percent of capacity.
The Agency therefore concludes that the standards and
emission guidelines will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
3.12 WORDING OF REGULATION
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-108) felt the definition of the
phrase "condensible metals associated with particulate matter"
was not clear. The commenter asked what are noncondensible
metals and what condensible metals are not associated with PM.
The commenter also wanted clarification on the definition of
organic compounds. He asked whether it includes CO, and
whether organic compounds may exist as solids or liquids or be
a constituent of PM.
Response; The word "condensible" has been deleted from the
final definition of "MWC metals.1? All metals emitted from
MWC's are included in the term "MWC metals."
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-153) pointed out that
Section 60.59a(b)(7) requires recordkeeping of mercury
emissions, yet there is no specific limitation or monitoring
requirement for mercury emissions. He suggested the section
should be deleted.
Response; The reference to recordkeeping for mercury
emissions has been deleted from Section 60.59a, since the
standards do not include mercury emission limits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-137) said definitions of start-
up, shutdown, and malfunction events should be incorporated
into the standard which clearly state that the standards do
not apply when only fossil fuels are being combusted and which
clarify whether the standards apply when fossil fuels and
refuse are being combusted together.
3-161
-------
Response; The definitions for what qualifies as start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction events are defined specifically in
Section 60.2 of the General Provisions. The standards do not
apply when only fossil fuels are being combusted. However.,
the standards do go into effect when MSW is introduced into
the combustor.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) said the proper title for
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ea should be "Standards of Performance
for "Municipal-Type" Waste Combustors." The commenter said
the title as stands could erroneously lead regulated
facilities to believe that they are not included.
Response: The types of sources covered by the standards are
clearly described in the definition of "municipal waste
combustor" found in Section 60.51a of the regulation. The
definition of MSW has also been clarified in the final
standards. Changing the title of the subpart to read
"municipal-type waste combustor" would not necessarily clarify
the description of the regulated affected facility.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-149) recommended that in
Section 60.58a citation of the initial performance testing
Methods 6 through 6C and 7 through 7E be added to
paragraphs (d)(4) and (f)(5), respectively.
Response; Because OEM's for both S02 and NOX are required to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the prescribed emission
rates, the Agency believes that MWC facilities would use the
OEM tests outlined in Method 19 to determine initial
compliance. There is no need to specify alternative methods.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-188) stated that
Section 60.5&a(d)(8) apparently refers to the wrong paragraph,
(d)(5), instead of paragraph (d)(6) and the wrong units,
Ib/hr, instead of ppm.
Response; The Agency agrees with the commenter that
Section 60-58a(d)(8) in the proposed regulation should have
referred to paragraph (d)(5) instead of paragraph (d)(6).
This reference has been changed in the equivalent paragraph of
the final standards.
3-162
-------
In addition, the conunenter is correct in pointing out
that it is more appropriate to calculate the 1-hour averages
for S(>2 in units of ppm rather than Ib/hr. Units calculated
in ppm are more appropriate because the SC>2 emission limit is
either 30 ppmv or the specified percent emission reduction.
Therefore, in the final standards, the units have been changed
from Ib/hr to ppm.
3-163
-------
4.0 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS - MATERIALS SEPARATION
4.1 SELECTION OF MATERIALS SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS
4.1.1 Percent Separation
Commentt Some commenters (IV-F-1.32, IV-F-3.1, IV-D-16,
IV-D-55, IV-D-73, IV-D-88, IV-D-95, IV-D-178) were in favor of
the 25-percent materials separation requirement as proposed.
Some commenters (IV-D-83, IV-D-114, IV-D-173, IV-D-193,
IV-D-203, IV-D-215) thought that 25 percent was a reasonable
and achievable requirement. Some commenters (IV-D-87,
IV-D-142, IV-D-160, IV-D-205, IV-D-208, IV-D-210, IV-D-239)
expressed general support for the materials separation
provisions.
Response; The Agency believes that the 25 percent materials
separation is technically achievable by communities using
municipal waste combustors. Achievability was not an issue
which led to the Agency deciding not to require materials
separation as part of BDT. As explained in the preamble, it
was the uncertainty over the net benefits of materials
separation, and the potential impacts of the requirement if
those benefits did not materialize as anticipated that led the
Agency to decide not to require materials separation as part
of BDT.
Comment; A vendor of separation equipment (IV-F-1.30 and
IV-D-268) said that their mechanical separation processes have
been demonstrated to separate and recover over 25 percent of
mixed MSW by removing metal, glass, dirt, and wet organics.
The commenter added that hand sorting of boxboard, newsprint,
and plastics would increase recovery, and that one such
facility using mechanical and hand separation currently
recovered 35 percent of incoming waste. Another industry
4-1
-------
commenter (IV-F-1.34) said their RDF process achieves greater
than 25 percent separation by removing noncombustibles.
Another vendor (IV-D-42) said that mechanical processes are
less costly than curbside programs and said that their process
achieves 85 percent separation using the materials for RDF,
mulch, or feedstock for ethanol production; but other
commenters (IV-D-191 and IV-D-282) said that RDF must not be
made out of the separated components that are given credit.
However, other commenters (IV-D-68, IV-D-141) said that
operators of mass burn MWC's do not have the technical means
to mechanically separate 25 percent of the waste and that the
goal can only be achieved through community programs. Another
(IV-D-138) said that technology is inadequate to achieve
25 percent reduction and that separation systems are costly
and most MWC's do not have adequate space to install such
systems. One commenter (IV-D-153) said that EPA has not
adequately addressed the shortcomings of mechanical (on-site)
separation since mechanical systems are not capable of
separating paper or plastics by specific type (e.g., paper
grade or resin type) and since paper products separated with
such systems would likely be too contaminated to recycle.
Others (IV-D-174, IV-D-209) also said source separation
produces clean, more marketable materials than mechanical
on-site separation systems. Commenter IV-D-140 said that
separation of paper from unsorted trash yields a product that
is contaminated and not very marketable and that it will be
difficult for centralized systems separating unsorted waste to
reach 25 percent if the percentages of glass and metals in the
waste of that area are much less than average.
Response; The Agency believes that 25 percent separation is
technically achievable in a variety of ways. Curbside source
separation programs are generally more effective in recovering
certain materials such as newspapers or office papers because
they produce a clean, marketable material with minimum
contamination. However, specific separation requirements are
not required in the final rule.
4-2
-------
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-3.11, IV-F-3.13, IV-D-42,
IV-D-129) said that all MWC's should be required to employ
front-end processing to separate materials from the waste
stream regardless of the extent of community separation. One
commenter (IV-F-3.11) said that such processes are the only
way to effectively remove hazardous materials from the waste
stream since household hazardous waste collection programs do
not capture all of these materials. Commenter IV-D-129 said
that front-end processing is needed to maximize recycling
since some waste going to MWC's may come from communities with
low compliance. Two commenters (IV-D-168, IV-D-191) advocated
that household hazardous waste collection programs be required
in addition to the requirements proposed.
Response; Although there is no materials separation program
required under the rule, the Agency supports such separation
efforts whether at the front-end or through community
collection programs.
Comment: Several commenters said that 25 percent is too low:
(a) Some (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-1.27, IV-F-1.28, IV-F-2.38,
IV-F-2.40, IV-F-2.51, IV-D-07, IV-D-105, IV-D-217, IV-D-227)
said that 50 percent or more separation should be required,
and one (IV-F-2.24) suggested a level of 75 percent.
Commenter IV-D-151 said that 90 percent is easily achievable
and that the minimum requirement should be 60 percent.
Another (IV-D-191) also suggested a minimum of 60 percent.
(b) Others (IV-F-1.18, IV-F-1.22, IV-F-2.46, IV-F-2.52,
IV-D-53, IV-F-2.57, IV-D-121, IV-D-136) cited information
showing that 75 percent or more of the waste stream is
theoretically recyclable or compostable, and concluded that
EPA should require that 100 percent of all recyclable
materials be recycled rather than combusted or landfilled.
(c) Some commenters (IV-F-2.38, IV-F-2.44, IV-D-56,
IV-D-105) said that recycling results in less air, land, and
water pollution, less energy use, and less health risk than
combustion of recyclable materials. They, therefore,
concluded that more of the waste stream should be recycled and
less (or no waste) should be combusted.
4-3
-------
(d) Others (IV-F-1.21, IV-F-1.23, IV-F-2.6, IV-F-2.41,
IV-F-2.50, IV-F-2.52, IV-F-3.12, IV-D-26, IV-D-57, IV-D-59,
IV-D-118, IV-D-201, IV-D-298) did not specify a percent
reduction target, but said that it should be greater than
25 percent and that incineration should be reduced to a
minimum.
(e) One commenter (IV-D-56) said that a level of
25 percent or less would encourage the construction of larger
MWC's than will be needed once markets for recyclables are
developed.
(f) One commenter (IV-D-246) said the 25-percent should
be an absolute minimum with higher targets set for the future,
with review and possible revision in 5 years.
One commenter (IV-F-1.12) thought that his State would
not have difficulty meeting the 25-percent reduction level.
However, other commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-D-174) countered
point (b) by saying that 100 percent of recoverable materials
is not recyclable on a long-term basis. They said, for
example, that there is a limited number of times paper can be
recycled and a limited maximum recycled content of some paper
products because fibers weaken each time paper is recycled.
They and Commenter IV-D-148 said that some of the paper in MSW
is contaminated and not usable for recycling and that it is
logical to combust this material as fuel. Another (IV-F-1.32)
said that recycling 100 percent of anything is impractical
because there will always be individuals who will not
participate in recycling. Other commenters (IV-D-31,
IV-D-107) opposed the 25-percent materials separation as a
permit condition citing instances where 25 percent recycling
goals were set but have not been met. Commenter IV-D-101
said that only a handful of communities have achieved
25 percent. One commenter (IV-D-116) requested that
documentation be presented to verify that a number of cities
are already achieving the 25-percent materials separation
requirements. This commenter felt that 25 percent is a
reasonable level for 1994, but many communities cannot achieve
that level much sooner. Commenter IV-D-138 felt that
4-4
-------
25 percent reduction is feasible for particular communities,
but not for all communities. This commenter said that
achieving 25 percent is more a function of community
demographics than of the effectiveness of a particular type of
recycling program. The commenter added that communities with
a low proportion of yard waste in the waste stream would have
a difficult time meeting 25 percent. Another
commenter (IV-D-175) supported a goal of 25 percent separation
but said that the need for source separation should be
evaluated on a site-specific basis. The commenter said that
clean supplies of various grades of paper are needed by
manufacturers, but was concerned that the proposed
requirements would result in large quantities of low grade
mixed paper.
Response; ThejiAgency evaluated case studies of materials
separation programs at several communities in the United
States with different locations, populations, and program
strategies. These case studies showed that 25 percent
separation is technically achievable. Although some
communities have achieved separation rates higher than
25 percent, the Agency feels that a level of 25 percent is
.technically achievable on a nationwide basis.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.7) said that while they
supported a minimum level of 25 percent materials separation,
urban areas should be required to achieve a greater percent
reduction than lower population areas since curbside materials
separation programs are more feasible and cost-effective in
highly populated areas. The commenter said urban areas should
be required to achieve 40 percent materials separation in the
short term and 50 percent in the long term. In rural areas
where centralized drop-off centers are often the most feasible
strategy, a lower percent reduction should be required.
Commenter IV-D-187 said that 25 percent should be a minimum,
but higher levels should be required in areas with higher
concentration levels. One commenter (IV-D-133) said the
materials separation requirements should be phased in,
4-5
-------
starting in those areas with the greatest waste problems such
as the Northeast.
In contrast, others (IV-F-1.10, IV-F-3.1, IV-D-103)
thought that the 25-percent requirement should apply uniformly
to all areas.
Response: The 25-percent separation has been demonstrated to
be an achievable performance level in a variety of large and
small, urban and rural communities. Thus, the Agency believes
that 25 percent is a technically achievable level across a
wide range of communities. However, questions concerning
whether (a) materials separation will achieve net energy,
economic and non air quality environmental benefits, (b) such
programs are appropriate in a particular community, and (c)
the appropriate performance target for a given program will
depend on a number of variable factors that are appropriate
issues to be raised in individual BACT determinations.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.13, IV-D-71, IV-D-167)
thought that any percent reduction level will be too low for
some communities and too high for others and said that the
requirements should be flexible. Commenters IV-D-167 and
IV-D-171 said that 25 percent would be unachievable in some
cases and such efforts should be left up to individual States
or localities. Commenter IV-D-71 suggested that EPA should
either pick a lower percent reduction level to minimize the
consequences to communities that will have difficulties in
meeting higher levels or, better yet, to just state that
25 percent is a goal and urge communities to achieve higher
reductions if possible. Some commenters (IV-D-126, IV-D-184,
IV-D-222) also thought that the 25-percent reduction should
just be a goal to be consistent with State programs and
provide flexibility in integrated waste management programs.
Some commenters (IV-D-31, IV-D-70, IV-D-167) said the proposed
requirements were too inflexible for real-life situations and
do not give an alternative for communities that just do not
achieve the full percent. Commenter IV-D-282 said that EPA
had rejected the judgment of many States that rigid percentage
requirements are unacceptable and that goals "were preferable.
4-6
-------
Commenter IV-D-166 opposed a specific separation requirement,
but said that if a specific target must be set, 15 percent is
more reasonable since the nationwide rate is presently only
about 10 percent. Commenter IV-D-155 said that 25 percent is
the uppermost limit of achievability on a national basis.
However, another (IV-D-125) said that 25 percent should
be the minimum level required, but that the goal should be
higher.
Response; As noted, the Agency has examined a variety of
materials separation programs and believes that 25 percent
separation is technically achievable on a national basis,
although for other reasons, as noted in the preamble, a
materials separation requirement is not included as part of
the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-282) said that EPA should be
flexible in evaluating each MWC's separation plan. The
commenter said that factors such as the urban or rural nature
of the community, the type of waste received, the availability
of markets, and the existence of local voluntary or mandatory
recycling programs should be considered in evaluating the
plan. The commenter thought that if there is a reasonable
likelihood of achieving the 25-percent goal and the MWC
follows the steps in the plan, the MWC should be deemed in
compliance regardless of the waste actually separated.
Response; The Agency has examined materials separation
programs in different types of communities and has found that
25 percent separation is technically achievable. However,
since no specific separation requirement is mandated,
facilities or communities are free to tailor their program to
fit their particular community's characteristics.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-108) supported mandatory
separation but thought that the achievement of any specific
level was of secondary concern since the level could be
evaluated for individual MWC's on a case-by-case basis under
the PSD program.
Response: The Agency believes that materials separation is an
important part of any solid waste management program.
4-7
-------
However, the Agency has not required 25 percent separation as
part of best demonstrated technology for MWC's. The
appropriateness of separation requirements for individual
facilities can be considered as part of the PSD permitting
process.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-11) said that the regulations
should consider a phase-in approach to implementing materials
separation and that the EPA's schedule for phasing in the
requirements and percent reduction levels should be consistent
with the States' schedules. Some commenters (IV-F-1.9,
IV-F-2.31, IV-F-3.7, IV-F-3.13, IV-D-56, IV-D-103, IV-D-104,
IV-D-146, IV-D-186, IV-D-199, IV-D-200, IV-D-238) referred to
specific States or cities that already achieve about
25 percent and have goals to increase the percent recycled to
40, 50, or 60 percent over the next 5 to 10 years. They
suggested that stricter rules should be phased in over time.
Commenter IV-D-191 thought that MWC's should be required to
separate 60 percent before start-up and 75 percent within
3 years. One commenter (IV-D-187) thought that the level
should start at 25 percent and increase 1 percent per year for
60 years. Commenter IV-D-103 thought that EPA should evaluate
the effectiveness of the separation requirement at each 4-year
review of the NSPS, and modify as appropriate.
Commenter IV-D-181 said that EPA should set a goal of
10 percent recycling by 1995 increasing to 15 percent by 2000
and 20 percent by 2005.
Another commenter (IV-D-153) thought that the
requirements should require 15 percent separation by 1996
which would increase by 5 percent per year for each of the
following 2 years.
Response; EPA has decided not to mandate materials
separation. However, for purposes of cost analysis, the
Agency identified a phase-in schedule it believed was
reasonable. After consideration of these comments, the Agency
examined several "successful" programs to consider how much
time was necessary to achieve 25 percent separation. Although
the number of sites considered was limited, the analysis
4-8
-------
demonstrated that about 2 years are necessary to get started,
1 year to get through the political decision-making processes
necessary to implement a program, and the second year to
purchase equipment, build facilities, and establish the
necessary local ordinances. (The Agency assumed for
analytical purposes that a curbside collection program will be
instituted to comply with the proposed requirement.) As a
general rule, these successful programs achieved increasing
levels of separation in stages, beginning with the separation
of yard wastes, establishing curbside separation in primary
residential areas, and the location of some drop-off centers
in the first year. Separation is increased in the second year
through the establishment of more drop-off centers, extending
curbside pick up to all single-family residential areas, major
grocery/retail stores and administrative businesses, and
initiating documentation or implementation of cardboard and/or
office paper recycling. In the third year, curbside
separation is extended to multifamily residences (apartments,
highrises), and small businesses are contacted to initiate
recycling of cardboard, glass, cans, paper, etc.
As a result of this analysis, the Agency developed a
phased-in schedule where during the first full calendar year,
15 percent weight reduction of MSW through materials
separation could be met. For the second calendar year, a
typical program could achieve 20 percent reduction, and
25 percent reduction could be achieved in the third full
calendar year and each subsequent year.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.47) suggested that because of
variations in waste stream composition in different areas,
each community should be required to conduct a detailed
analysis of their waste and establish a reduction level (not
less than 25 percent) they can meet. Commenter IV-D-106
thought that a waste composition study should be required for
all MWC permit applicants. »
Another commenter (IV-F-1.8) agreed with the 25-percent
reduction level as a minimum, but added that specific
4-9
-------
facilities should be required to show how much above the level
they can achieve.
Response; The 25-percent reduction level is technically
achievable on a nationwide basis although for other reasons
materials separation was determined not to be BDT on a
nationwide basis. However, individual facilities may want to
initiate waste composition studies to obtain valuable
information that can be used in planning separation programs
such as information on available markets, local scrap prices
and other factors. An evaluation of these factors on a case-
by-case basis in the context of a permit proceeding is
appropriate to determine if materials separation represents
best technology for a particular source when other factors
such as costs and nonair environmental impacts are considered.
Comment; In response to the question of whether standards
should require separation of specific materials versus an
overall percent, some commenters (IV-F-1.10, IV-D-51,
IV-D-140, IV-D-146, IV-D-155, IV-D-205, IV-D-238, IV-D-246)
favored the local flexibility provided by an overall
percentage. Commenter IV-D-205 said that to target specific
materials, much information must be gathered concerning the
composition of the waste and this is costly. Two commenters
(IV-D-146, IV-D-238) said materials specific rates would be
difficult to set, track, and enforce. One commenter (IV-D-70)
suggested that operators should be given some latitude in
selecting what items will be recycled based upon volume,
financial impact, cost, and market factors. One commenter
(IV-D-138) opposed materials specific requirements since they
would artificially create oversupplies of materials that do
not match demand. The commenter said this would also stifle a
regions' ability to take advantage of local demand conditions.
However, other commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-114)
suggested that specific percent separation levels for select
materials be required, rather than an overall percentage. One
commenter (IV-D-114) felt that while the flexibility of an
overall percentage requirement may be desirable in some
respects because of differing waste composition and differing
4-10
-------
markets on a national level, many communities might resort to
just a few easily separated materials such as yard waste and
newspapers to meet their goal. The commenter also said that a
reliance on a combustible waste such as newspapers could lower
the combustibility of the waste, thereby necessitating the use
of supplemental fuel or other MSW components such as plastics.
These commenters said that this will not achieve the goal of
removing materials which contribute to the greatest risk from
MWC's. In addition, the commenters said that while the use of
old newspapers is increasing, it takes several years to build
new capacity to use the materials, and rapid growth in supply
may lead to market gluts in the interim. The commenters
suggested that at least three types of material from a list
which could include specific products (such as old newspapers,
office paper, corrugated and others in the paper category)
should be separated. They said that requiring separation of
multiple materials would help to protect against large market
swings which would likely result from reliance on a few
particular items.
Response; An overall percent reduction requirement provides
facilities maximum flexibility in separating materials
according to local market conditions. Determining percent
reductions for specific materials would be more difficult to
measure since this requires knowledge of the percent of each
material in the initial waste stream. This may be
impractical.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.47, IV-D-238) said that all
yard waste should be banned from MWC's because it causes
combustion problems and NOX emissions.
Response; The Agency feels that any materials separation
program developed by a community is likely to include a
significant yard waste separation component as a part of its
program. Once yard waste separation and composting programs
are implemented by a community, the Agency believes that these
will be a significant reduction in the amount of yard waste
that will be taken to an MWC, thereby further reducing
potential NOx emissions from that source. However, the
4-11
-------
appropriateness of a specific separation program is being left
to individual permitting decisions.
Comment; Commenter (IV-D-xx) felt that EPA should target for
incineration only those materials which are combustible, but
nonrecyclable and do not contain metal additives or chlorides.
This commenter and commenter (IV-D-yy) said that the MWC
should assure that the following items are separated: glass,
metals, construction debris, all batteries, plastics
containing metals or chlorides, chlorinated paper, and food
and yard wastes.
Response; The Agency agrees that MWC owners and operators and
communities should strive to separate noncombustible materials
prior to combustion, and this will aid in compliance with the
emission standards. However, no specific materials separation
requirements are included in the standards, whether for
combustibles or noncombustibles.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-98) thought that only local
governments that document 25 percent waste reduction should be
allowed to incinerate MSW. This commenter felt that local
governments and its citizens have more incentives to reduce
waste, and they should be responsible for waste reduction
instead of the MWC operator, especially since the MWC operator
depends on certain amount of waste to fuel the MWC.
Response; The final standards do not require materials
separation. However, as noted in the proposal, the question
of responsibility for complying with any requirement of the
NSPS is constrained by statute. Under Section 111 of the CAA,
"it is unlawful for any owner or operator of any new source to
operate in violation of any standard of performance." In the
case of sources which may be required to undertake materials
separation (as a result of an individual determination that
materials separation represents BACT for that source), it is
expected that many MWC's will rely on community separation
programs to comply in whole or in part with the requirements.
EPA structured the requirements in the proposal so that in
cases where the MWC sought to rely on another party to do the
materials separation, other parties could become co-operators
•
4-12
-------
for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the
materials separation provisions.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-277) said that many
States already have goals or mandates for various levels of
recycling which are tailored to the needs of the individual
State. The commenter felt that the EPA's approach is not
sensitive to waste management difficulties on a community
level, and EPA should not mandate regulations that hinder
State programs.
Responset As the final regulations do not set a specific
performance standard for materials separation, they will not
hinder State or local waste management programs. It should be
noted, however, that even if a 25 percent standard had been
established it would not have interfered with state programs.
EPA's proposal set a minimum percent reduction that is
demonstrated to be achievable for MWC's and allowed
flexibility in terms of the specific materials separated the
techniques used for separation and the methods used to
demonstrate compliance. A State or local agencies can design
and implement a separation program in a way they believe is
best for that application and consistent with state goals and
permit requirements. Nothing in the proposal limited that
flexibility except to ensure that it met or exceeded the
25-percent separation requirement.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.22, IV-F-1.31) said that
requiring levels of only 25 percent separation will encourage
the proliferation of more MWC's which will make it more
difficult to achieve higher levels of recycling. However,
another commenter (IV-F-1.32) thought that people would begin
to recycle more than 25 percent once markets for recyclable
materials improve and people realize that recycling reduces
costs.
Response; As noted above, the finding that 25 percent is
technically achievable is on a nationwide basis and is based
on EPA's evaluation of the performance of several materials
separation programs in the United States. Since EPA has not
included the 25 percent requirement in the final rule, whether
4-13
-------
higher levels are appropriate for given communities, and
whether materials separation will have overall environmental,
economic and energy benefits is a matter best determined on a
case-by-case basis. The Agency anticipates that communities
considering construction of an MWC will take into account the
appropriate role of materials separation as a component of its
solid waste management plan. As described in the "Agenda for
Action," MWC's are a valid and necessary part of integrated
waste management. Nevertheless, while source reduction and
recycling are preferred waste management options, not all
materials can be recycled, and disposal will be required.
Given that many landfills are nearing capacity and there is a
shortage of available space, MWC's"are needed to reduce the
volume of waste prior to landfilling. Combustion of MSW also
provides the benefit of electric energy production.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-71) said that charging
households for the marginal costs of waste disposal (such as
charging per unit of waste disposal) is preferable to setting
a mandatory percentage separation requirement. This commenter
added that this approach works well to encourage recycling in
large and small communities.
Response; Charging households for the marginal cost of
disposal is an option for the local waste management
authority. Communities with MWC's may find it advantageous to
adopt such a strategy as a method to promote materials
separation and waste reduction, but the financial aspects
local waste management programs are best left in the hands of
local officials.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-163, IV-D-282) said that some
wastes from commercial or industrial.establishments in certain
cases may contain a high proportion of nonrecyclable materials
(e.g., sludge, wastes from industrial APCD's, demolition
debris, empty cans coated with tar, dirt from contaminated
underground storage tank cleanups, asbestos), and in such
cases EPA should exempt these wastes from the requirement or
require a lower percent separation level.
4-14
-------
Response: EPA is not requiring any level of separation in
today's rules. In any event, industrial process and
manufacturing wastes, construction and demolition debris,
sludges, and dirt are not considered MSW under the final
standards, and combustion of industrial wastes alone is not
covered under the NSPS. Furthermore, since the NSPS currently
being promulgated only covers MWC's with unit capacities above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) with a fuel feed containing more than
30 percent (by weight) or MSW or RDF, many combustors at
industrial sites will not be covered.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-181) said that EPA is assuming
that the composition of solid waste will remain constant, but
new packaging materials may not be recyclable in the future
and achieving a specified level of recycling may become more
difficult.
However, another commenter (IV-D-186) said that higher
recycling goals will become easier to achieve since
manufacturers will be making products which are easier to
recycle.
Response; Public concerns about the environment are
continually encouraging manufacturers and businesses to reduce
the amount of packaging needed and to develop products and
packaging which are recyclable and/or composed of recycled
materials. The Agency expects this trend to continue and
believes that such efforts will increase the efficacy of
recycling MSW materials in the future.
4.1.2 Lead-Acid Vehicle Battery Prohibition
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.27, IV-F-1.30, IV-F-2.3,
IV-F-2.30, IV-F-2.39, IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.52, IV-F-3.1,
IV-F-3.12, IV-D-57, IV-D-62, IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-111,
IV-D-113, IV-D-117, IV-D-134, IV-D-146, IV-D-184, IV-D-186,
IV-D-191, IV-D-205, IV-D-246, IV-D-268) said the prohibition
on combustion of lead-acid vehicle batteries should be
retained because it reduces lead emissions to the air and lead
content of MWC ash. Some (IV-F-1.30, IV-D-105, IV-D-117,
IV-D-268) cited a study showing that the small percentage of
lead-acid vehicle batteries that are not recycled and are
4-15
-------
received at MWC's contain over 50 percent of the lead in the
waste combusted at MWC's. Commenter IV-D-105 also recommended
that the standard include best available technology for long-
term storage of batteries.
Response: The Agency supports the position that lead acid
batteries should not be introduced into an MWC. However, the
prohibition on their combustion has not been retained in the
final standards for reasons discussed in detail in the
preamble to the final rule.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.39, IV-F-2.40, IV-F-2.45,
IV-F-2.47, IV-D-219) said that all lead-acid batteries should
be subject to a deposit system. Commenter IV-D-205 said that
their State had a successful deposit/return system for
automobile batteries, and 95 percent are recycled. One
commenter (IV-F-2.39) said that they should not be incinerated
regardless of whether the heavy metals in the batteries are
reused are not. This commenter said that the primary
rationale should be to prevent the heavy metals from entering
the air or contaminating the ash. Commenter IV-D-170,
however, opposed deposit/return systems saying they impose
costs on consumers and retailers and have little impact. But,
the commenter favored a mandatory take-back system which would
require everyone in the recycling chain to take back used
batteries. The commenter said that a ban on combustion or
landfilling is preferable to mandatory deposit/return systems
and is less costly. The commenter said that used lead-acid
batteries are a source of valuable materials.
Response; Deposit/return or mandatory take-back programs are
an option that communities or States may want to consider to
encourage separation and recycling of lead-acid batteries, but
such programs are better left in the hands of State or local
officials. EPA believes that such programs in tandem with the
regulatory incentives to discourage combustion of lead-acid
batteries will accomplish essentially the same result as the
proposed prohibition.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.41, IV-D-105, IV-D-117,
IV-D-134, IV-D-168, IV-D-170) favored prohibition on
4-16
-------
combustion of all lead-acid batteries, not just those greater
than 5 kg (11 Ib). Commenter IV-D-170 said that some
household batteries are composed of lead and these should be
separated also.
Response: For the reasons stated above, the Agency has decided
not to include an absolute prohibition against combustion of
lead-acid batteries as a national standard at this time.
Nevertheless, the Agency, agrees with the commentors that lead
acid batteries less than 11 pounds should not be introduced
into the combustor.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-268) said that restrictions on
the shipping of lead-acid batteries with cracked cases make it
difficult for persons to recycle these batteries, and they
usually end up in the MSW stream. The commenter said that EPA
should carefully consider any new restrictions on lead-acid
battery processing which could hinder recycling.
Response: This NSPS contains no restrictions on lead-acid
battery handling.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-66) said that while he supports
a prohibition on combusting or landfilling lead-acid
batteries, it has been his experience that burning these
batteries does not significantly increase lead emissions.
Another commenter (IV-D-206) questioned whether batteries
are really a major source of lead in MWC emissions or ash.
They said that they do not combust lead-acid batteries in
their MWC but still have lead in their emissions and ash.
Response; Lead-acid batteries are believed to be a
significant source of lead in MSW. Nevertheless, the Agency
recognizes that its exact contribution to the total volume of
lead in a waste stream will vary based on the inconsistent and
occasional nature of their disposal. Obviously, there are
other wastes such as lead-soldered tin cans which may
contribute to lead emissions. Lead-acid batteries are a
noncombustible material and when charged to an MWC, the lead
will end up either as lead air emissions or in the fly ash or
bottom ash. While the Agency is unaware of data showing what
proportion of lead from combustion of lead-acid batteries ends
i
4-17
-------
up as air emissions versus ash, reductions of the amount of
lead in air emissions and/or ash would be environmentally
beneficial. Section 129 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 requires EPA to establish a numerical emission limit for
lead within one year. EPA will address the lead acid battery
issue further in the context of this rulemaking.
Comment; A commenter (IV-F-1.30 and IV-D-268) said that his
company sells an electronic system that detects lead-acid
vehicle batteries, so a prohibition is feasible. He added
that the labor costs to separate the batteries are generally
higher than the worth of the battery for recycling, but that
this cost is justified to offset environmental consequences of
lead emissions. Some commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) referred
to the above technology saying that the technology provided
means for separating all size lead-acid batteries.
However, another commenter (IV-D-132) said that the
removal of the batteries must be done manually and this is
expensive and impractical. Commenter IV-D-155 said that since
EPA refers in the proposal to a specialized metal detector for
large lead-acid batteries, EPA should identify the names,
owners, and locations at which these detectors are in use, so
their efficiency can be verified.
Response; One company sells a device which detects lead-acid
batteries in the waste stream. The detector has been used to
identify batteries and aid workers at manual separation
stations as waste travels on a conveyor. Once the batteries
are identified, they are manually removed from the waste
stream. The Agency is not aware of any device which performs
the removal of these batteries mechanically.
Persons wanting additional information on the lead-acid
battery detection device should refer to Docket No. A-89-08,
Item No. IV-D-268.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.30) in favor of the
prohibition on lead-acid batteries said that while lead in
lead-acid batteries is relatively insoluble, incineration
converts the lead into a form which is much more soluble.
4-18
-------
Response: This may be another environmental reason to reduce
the combustion of lead-acid batteries.
4.1.3 Household Battery Separation
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.10, IV-F-1.27, IV-F-1.31,
IV-F-2.30, IV-F-2.39, IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.52, IV-F-3.1,
IV-F-3.8, IV-F-3.12, IV-D-14, IV-D-20, IV-D-21, IV-D-57,
IV-D-62, IV-D-100, IV-D-106, IV-D-117, IV-D-134, IV-D-146,
IV-D-178, IV-D-186, IV-D-189, IV-D-246) endorsed the battery
separation requirement, and said the combustion of household
batteries should be prohibited to reduce emissions of toxic
metals such as mercury, cadmium, and other metals. One
commenter (IV-D-191) thought that the ability to demonstrate a
75-percent reduction should be demonstrated before the MWC is
permitted. One commenter (IV-F-1.11 and IV-D-158) felt that
batteries should be removed prior to combustion, but did not
think that the CAA was the appropriate authority.
Commenter IV-D-155 supported off-site removal programs, but
not on-site efforts. Commenter IV-D-209 thought that the
separation requirements should be limited to button batteries
since these can be recycled in the United States, but others
must be stored or disposed of as hazardous waste.
Several commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-2.39, IV-F-2.40,
IV-F-2.45, IV-F-2.47) said that all household batteries should
be subject to a deposit system. One commenter (IV-D-217)
favored both curbside separation and mandatory take-back by
retailers. One commenter (IV-F-2.39) added that they should
not be incinerated regardless of whether the heavy metals in
the batteries are reused are not. This commenter said that
the primary rationale should be to prevent -the heavy metals
from entering the air or contaminating the ash.
Commenter IV-D-191 said that the batteries should be
stockpiled until appropriate methods are found to manage them.
One (IV-F-1.24) added that all battery manufacturers should be
required to accept their return. Commenter IV-D-134 favored
deposit/return systems but said they should be the
responsibility of the individual States. One commenter
(IV-D-21) in favor of the household battery separation
4-19
-------
requirement said that there are several successful battery
collection programs in the United States and that their
company accepts mixed household batteries. They recover
mercury and silver from small batteries and dispose of larger
batteries in a hazardous waste landfill. This commenter also
said that even if mercury levels in new batteries are reduced
in the next few years, there will be many batteries.containing
higher levels of mercury that will need to be disposed of for
many years to come. Other commenters (IV-F-1.31, IV-D-105,
IV-D-117) also said that Japan and some European countries
have battery separation programs, and that there is evidence
to show that these programs have helped reduce mercury
emissions significantly.
Commenter IV-D-165 said that there are no commercial
facilities in the United States present or projected for
reclaiming the metallic components of household batteries and
that the economics of reclaiming mercury will drop as the use
of mercury in batteries drops. Two commenters
(IV-D-184, IV-D-219) also opposed mandatory separation because
of the lack of markets. Commenter IV-D-205 said that only
small button batteries are currently recyclable, and,
therefore, problems would result from storage of separated
batteries.
One commenter (IV-F-1.1,7), who runs a regional household
battery separation program, believed it may be premature »to
require nationwide collection of mixed household batteries.
He was concerned that safe and affordable means of battery
disposal after separation are not yet available. Their
program collects batteries at several drop-off centers. The
collection rate is estimated to be only about 8 percent. He
said that only mercury and silver oxide batteries are
currently recyclable in the United States. The other
batteries they collect are disposed of in a hazardous waste
landfill at a cost of $350 per 55-gallon drum. Another
commenter (IV-D-111) said that there is not sufficient data to
support household battery removal since the effectiveness of
battery collection programs and the percent of metals removed
4-20
-------
by such programs have not been demonstrated. The commenter
also was not sure about what should be done with the separated
batteries. Other commenters (IV-D-2.3, IV-D-113) said that
battery separation programs are not likely to remove an
appreciable proportion of the batteries from the waste stream.
Some commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-153, IV-D-165) opposed a
requirement for household battery separation saying that:
(1) the battery industry has voluntarily reduced the mercury
content of alkaline batteries by over 90 percent, (2) the
battery industry has voluntarily adopted the 0.025 percent
mercury content level for alkaline batteries effective by
1993, (3) most mercuric oxide batteries are used in
commercial, hospital, or military applications and are not
household batteries, (4) many mercuric oxide batteries used in
hearing aids are being replaced by zinc-air batteries,
(5) battery separation programs would have little effect on
mercury emissions from MWC's, and (6) the contribution of
other mercury-containing materials in the waste stream is not
clear.
Response; After thorough consideration, the Agency has
decided not to require mandatory programs for separation of
household batteries. Between proposal and promulgation, the
Agency met with representatives of several community household
battery separation programs in the United States. In general,
these programs have achieved household battery recycling rates
of less than 15 percent. The most successful programs in
Europe and Japan have only achieved battery recycling rates of
20 to 30 percent.
Also, over the last 6 to 7 years, the amount of mercury
used in alkaline batteries in the United states has declined
by about 90 percent. According to U. S. battery
manufacturers, by 1993 alkaline batteries sold in the United
States will contain no more than 0.025 percent mercury. Given
the low battery separation rates achieved, the declining
amount of mercury in household batteries, and the fact that
there are many other sources of mercury in the waste stream,
the Agency concluded that battery separation programs do not
4-21
-------
represent best demonstrated technology for reducing mercury
emissions from MWC's.
Representatives of the household battery programs in the
United states also said that there were no cost-effective
means for disposing of separated mixed household batteries.
They generally dispose of them in hazardous waste landfills
since there are no facilities in the United States for
recycling mixed household batteries.
Indeed, the Agency was unable to identify any company in
the United States that recovers metals from mixed household
batteries. One company was identified that recovers mercury
and silver from mercury oxide and silver oxide batteries
including small button batteries such as those found in
hearing aids and watches. Two other companies expressed a
willingness to accept separated household nickel-cadmium
batteries. However, there is currently no option available
for the recycling of the majority of household batteries.
While the amount of mercury used in alkaline batteries
has declined to low levels, mercury oxide batteries contain
higher proportions of mercury (about 35 percent) and this
level is not expected to decline since the mercury in these
cells is part of the energy producing electrode. Therefore,
MWC's or communities that want to remove specific
mercury-containing materials from the waste stream may want to
target mercury oxide batteries.
Following proposal, the Agency gathered additional
information and examined mercury emissions data from several
MWC's with various acid gas and PM control systems and other
types of add-on controls for reducing mercury emissions.
Consideration was given to including a mercury emission limit
in the standards. However, Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990 requires that mercury (and other) emission limits be
promulgated within 12 months of the date of enactment of the
CAA amendments. Therefore, proposed mercury emission limits
4-22
-------
and other additions to the MWC standards required by the CAA
amendments will be forthcoming, but are not included in this
standard.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.30, IV-D-75, IV-D-238) said
that there is automatic sorting equipment that will remove
small household batteries from mixed MSW and will produce a
waste stream with lower levels of cadmium and mercury. He
felt that mechanical equipment should be accepted as an
alternate to the household separation program requirement.
Another commenter (IV-D-257) said that studies of their RDF
process have shown that over 50 percent of household batteries
are removed either with the ferrous metals magnetically or
with the small, dense materials separated by a trommel.
Another commenter (IV-D-184) said that mechanical
technologies are unavailable for on-site separation. One
commenter (IV-D-149) recommended that if battery separation is
required, it should only require that vehicle batteries and
steel-cased batteries be included because of the difficulty
involved in hand sorting waste to separate other batteries.
Response; The separation equipment referred to by the
commenter and equipment available from some other vendors
removes household batteries either magnetically or by
concentrating them in small or dense waste fractions.
However, the Agency is unaware of any automatic equipment that
subsequently separates the batteries from the magnetic ferrous
fraction. Batteries concentrated in small or dense waste
fractions may be subsequently screened to further concentrate
the batteries, but the Agency is unaware of, and commenters
have not-identified, any automatic process to specifically
separate the batteries. While these technologies may be
effective in separating most household batteries from MSW
prior to combustion, many nickel-cadmium batteries and some
silver oxide and mercury oxide button batteries may not be
removed by this equipment since they may be encased in items
such as watches, cameras, and small appliances.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-205) said that one community
which had undertaken a household battery separation program
4-23
-------
had to obtain a hazardous waste generator permit to dispose of
the batteries, and this is not desirable.
Response: Since household battery separation programs are not
required in the final standards, communities would not have to
implement household battery separation programs or obtain
associated permits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-100) supported provisions for
battery separation, but felt that EPA should impose standards
for final disposal, not just separation. This commenter felt
that standards for separation without standards for final
disposal will lead to the landfilling of the batteries which
the commenter felt was not an appropriate waste management
strategy.
Response; This NSPS addresses air emissions from MWC's. The
Agency has concluded that household battery separation
programs are not an appropriate technology for reducing air
emissions from MWC's. Therefore, this NSPS will not lead to
the collection of batteries which must be landfilled.
Regulations under RCRA address the safety of landfills. In
addition, the "Agenda for Action" outlines the Agency's
objectives to increase, the safety of both landfills and MWC's
by providing technical guidance in minimizing toxic
constituents in the waste stream and in designing and
operating landfills and MWC's. *
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-1.5, IV-D-279) said that both
separated batteries and ash from combustion of waste
containing batteries would end up in a landfill. They
suggested that a better solution would be source reduction
such as replacing disposable batteries with rechargeable
batteries.
Response; Using rechargeable batteries is an important method
of source reduction to reduce the number of batteries
discarded; however, rechargeable batteries also contain heavy
metals which must be handled properly by a waste management
system. Recent steps taken by the battery industry to reduce
the amount of mercury in alkaline batteries to low levels
(0.025 percent by 1993) will help to reduce the risks of
4-24
-------
disposing of these batteries in landfills or MWC's. This NSPS
sets emission limits for MWC metals to protect public health
and the environment from MWC air emissions. Specific emission
limits for mercury will also be forthcoming as specified under
the CAA Amendments of 1990. Regulations under RCRA set
standards for design and operation of landfills to ensure
their safety as well.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-117) said that EPA should either
require all batteries to be separated and stored according to
best available storage technology while battery recycling
processes are being developed or ban the use of toxic heavy
metals in batteries. One commenter (IV-D-62) said that
programs to recover metals from the batteries are needed
because storage of separated batteries is as bad as
landfilling them.
Response; In evaluating the feasibility of household battery
separation programs, the Agency examined current options for
handling separated household batteries. The Agency found that
there are no facilities in the United States for recycling the
majority of household batteries. Since recycling options are
currently limited and the Agency is unaware of any planned
recycling facilities, the Agency does not believe that
household batteries should be stockpiled. Recent steps taken
by the battery industry to lower the amount of mercury in
alkaline batteries will reduce the risks of disposing of these
batteries in properly designed and operated landfills or
MWC's.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-62) said that if add-on controls
cannot be relied upon to remove mercury from the flue gas
stream, removal of mercury- containing batteries, switches,
and thermostats is the only way to remove mercury.
However, Commenter IV-D-183 said that mercury may be
found in such diverse sources as chlorine bleach, mercury
mildew proofing in paints, and mercury pigments and catalysts
in plastics. The commenter said it was too early to determine
the significance of removing batteries in reducing mercury
emissions.
4-25
-------
Response; The Agency agrees that there are a number of
mercury sources in MSW, and that data regarding the amount of
mercury due to batteries or any other specific item in the
waste stream, are currently limited. The Agency is currently
studying add-on pollution controls for removing mercury from
the flue gas stream, and proposed mercury emission
requirements will be forthcoming as specified under the CAA
Amendments of 1990. While the final standards do not require
household battery separation programs, MWC's or communities
are free to use any method to reduce MWC metals emissions
including the separation of household batteries or any other
particular material.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.11 and IV-D-158) thought that
EPA, along with battery manufacturers, should explore methods
to reduce heavy metals in household batteries and methods to
recycle such batteries. One commenter (IV-D-117) suggested
that EPA propose measures to limit the amount of mercury used
in materials that enter the solid waste stream as a back-up
measure to the battery separation requirement. Another
commenter (IV-D-253) said that EPA should limit the amount of
mercury used in batteries as Switzerland does and that this
would be more effective than household separation.
Response; Over the last 6 to 7 years, the battery industry
indicates they have voluntarily reduced the amount of mercury
used in alkaline batteries by about 90 percent. Battery
manufacturers in the United States have indicated that by
1993, all alkaline batteries sold in the United States will
contain less than 0.025 percent mercury. This is equivalent
to the European standard. Some companies have investigated
the feasibility of recycling mixed household batteries, but
the Agency is unaware of any plans to construct facilities in
the United States. Although the amount of mercury in
batteries is declining, the CAA Amendments of 1990 specify
that a numerical emission limit for mercury must be
promulgated with 12 months of the enactment of the 1990
Amendments. Thus, proposed emission limits for mercury will
be forthcoming.
4-26
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-187) thought that on-site
separation of batteries should be required as a backup measure
to off-site separation programs.
Response; Since the proposed household battery separation
requirements have not been included in the final standards,
neither on-site nor off-site separation of household batteries
will be required.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.39) was concerned that
requirements for separation of nickel-cadmium batteries should
not be aimed at consumers since many nickel-cadmium batteries
are sealed inside of appliances and cannot be easily removed.
This commenter suggested that battery recycling legislation be
aimed at the battery manufacturers instead.
Response; While separation of nickel-cadmium batteries or any
other type of household batteries is not required under the
final standards, companies are available in the United States
for recycling nickel-cadmium batteries, and some manufacturers
of appliances are now designing their products so that the
batteries can be easily removed.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-184 said EPA has not addressed what
should be done with separated batteries. The commenter said
that there are no markets for them, there is a shortage of
hazardous waste landfills, and combusting them in a hazardous
waste incinerator is as bad as in an MWC.
Response; In evaluating the feasibility of household battery
separation programs, the Agency found that, with the exception
of button batteries and nickel-cadmium batteries, there are no
markets for accepting used household batteries for recycling.
This NSPS will not create a disposal problem for household
batteries since the final standards do not require that they
be collected.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.39) stated that battery
manufacturers oppose battery separation programs maintaining
that alkaline batteries contain less than 0.5 percent mercury,
while the EPA's figures state that these batteries contain
7 percent mercury. This commenter stated that battery
4-27
-------
separation programs are needed because air pollution controls
are inadequate to control mercury emissions.
Response; The amount of mercury used in alkaline batteries
has been decreasing over the last 5 or 6 years. The Agency
figures stating that alkaline batteries contain 7 percent
mercury were derived from estimates from the early 1980*s.
Battery manufacturers have shown significant reductions in the
amounts of mercury used in the manufacture of batteries in
recent years. Manufacturers indicate that alkaline batteries
currently contain about 0.025 to 0.05 percent mercury and that
all alkaline batteries will contain about 0.025 percent
mercury by 1993.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.31) said that mercury in
batteries has a low bioavailability, but when it is vaporized
in an MWC and released in the air, it becomes more
bioavailable.
Response; The Agency agrees that airborne mercury is
potentially bioavailable. The Agency will develop a mercury
emission limit for proposal under Section 129 of the 1990
Amendments to the CAA.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-209 said that if EPA requires
separation of alkaline and carbon-zinc batteries, EPA should
address the costs associated with this requirement, including
disposal as a hazardous waste.
Response; Household battery separation programs are not
required under the final standards, and there are no
associated costs. However, the Agency intends to propose a
mercury emission limit in the near future as discussed in the
previous response, and the costs associated with this
requirement would be included in that proposal package.
4.2 IMPACTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATION STANDARDS
4.2.1 Environmental
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-1.35,
IV-F-2.11, IV-F-2.15, IV-D-28, IV-D-29, IV-D-56, IV-D-58,
IV-D-66, IV-D-90, IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-115, IV-D-137,
IV-D-138, IV-D-145, IV-D-155, IV-D-159, IV-D-162, IV-D-164,
IV-D-166, IV-D-179, IV-D-222, IV-D-225, IV-D-231, IV-D-232)
4-28
-------
said that there are no data supporting the conclusion that air
quality benefits will result from requiring separation for
MWC's especially when considered in conjunction with
at-the-stack controls. Commenter IV-D-115 said that EPA had
not shown in its background documents or anywhere else that
materials separation will result in emissions reduction. One
commenter (IV-F-2.15) suggested that air emissions may
increase by concentrating pollutant precursors in the
combustible waste. Two commenters (IV-D-66, IV-D-138) said
that it is absurd to consider glass as a source of air
pollution, and Commenter IV-D-66 also felt that it was absurd
to consider ferrous metals as a source of emissions. This
commenter also said that PVC is the only plastic which
negatively affects air emissions, and it is not normally
recycled. He added that paper and paperboard are excellent
fuels and may make GCP easier to achieve. Commenter IV-D-179
doubted whether separation of certain types of paper, wood,
plastics, or yard waste would improve emissions. Some
commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-2.8, IV-D-137) argued that the
materials separation requirements would not lead to a decrease
in total air emissions at combustors, because available
capacity resulting from these provisions would be purchased
immediately by outlying areas looking for a place to store or
burn their wastes. One commenter (IV-D-101) said that if EPA
believes that recycling improves air quality, it should
support this with data which considers emissions from
facilities burning fossil fuels to replace the energy not
generated by the MWC. Commenter IV-D-167 said that available
control technologies for MWC's adequately protect the
environment and human health without separation and said that
these conclusions were reached in the Agency's "Report to
Congress."
Commenter IV-D-200 said that while data supporting the
requirements are scarce, they are based upon sound science and
should be retained. One commenter (IV-F-2.53) said that
recycling can reduce pollution by as much as 97 percent
compared to using virgin materials.
4-29
-------
Response: As documented in the separate BID on materials
separation and other materials in the docket, while the Agency
has decided not to adopt a mandatory materials separation
requirement on a nationwide basis, the Agency nevertheless
believes that separation and recycling of both combustible and
noncombustible materials are consistent with the overall goals
of pollution prevention. In certain instances the benefits of
materials separation will include both primary benefits at the
MWC (both from downsizing new sources and from reduced
emissions from removing pollutants) and secondary benefits in
reduced air emissions, energy usage, and natural resources
consumption at the materials mining or harvesting point and
the materials processing point. For instance, our best
information indicates that when compared to production of
goods using virgin materials, recycling of glass, steel, and
aluminum will result in energy savings of about 35 percent,
60 percent, and 95 percent, respectively. Ash quality is also
expected to improve as a result of removing noncombustibles*
Furthermore, the Agency believes materials separation for
combustor areas would lead to reduced energy use by, and
pollution from, landfills due to diversion of waste from the
landfill to maintain the throughput level of the MWC.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-291 and IV-D-295) said that the
EPA's assertion that separation of noncombustibles reduces
metals emissions is based upon the assumption that the
materials are exposed to high temperatures and the metals are
converted to metal oxides. The commenter said that their MWC
process separates the organics from the metals through
pyrolysis at 430 to 540°C (800 to 1,000°F) in a primary
chamber. The commenter said that separation prior to
combustion is not necessary to reduce emissions from their
MWC's.
Response; When noncombustible materials are charged to an
MWC, the associated metals end up as either MWC emissions or
fly ash or bottom ash. If these materials are separated prior
to combustion, they will not become part of air emissions or
ash. Many metals such as lead are volatilized at temperatures
4-30
-------
below those specified by the commenter. In addition,
recycling separated materials may result in secondary benefits
such as energy savings, reduced pollution impacts, and
conservation of natural resources.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-255 said that the materials
separation requirements are inconsistent since EPA ruled in
the Spokane PSD case that no hard data exist to show that
materials separation would result in a reduction of the
emissions which could be achieved with a dry scrubber/FF
control system. The commenter said that the BACT analysis
referred to in that case states that the scrubber system
provide better control of metals and dioxins/furans than
materials separation.
Response; EPA is not imposing requirements for separation
under Section 111. The Spokane decision illustrates that
whether materials separation is BACT for any particular PSD
permit applicant depends on an evaluation of the factual
record pertaining to that applicant. The record of this
rulemaking includes information which may be useful in such
proceedings.
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-125) said that in order for
environmental benefits to be realized, the proposal should
specify that the throughput to MWC's be reduced by 25 percent.
Response; The Agency believes that for many communities, many
of the environmental benefits are secondary benefits resulting
from source reduction or from the recycling of separated
materials. Materials separation provisions would help foster
more source reduction and recycling, activities which are
consistent with the goals outlined in the "Agenda for Action."
As more waste is managed using more favorable options, overall
pollution prevention benefits will be achieved. Therefore,
air emission and other environmental benefits can be achieved
even if the throughput to MWC's is not reduced by 25 percent.
However, as noted, because of the uncertainty of whether these
benefits will materialize overall, separation is not being
required as a national requirement at this time.
4-31
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-116) said that EPA is
inconsistent in its statements about the relationship between
materials separation and air emissions. The commenter said
that in one instance EPA claims that there are a number of
studies documenting air emissions benefits from separation,
but in another instance claims that there are little data
indicating such a relationship.
Response; It is true that there are little data providing
definitive evidence showing MWC emissions reductions that can
be achieved through materials separation when at-the-stack
controls are used. However, the Agency believes that
separating materials prior to combustion will reduce the
amount of materials entering the MWC that could be converted
to air pollutants, and some direct air emissions benefits will
result. The available studies have procedural limitations
that make the precise quantification of air emissions benefits
difficult. Also, many of the benefits will be secondary
benefits associated with source reduction and recycling, and
these benefits could not be measured at the MWC stack. In
addition, primary emissions will be reduced as a result of
downsizing new combustion units.
Commenti One commenter (IV-D-116) disagreed with the EPA's
statement that recycling glass will lead to reductions in lead
emissions because of the lead in television picture tubes.
The commenter said that lead is permanently bound in the glass
matrix and would not be emitted upon combustion nor leach from
the residue. The commenter added that it is not feasible to
recycle television picture tubes due to their multi-component
nature. Commenter IV-D-134 agreed that recycling of picture
tubes is not feasible, but thought that they should be
separated anyway because of possible detrimental effects on
emissions.
Response; Materials such as television picture tubes are
often associated with other electrical components which may
contain heavy metals which could potentially contribute to MWC
air emissions. While they may not be readily recyclable, they
are not combustible, and therefore, there is no reason to try
4-32
-------
to burn them in an MWC since they would probably end up in a
landfill regardless of whether or not they passed through an
MWC.
qoTnmftyrt • Two commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-174) said that EPA
had not substantiated claims that materials separation will
contribute to a reduction in global warming. The commenter
and Others (IV-D-115, IV-D-138, IV-D-164, IV-D-181, IV-D-235)
questioned whether EPA had considered that any emissions
reduced from not burning MSW would be offset by:
(1) increased emissions from fossil fuel plants which must
produce additional energy, (2) increased emissions from
increased landfilling, (3) increased emissions from recycling
processes, and (4) increased emissions from collection and
transportation of separated materials. Commenter IV-D-116
referred to a study indicating that for a given portion of
MSW, landfilling contributes to the greenhouse effect far more
than combustion. Commenter IV-D-179 concurred that the
separation provisions will cause more materials to be
landfilled, thereby increasing methane emissions.
Response: The final rule does not contain materials
separation requirements.
Comment; Commenters IV-D-114 and IV-D-164 said that the bulk
of air emissions associated with waste management results from
transporting, not combusting waste, and Commenter IV-D-181
said that because of the increased transportation, emissions
of hydrocarbons, CO, NOX, C<>2, and fine particulates would
likely increase. Others (IV-D-138, IV-D-145, IV-D-153) said
that national air pollution goals may be impacted since energy
not produced by MWC's will be offset by fossil fuel plants.
Commenter IV-D-138 questioned how the increased SO2 from
burning more fossil fuel to meet energy needs will impact the
CAA's cap on utilities. Commenters IV-D-145 and IV-D-153 said
that typical coal-fired power plants release more S02, NOX,
CO, and particulates per energy unit generated than an MWC
operating with the controls required under the proposed rules.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that the air emissions problems EPA
4-33
-------
hopes to solve through requiring separation will just be
shifted to other industries which process the materials.
Response; EPA believes that separation of materials prior to
combustion will lead to air emissions benefits. Nevertheless,
for reasons stated in the preamble, materials separation is
not required in the final rule.
One commenter (IV-F-1.30, IV-D-75 and IV-D-268)
submitted test data which he claimed showed that separation of
noncombustibles and wet organic materials reduced MWC
emissions of PMf heavy metals (including mercury) ,
hydrocarbons, NOX, CO, and will also reduce the quantity of
ash generated. The commenter said that removing
noncombustibles is clearly GCP and gives lower emissions of
CO, unburned hydrocarbons, and complex organics such as
dioxins/furans. The commenter also said that separation of
noncombustibles reduced unabated heavy metals emissions by
about 50 percent. The commenter said that this is important
because particulate filters do not always perform at their
peak at all times. This commenter said that air emissions
benefits come more from removing particular items rather than
just reducing a set percentage of the waste stream.
Commenter IV-D-105 referred to the above test data and said
that reductions of some metals, such as mercury, achieved
through separation are comparable or superior to those
achieved through add-on controls.
However, Commenters IV-D-101 and IV-D-155 said that the
data referred to above showed that separation caused emissions
of CO to increase. These commenters also said that while the
data showed reductions in unabated emissions of some heavy
metals, these reductions were not nearly as effective as good
APCD's. Commenters IV-D-115 and IV-D-138 also referred to the
data and said that the tests were not properly controlled and
the data is inconclusive. The commenter added that the
studies showed that combusting separated waste caused
emissions to increase for about the same number of pollutants
as those that showed decreases in emissions.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that EPA should critically examine any
4-34
-------
conclusions regarding emissions reductions at MWC's based upon
the above data.
Response: While add on controls will significantly reduce
emissions, EPA believes that materials separation can provide
additional air emissions reductions. However, as stated in
the preamble, the uncertainty over whether there would be net
positive impacts of materials separation led the Agency to
decide not to require pre-combustion removal of materials as
part of national best demonstrated technology standards at
this time on this record.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.30) advocated the
precombustion removal of noncombustibles primarily because it
improves combustor performance and recovery efficiency,
reduces ash volume, and improves emission levels.
Response; These benefits are expected in most instances and
are among the reasons that EPA found materials separation to
be technically feasible. However, several other factors, as
noted above, created uncertainty about the overall net
benefits to materials separation at this time. Given the
uncertainties in the record at this time EPA could not
conclude that materials separation constituted BDT.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-101) referred to the EPA's
studies published in the early 1970's which compared the
environmental, energy, and economic trade-offs between single
use and reusable products, and between combustion of paper
with energy recovery versus recycling of paper. This
commenter said that, in general, these studies showed little
difference in total environmental impact between options.
Some commenters (IV-D-90, IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-115,
IV-D-153, IV-D-154, IV-D-164) said that recycling operations
such as secondary metal smelting, paper de-inking, and
composting have environmental impacts as well.
Commenters IV-D-90, IV-D-115, and IV-D-153 said that recycling
processes require energy from other polluting sources and
concentrated residues from recycling processes are likely to
end up in landfills and MWC's. These commenters suggested
that when EPA considers the benefits of recycling, it should
4-35
-------
also consider the secondary environmental impacts of
recycling. Commenters IV-D-107 and IV-D-115 said that before
establishing materials separation standards, EPA should
determine the impacts of the proposed standards with regard to
environmental impacts of increased recycling and landfilling.
Commenter IV-D-138 asked if EPA had developed a scale of
comparison between environmental impacts posed by MWC's and
separated materials going to landfills, storage areas, and
reprocessing centers. Commenter IV-D-115 thought that EPA
should not try to avoid the difficult work of answering tough
questions about the ultimate benefits of recycling. Two
commenters (IV-D-158, IV-D-232) said that the EPA's benefits
analysis is incomplete because it does not consider adverse
environmental consequences associated with alternative
management options for separated wastes.
Response; It is true that producing products from recycled
materials produces some air, water, or solid waste impacts,
but overall, EPA believes that these impacts are reduced when
compared to the manufacture of products from virgin materials.
In the case of newspapers, the industry trend towards using
inks with much lower metals concentrations will greatly reduce
any potential environmental impacts from the de-inking
process. Producing newspapers from recycled paper uses less
energy and each ton of newspaper recycled saves about 1,700 kg
(3,700 Ib) of wood. In addition, there are many unquantified
environmental benefits resulting from the reduced wood cutting
such as reduced wildlife habitat destruction and reduced
runoff from logging areas. Secondary metal smelting for
aluminum, steel, and lead uses less energy than production
from virgin materials, and the water, air, and solid waste
impacts associated with mining the raw materials is greatly
reduced. Furthermore, there are environmental regulations
that apply to secondary metals smelters. Also, the Agency's
analyses in the docket indicate landfilling of waste would be
expected to decrease, not increase as a result of materials
separation. While the Agency would not want to suggest that
there are no environmental impacts from recycling, it does
4-36
-------
believe that overall environmental benefits will result from
recycling even though many of the benefits are difficult to
quantify. However, because these benefits are difficult to
quantify and the extent of benefits will vary among sources,
and because the costs are dependents on such highly variable
factors as scrap prices, program costs, and alternative
disposal costs, the Agency at this time, based on available
information, materials separation should not be required as
BDT.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) disagreed with the EPA's
statement that no significant water pollution impacts are
projected; the commenter said that the processing of
recyclable will produce a wastewater stream.
Commenter IV-D-164 said that paper de-inking is a
water-intensive process that generates wastewater and sludge,
unlike incineration.
Response; It is true that some recycling processes produce a
wastewater stream, but other standards for wastewater
discharges should protect waters of the United States, and
overall environmental benefits from recycling will be
positive. In the case of paper de-inking, the industry trend
towards using inks with very low metals content will make
these wastewaters easier to treat, and potential environmental
impacts would be greatly reduced.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.16) felt that EPA should make
efforts to ensure that separated materials are reprocessed in
an environmentally sound manner, so that the environmental
impacts of recycling do not exceed those of incineration.
Response; As noted, the NSPS does not require that materials
be separated for recovery.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-105 referred to a study they said
indicated that trace amounts of copper, cadmium, zinc,
antimony, chromium, and lead catalyze the formation of
dioxins/furans and their precursors, chlorinated benzenes and
phenols. Thus, they concluded that removing sources of the
metals from the waste stream could reduce the opportunity for
such reactions, as well as lessening the load on the APCD,
4-37
-------
lessen the quantity of vaporized metals which escape the APCD,
and reduce metals in the fly ash and bottom ash.
Response; Some articles in the literature have suggested
possible catalytic relationships between heavy metals and
chlorinated organic compounds. If such reductions do indeed
occur, it would be yet another potential benefit of materials
separation that should be considered by sources.
comment; in arguing that separation of chlorinated materials
would have positive impacts on air emissions, some commenters
(IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-120) referred to studies which they
said indicated that relationships exist between the level of
chlorinated plastics in the waste and emissions of Hcl,
dioxins/furans, and precursors of dioxins/furans. One
commenter (IV-D-143) stated that if the proposed 25-percent
separation regulation is adopted, the resulting removal of
plastics would reduce Hcl emissions and dioxin/furan emissions
from MWC's.
Response; The Agency agrees that the separation of
chlorinated materials such as chlorinated plastics would have
positive air emissions benefits.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-114, IV-D-148, IV-D-174) said
that old newspapers are a safe source of energy since the
heavy metal content of newspaper color inks are controlled to
trace levels through industry efforts. Commenter IV-D-148 and
IV-D-174 disagreed with the EPA's statements concerning
environmental benefits from reduced combustion of paper
products impregnated with lead-based inks and mercury-based
fungicides. The commenters said that the industry stopped
using mercury-based fungicides years ago, and the EPA's own
study showed that the contribution of lead in ink-impregnated
paper was less than 0.1 percent of the total lead in MSW.
Commenter IV-D-114 said that newspapers are not a significant
source of chlorine since most manufacturers use peroxide
instead of chlorine bleach. Commenter IV-D-148 said that when
paper is bleached with chlorine, the chlorine generally does
not remain with the fibers made into pulp and paper.
4-38
-------
Response; Old newspapers are a source of energy, but there
are also environmental benefits if those newspapers are
recycled. EPA believes that recycling newsprint saves about
30 percent of the energy needed to make newsprint from virgin
materials. Paper recycling also reduces air emissions and
consumption of forest stocks. The reduction in the metals
content of inks will make the recycling of paper even more
environmentally sound. However, in those instances where
recycling markets are not available for old newspapers,
combustion of that materials for energy recovery would be
preferable to landfilling.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-236 submitted a study showing that
burning nonrecyclable paper is much like burning coal or wood
and is in many instances more environmentally sound. The
commenter said that combusting (or cofiring) nonrecyclable
paper is better environmentally than combusting MSW;
therefore, boilers burning nonrecyclable paper should not be
regulated like those burning MSW.
Response: It is true that some paper products can be a
valuable fuel. Under the definition of MSW in the final
standards, those units that burn just industrial process waste
would not be covered under the NSPS. Also, cofired combustors
(i.e., those combustors that combust a fuel stream containing
30 percent or less MSW or RDF) are not subject to the MWC
emissions,
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.24) questioned the
environmental rationale of any policy which allows the
combustion of marketable materials such as paper and plastic
which may contain toxic additives such as heavy metals.
Response; The Agency encourages the separation of marketable
materialsm including recyclable combustibles such as separated
paper and plastic materials. However, in areas where markets
are not fully developed some responsible means for disposal is
needed, and combustion in an MWC may be appropriate.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-154) questioned whether it is
wise for EPA to promote yard waste recycling and composting
4-39
-------
since EPA does not have any standards for metals in compost,
and therefore, a greater environmental problem may result.
Response; EPA's standards do not include specific
requirements for materials separation of yard waste or any
other materials. Standards for compost are currently under
development in a separate Agency action.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-62) said that recycling glass,
newspapers, and cans does not reduce the toxicity of the waste
stream, but merely reduces its volume thereby concentrating
the toxics. This commenter suggested that household hazardous
waste separation is the only way to make the waste safe for
incineration, composting, or landfilling.
Response; The Agency agrees that separation of household
hazardous waste would result in environmental benefits for
MWC's and other waste management options and encourages such
separation.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-155)
disputed the statement made in the proposal that materials
separation will reduce the leachability of MWC ash.
Commenter IV-D-101 submitted data which they said showed no
relationship between materials separation and ash quality, and
Commenter IV-D-155 said that their data shows no difference in
MWC ash quality from communities with or without recycling
programs. Commenter IV-D-116 said that heavy metals are bound
in the matrix of the MWC ash and the ash is nontoxic.
Commenter IV-D-116 and IV-D-155 referred to an EPA study they
said showed that leachate from ash monofills approximates
drinking water standards; therefore, the commenter concluded
that materials separation is not necessary to render the ash
nontoxic. Commenter IV-D-141 said that they may have
developed a process which stabilizes fly ash and that
materials separation will not be needed to reduce potential
environmental problems associated with fly ash.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that the studies relied on by EPA
to show that materials separation reduces metals in ash do not
support that proposition. The commenter said that the
.reductions in heavy metals were really due to the smaller
4-40
-------
quantity of ash produced by the noncombustibles separation
process, but the concentration of metals was not reduced. The
commenter added that the separation process creates process
residue which must be landfilled, and the same amount of heavy
metals may be landfilled.
However, some commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-268)
favored separation of noncombustibles and said that
incineration of noncombustibles produces ash containing metals
than can leach from MWC ash and contaminate groundwater. They
referred to studies they said showed that separation of
noncombustibles reduced the quantity of ash generated and
improved its quality. They also said that significant
quantities of heavy metals are found in combustible wastes
(plastics and pigmented paper) and separation of these items
would also reduce ash toxicity.
Response: The Agency is aware of leachability studies showing
that some MWC ash is hazardous and studies showing that other
MWC ash is not hazardous. The leachability of ash depends
upon the nature of a particular ash and its environment. (See
e.g., Section 5 of BID on materials separation).
Comment: Commenter IV-D-101 disputed the EPA's comments made
in the proposal that separation of noncombustibles will reduce
the weight of ash by 30 percent. The commenter said that this
does not account for the fact that ferrous metals, nonferrous
metals, and glass can be recovered after combustion and would
not be disposed of as ash. The commenter also said that their
operating data showed no reduction in ash quantity in areas
with intensive recycling. They speculated that areas with
intensive recycling may separate proportions of
noncombustibles and combustibles similar to that in the
original waste stream, and, therefore, the percent of ash
residue per unit of waste combusted may not decline.
Response; If the relative proportions of combustibles and
noncombustibles separated are roughly similar to their
proportions in the original waste stream and the amount of
waste combusted by a particular MWC is not decreased, the
amount of ash generated by that MWC would not decrease.
4-41
-------
However, a community separating and recycling a high
proportion of noncombustibles before or after combustion would
reduce the amount of ash that must be disposed of.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-02, IV-D-04) questioned whether
reduced timber demand from increased paper recycling would
actually result in reductions in atmospheric CO2 since timber
stands harvested for paper production are almost always
replanted, and young forests may grow more vigorously than
more mature stands.
Response: It may be true that the CC>2 assimilation capacity
of forest stands might not be diminished if trees were always
replanted, but trees may not be replanted in all cases.
Comment; Eleven commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-117,
IV-D-121, IV-D-138, IV-D-154, IV-D-163, IV-D-184, IV-D-190,
IV-D-238, IV-D-253, IV-D-282) favored yard waste separation
and said a reduction in high nitrogen yard waste will reduce
NOX emissions. Some commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-268)
said that food waste is also high in nitrogen and should also
be separated. These commenters said that moisture-laden food
and yard waste may also lead to products of incomplete
combustion. One commenter (IV-D-117) advocated the separation
of food waste in addition to other materials saying that
composted food waste can provide ecological benefits when
added to soil, and separation of food waste may reduce
emissions of NOX, CO, and (X>2.
Two commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-184) objected to the
10-percent separation credit limit for yard waste. These
commenters felt that the 10-percent limit would encourage
combustion of yard waste in areas such as the southeast that
have a proportionally higher level of yard waste in the waste
stream. These commenters felt that this encouragement would
favor the generation of NOX emissions over other emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-184) argued that the yard waste credit
provides a disincentive for maximizing yard waste composting
and that the limit for yard waste credit toward materials
separation should be deleted.
4-42
-------
Three commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-190) suggested
that yard waste be eliminated from MSW because this
elimination has the potential for reducing NOX emissions by
25 percent. Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) cited a study
of NOX emissions to support the effect of yard waste
separation on NOX emissions from MWC's. This study showed a
seasonal correlation for NOX emissions. The commenters
pointed out that NOX emissions measured in the spring and
summer months, when nitrogen-rich grass disposal was at its
peak, were higher than emissions measured in the winter
months, when yard waste decreases. According to submitted
data, the commenters estimated that the overall effect of yard
waste separation (summer vs. winter values) was roughly a
25-percent reduction of uncontrolled NOX values. The
commenters recommended that a requirement be included in the
NSPS to prevent yard waste from entering the MWC. The
commenters concluded that this would serve as one means of NOX
control which is neither difficult nor costly to implement.
One commenter (IV-D-121) cited another study which
documented that 75 to 80 percent of the NOX generated from
refuse burners is attributable to fuel nitrogen conversion.
According to this report, removing materials high in nitrogen
content is one possible way of lowering the mass emission rate
of NOX. The commenter pointed out that nitrogen in MSW is
found predominately in food waste, yard waste, and textiles.
The commenter cited data supporting source separation and
subsequent composting of food waste and yard waste as a
feasible and cost-effective alternative to incineration. The
commenter estimated that food and yard wastes, which account
for only about 20 percent of the total waste stream, account
for approximately 49 percent of the nitrogen in MSW that could
be burned in an MWC.
One commenter (IV-D-163) stated that if an MWC can
demonstrate that separated yard waste is actually recycled,
then EPA should waive the limit on the amount of credit
allowable for yard waste.
4-43
-------
Commenter IV-D-115, however, referred to the study
comparing NOX emissions in summer versus winter and said that
this study was not sufficient to determine that separation of
yard waste reduces NOX emissions.
Response: As noted the Agency has not included a materials
separation requirement in the final rule for the various
reasons stated in the preamble to the final rule. However,
the Agency agrees that the separation of yard waste can result
in lower NOX emissions. Yard waste separation is encouraged
since yard waste is a material which is easily separated from
the waste stream and can be composted in an environmentally
sound manner.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-66) said that while yard waste
has a high water content and is a poor fuel, well-designed
facilities can handle it without causing air pollution
problems.
Response; Regardless of the type of MWC, separation of yard
waste would be expected to yield NOX emissions benefits by
removing a large source of nitrogen from the waste stream.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-143) stated that paper and paper
products incinerated in MWC's help maintain high combustion
temperatures. The commenter felt that the amount of paper
incinerated would be reduced by the 25-percent materials
separation requirement, so that combustion temperatures would
decrease and presumably emissions of dioxins and furans would
increase.
Response; The Agency believes that any materials separation
program that may be required as the result of a source
specific determination should target a balanced approach in
which the proportion of combustibles removed is not much
greater than the proportion of noncombustibles removed. A
balanced separation program should not adversely impact the
combustibility of the waste stream. Programs which separate a
higher proportion of noncombustibles, however, may increase
the Btu content of the waste. Moreover, the Agency notes that
GCP and the emission limits for dioxins/furans and CO will
prevent MWC's from emitting high levels of MWC organics.
4-44
-------
Commenter IV-D-138 felt that post-combustion
recycling should be credited the same as precombustion
recycling and asked EPA what are the air emissions differences
between the two.
Response ; The final rule does not include any requirements
for materials separation.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-161 said that EPA cannot justify
statements that recycling ferrous metals will reduce coke oven
emissions since it cannot demonstrate that separation of steel
cans will automatically result in the use of more scrap and
less iron ore.
Response ; Representatives of the steel industry have stated
that supplies of scrap steel cans are less than current
demand, and they expressed a desire to obtain more scrap.
Furthermore, scrap stell prices are consistently positive.
When scrap is used to manufacture steel, it replaces some
production that would have required virgin materials.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-161 disagreed with the EPA's
statement that materials separation will reduce litter if the
material discarded as litter never entered the targeted waste
stream and would never be sent to the MWC.
Response ; The Agency did not mean to suggest that its
proposed materials separation requirement would eliminate
litter.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-282 said that an oversupply of
materials will result in prolonged storage of recyclable in a
manner potentially threatening to the environment. The
commenter referred to an instance where stockpiled newspapers
were stored outside where rain could cause metals from ink to
leach into the groundwater. Commenter IV-D-300 said that the
materials separation standards will lead to more landfilling
which has a greater environmental impact than combustion,
especially since their State has many unlined landfills.
Response; The final standards have been changed, and do not
require materials separation and therefore the concern over
storage of the materials for 120 days is a moot issue.
4-45
-------
4.2.2 Health and Risk Assessment
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) said that in their
experience, storage and transportation of household batteries
has not proven to be a serious safety risk. This commenter
also said that separation of batteries at the household does
not pose a serious health threat from ingestion of small
batteries. They referred to a study showing that ingestion of
batteries does not result in serious health effects in most
cases.
However, Commenter IV-D-165 said that many organizations
oppose battery separation because of the risk of small
children ingesting the batteries or possibly lodging the
batteries in the nose or ear and the risk of elderly persons
possibly mistaking them for pills. The commenter said that
serious health effects could result. The commenter also said
that stored batteries can generate hydrogen and heat possibly
leading to explosions.
Response; The final standards do not require separation of
household batteries, and will not lead to an increase in
safety risks associated with their separation and storage.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-D-71, IV-D-138, IV-D-154) said
that in setting materials separation regulations, EPA should
also consider the health risks associated with recycling such
as: (1) increased pollution resulting from trucks collecting
materials at curbside or from the MWC and transporting them to
their ultimate destination, (2) increased air emissions from
materials processing centers, (3) the increased risk of a
traffic accident, and (4) increased hazardous waste generated
from materials reprocessing centers. One commenter (IV-D-164)
said that crushing activities involved with recycling glass
exposes workers to respirable quartz particles and lead
emissions from secondary lead smelters are high enough to
cause brain damage in children.
Response; EPA did not require materials separation in the
final rule. One component in that decision was the concern
over whether in the aggregate the economic, energy, and nonair
environmental benefits would materialize.
4-46
-------
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-78, IV-D-138, IV-D-153) said
that the materials separation provisions, in particular the
requirement for a 120-day storage period for a combustion
permit, may result in stockpiling of materials which may have
adverse health effects related to disease vectors such as
insects and rodents or increased risk of fires.
Commenter IV-D-138 asked if risk from stockpiling or
landfilling increased to one in 10,000 or one in 100,000, how
would EPA justify the risks of materials separation.
Commenter IV-D-232 said that EPA had not followed its "Agenda
for Action11 because no where does it ensure that alternative
management programs do not pose greater health risks than
existing approaches. One commenter (IV-D-138) asked if EPA
had determined what environmental controls and facility
standards should be required at storage areas for separated
materials.
Response; The final rule does not include a material
separation requirements. Therefore, the issues associated
with concerns over the proposed 120 storage requirement are
moot. However, EPA notes that for some recyclers it is common
practice to stockpile certain noncombustible materials, such
as aluminum, in anticipation of future price increases and to
reduce the transportation costs associated with making
multiple trips to the market, and this does not necessarily
lead to problems.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-107 said that EPA should determine
the health implications of using products containing recycled
materials before establishing mandatory recycling standards.
Response; The final standards do not require materials
separation. However, adverse health impacts are not expected
from the use of recycled materials. For example, today glass
and aluminum are remelted and used in new food contact
containers, but paper and plastics generally are not.
Container materials that contact food, drugs, cosmetics, or
health care products are regulated by the FDA. Recycled
materials are often used in the same types of products as
4-47
-------
virgin materials and would not be expected to result in
different health impacts.
comment• Commenter IV-D-138 asked whether EPA had assessed
the work place safety and health risk associated with
hand-picking operations at separation facilities. The
commenter also asked if EPA had assessed the work place safety
and population health risk associated with reprocessing
facilities such as plastics, glass, or paper recycling
facilities.
Response; The Agency has examined the work place risks
associated with handpicking operations at separation
facilities. While there are risks, they can be greatly
minimized through the use of safety attire and work place
safety procedures. In general, work place and population
health risks from reprocessing recyclable materials are not
expected to be greater than risks from extraction and
processing of virgin materials. However, for the reasons
cited in the preamble, the Agency has not required a materials
separation requirement.
4.2.3 Energy
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.38) stated that while an MWC
recovers heat from combusting waste, recovering and recycling
materials such as paper, plastics, cardboard, glass, and
metals saves a greater amount of energy than that recovered in
an MWC. Another commenter (IV-F-2.53) said that recycling
reduces energy usage by as much as 97 percent compared to
using virgin materials.
However, some commenters (IV-D-140, IV-D-148) said that
paper mills using virgin materials get much of their energy
from process residues, but mills using recycled paper use more
fossil fuels because these energy containing residues are not
produced. One commenter (IV-D-167) said that while thermal
recovery does not always produce the same level of
environmental benefit as recycling, it does avoid the need to
mine, process, transport, and utilize some fossil or
radioactive fuels.
4-48
-------
Response! While the Agency believes that in many instances
net energy savings are realized by recycling, and this is yet
another benefit of the materials separation, the Agency is not
adopting national separation standards for combustors at this
time for reasons discussed in the preamble.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-101 said that results from their MWC
plants showed no relationship between recycling activity and
heat content of the waste. However, Commenters IV-D-105 and
IV-D-268 said that separation will have a positive effect on
the combustibility of the waste. Commenter IV-D-268 said that
separation of noncombustibles will increase the heat content
of the waste and will increase MWC efficiency.
Response: EPA believes that materials separation would be
expected to increase the specific heat content of the waste
(i.e., kJ/kg [Btu/lb] of MSW) in some cases, but this is
dependent on the relative proportions of combustibles and
noncombustibles separated which will vary depending on any
particular separation program. However, the question of the
specific impact of the 25 percent separation requirement on
heat content is no longer a concern given the Agency's
decision not to include that requirement in the final rule.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-D-141, IV-D-153) said
the downsizing of new MWC's and reduced energy production
projected to result from separation would increase the U. S.
dependence on foreign oil for energy. One commenter (IV-D-02
and IV-D-04) recommended excluding paper products from the
separation requirements because of their high energy value.
Another (IV-D-70) felt that an MWC operator should never be
required to separate materials if he has unused capacity and
is generating energy offsetting consumption of other natural
resources. Commenter IV-F-1.30 said that 0.9 Mg (1 ton) of
fuel grade wastepaper is equivalent to 2 barrels of oil which
directly replaces oil resources, and Commenters IV-D-101 and
IV-D-155 said that 0.9 Mg (1 ton) of MSW combusted in an MWC
replaces 0.5 Mg (1/2 ton) of coal or 2/3 of a barrel of oil.
Commenter IV-D-141 said that energy produced at their MWC
replaces 136 million liters (36 million gallons) of oil that
4-49
-------
would have been burned at the nearby electric utility.
Commenter IV-D-232 said that EPA had not adequately analyzed
the impacts of energy losses from separation and said that
combustion of renewable energy sources such as paper should be
favored over nonrenewable sources such as oil and coal.
Response; The Agency has elected not to include the materials
separation requirement in the final standard. One reason for
that decision was the uncertainty of the overall net energy
benefits attributable to materials separation. EPA believes
that combustion of waste materials can replace some fossil
fuel combustion, but that in many instances materials
separation will result in secondary energy savings since
recycling materials uses less energy than production from
virgin materials. For instance, recycling newspapers saves
about 30 percent of the energy required to make newspapers
from virgin materials.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-167 said that specific materials such
as tires are good sources of energy and the rules should not
discourage this type of energy recovery by requiring
separation across the board.
Response: The materials separation provisions are not
included in the final rule. Moreover, combustors that fire
100 percent tires, 100 percent RDF derived solely from tires,
or combustors that cofire tires or tire-derived RDF with other
non-MSW fuels are specifically excluded from the standards
under this NSPS. Over 220 million tires are discarded in the
United States each year. Tires are often described as an
orphan waste, in that few options are available for their
disposal. One dedicated (and well controlled) tire combustion
facility in Modesto, California, which began operation in
1988, burns tires in a specially designed combustor fitted
with air pollution control devices. This facility burns about
4.5 million tires per year generating the equivalent energy
contained in 200,000 barrels of oil. Similar projects have
been recently initiated in other areas of the United States.
Since tires are a national problem and since few options
exist for their safe disposal, the Agency does not want to
4-50
-------
take premature action to discourage projects for disposing of
tires and, therefore, dedicated tire combustion facilities are
not regulated under this NSPS for MWC's. However, a combustor
that burns tires or tire-derived RDF with MSW would be covered
under this NSPS if the combustor has a unit capacity above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
4.2.4 Cost. Economic, and Market
4.2.4.1 Control Cost.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.30) said costs of separation
and recycling are small when benefits to the combustor
operation and to public health are included. One commenter
(IV-D-56) said that materials separation is the only cost-
effective way to control air emissions. Another commenter
(IV-D-98) stated that, in general, waste reduction is a cost-
effective way of improving environmental quality.
Response; The Agency believes that the prevention of
pollution in the first instance should be a primary goal of
any community addressing solid waste disposal issues. Source
reduction and materials separation are means to achieve this
goal. However, as noted in the preamble, a specific national
standard mandatory separation program has not been included in
this rule.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-139, IV-D-154,
IV-D-164) said that EPA has underestimated the economic
impacts of materials separation. These commenters estimated
that total program costs are likely to range from $110 to over
$220/Mg ($100 to over $200/ton) of recycled material, taking
into account collection, processing, and marketing.
Commenter IV-D-164 said that EPA underestimated the cost and
time associated with data collection, planning, education,
design, implementation, and monitoring and that these costs
are tremendous. This commenter and Commenter IV-D-232 said
EPA should state that short-term costs will be high, but that
long-term costs are unknown since markets cannot be predicted.
Commenter IV-D-153 suggested that the EPA's estimates may be
off by more than an order of magnitude and referred to a study
showing that costs could range from $9 to $210/Mg ($8 to
4-51
-------
$190/ton) of separated material. Commenter IV-D-177 referred
to a small rural area where the costs of transporting the
materials to market was twice the amount received from their
sale, and this did not include pick-up and separation costs.
Commenter IV-D-101 said that the EPA's model for
determining materials separation costs disregards the cost of
separate collection of recyclable and does not constitute a
rigorous cost/benefit analysis. The commenter said that the
net costs of materials processing are likely to range from $50
to over $100/Mg ($45 to over $90/ton) considering collection,
processing, materials sales, and transportation. The
commenter and others (IV-D-135, IV-D-190) said that EPA
provides no data to show that the long-term net cost of
separation for a community will be zero. Another commenter
(IV-D-116) said that it is not proven that revenue generated
from recycling will offset costs.
One commenter (IV-D-56) said that when calculating
national costs for complying with the materials separation
provisions, EPA should include avoided waste disposal costs
that result from recycling.
Response; The model relied upon by the Agency in proposing
the materials separation requirements provided reasonable
estimates of the range of potential net costs based on the use
of on-site separation equipment. The model results were
relied upon based on the premise that communities could always
choose to use off-site strategies if those were more cost-
effective, even with the cost-factors unique to off-site
programs mentioned by commentors (e.g. data collection,
eduction etc.) However, the Agency decided to perform
additional analyses more oriented toward costing out off-site
approaches based on the view emerging after proposal that most
communities would probably rely on off-site programs.
Significantly, all three analyses ultimately demonstrated that
net financial costs of materials separation could be positive
or negative, depending on critical assumptions such as
discussed in the preamble. Indeed, the uncertainty
surrounding the net costs of separation programs was a major
4-52
-------
reason the Agency has decided not to require the proposed
materials separation requirement as a national standard at
this time.
comment! Commenter IV-D-151 said that for their community,
the start-up costs for a recycling program would be 62 percent
less than that for building an MWC and hauling costs would
also be reduced. The commenter said that the costs to dispose
of MWC ash cancels the revenue received from electricity
sales.
Response; If, in the commenter's case, a recycling program
would substantially reduce their community's waste management
costs, then it would be in the best interest of that community
to pursue a recycling program. However, some disposal
facility, such as an MWC, would always be needed in addition
to a recycling program since recycling programs are not
normally capable of managing the entire MSW stream. Materials
separation and recycling programs vary in cost depending on
the type of program, the community, the waste composition, and
the availability of markets. In communities where the costs
of managing MSW through materials separation programs are
partially favorable, those communities may want to separate
and recycle significant percentages of the waste stream.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-232) said that the EPA's
Paperwork Burden Analysis does not report the costs that will
be incurred by the government or the regulated community
involved in applying for combustion permits.
Response; The final rule does not include materials
separation requirements and therefore does not include a
combustion permit provision.
Comment: Commenter IV-D-138 said that the following
assumptions used in the EPA's analysis of materials separation
costs are faulty: (1) the model assumes that yard waste will
be separated off-site, but the costs of separate yard waste
collection and composting are not included, (2) the model
assumes that glass will be collected off-site but collection
costs are not included, and (3) revenue from the sale of
postcombustion scrap is not included even- though it may be
4-53
-------
more valuable than precombustion scrap. Commenter IV-D-232
said the costs did not consider differences between large
cities and small rural areas with respect to the types of
waste generated and the availability of markets.
Commenter IV-D-116 strongly disagreed with the EPA's
assumption that operating a materials separation program is a
one-time initial cost and said that operation and maintenance
costs are significant and should be factored into the economic
analysis.
Responsei The original model did include costs for off-site
collection of yard waste and glass through a premium for
separate collection over regular refuse collection costs. As
for postcombustion scrap, if revenues were greater (which is
unclear, particularly since at least one steel company has
refused to accept postcombustion steel scrap while accepting
precombustion steel scrap), this would only improve cost-
effectiveness. Nevertheless, the Agency's more recent
analyses were, as noted above, focused more directly on off-
site approaches and all three analyses indicated net financial
costs be positive or negative. However, as noted above, the
evaluation of these provisions is dependent on numerous
assumptions that are highly variable and uncertain and thus
certain benefits to materials separation may not materialize.
Thus, the Agency concluded that at this time, on this record,
materials separation could not be required on a national
basis.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-138 said that the EPA's model for
materials separation costs erroneously assumes that costs from
a downsized MWC will be less. The Commenter said that a
smaller facility with equivalent equipment would have a higher
tipping fee because of economies of scale.
Response: The original model assumed that per ton disposal
costs woud be higher, not lower for smaller facilities due to
economics of scale.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-3.11) claimed that their studies
have shown that front-end separation processes are cost
effective even if source separation programs are already
4-54
-------
reducing the waste stream by as much as 50 percent. He added
that the costs saved by reducing MWC capacity are more than
enough to pay for front-end separation systems. Another
commenter (IV-F-1.30 and IV-D-268) referred to a privately
owned and operated centralized separation facility which cost
effectively separates materials from MSW. The commenter said
that the value of materials recovered pays all operating and
capital costs for separation. The commenter also said that
their facility would allow the MWC to increase capacity by
about 30 percent. They said that the capital cost of their
centralized separation process is much cheaper than combustion
on a daily processed Mg (ton) basis.
Response; If such front-end separation systems are indeed
more cost effective than MWC's, then those sources could adopt
materials separation as part of its disposal program.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-138) said that only a few MWC's
in the country recover materials other than ferrous metals,
and that if it were cost effective to recover other materials,
more companies would be in the business of recovering
materials on-site. This commenter referred to many companies
that began such ventures but did not pursue them because of
technical infeasibility of cost effectively separating
high-quality materials.
Response; The variability and uncertainty of secondary
markets for various materials is one of the reasons that EPA
decided not to require materials separation.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-71, IV-D-155) said that in
considering the costs of materials separation, EPA should also
consider the following costs: (1) the administrative costs
associated with siting recycling facilities, (2) the increased
use of petroleum for transporting the materials from the MWC
to their ultimate destination, (3) costs associated with
health risks from increased pollution from trucks,
(4) increased risks of traffic accidents, (5) aesthetic and
environmental costs associated with recycling facilities such
as compost piles, and (6) costs associated with any increased
use of water or resources in recycling processes.
4-55
-------
Commenter IV-D-143 said that the new regulations would require
negotiations of contracts and questioned whether EPA had
included the cost of renegotiation in their cost estimates.
Commenter IV-D-107 said that EPA must consider environmental
and health costs associated with materials separation and that
this technology cannot be considered "best" if its benefits
are less than its costs and impacts. Commenter IV-D-113
thought that the cost of implementing materials separation
will be greater than the benefits gained. One commenter
(IV-D-164) said that since markets for recyclable materials
are not well established in most parts of the United States,
the combined cost of storage, transfer, and long-haul
transportation will easily outweigh the cost of landfilling.
One commenter (IV-D-71) said that for any given
situation, the benefits of recycling will outweigh the costs
of alternative disposal. While the market price of recycled
materials (or disposing of the materials) are visible
indicators of a particular situation, the true costs of
society are not reflected in these prices. This commenter
urged EPA to attempt to demonstrate these societal costs. One
commenter (IV-F-1.20) said that even in communities with the
highest tipping fees, whether a curbside recycling program
saves money or not depends on the accounting system used.
Benefits of cleaner air and less groundwater pollution are
usually not accounted for, and often community managers will
be reluctant to invest large sums of money in recycling
programs when many of the benefits will not enter the
accounting system. Commenter IV-D-143 said that if such costs
could be internalized instead of being externalized to
society, the economic balance would shift in favor of
recycling. Commenter IV-D-115 said that the EPA's RIA states
that control costs and benefits of materials separation are
not included in the regulatory benefits analysis, and it would
be impossible for EPA to perform the Congressionally-mandated
task of balancing emission reductions from materials
separation, if any, with adverse nonair quality environmental
impacts of the technology.
4-56
-------
Response: EPA recognizes that there may have been
unquantified costs for the separation requirements as
proposed, however as noted, these requirements are not
included in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) said that deposits on items
such as glass, aluminum, other metal containers, household
batteries, and automotive batteries are a more cost-effective
way to separate these materials and that requiring the MWC to
separate them from mixed MSW is costly to the MWC and to
taxpayers.
Response; The materials separation requirements are not being
required in this rule.
4.2.4.2 Economic and Market Impacts.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.11, IV-D-30,
IV-D-31, IV-D-32, IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-37, IV-D-39,
IV-D-41, IV-D-42, IV-D-43, IV-D-44, IV-D-45, IV-D-46, IV-D-48,
IV-D-49, IV-D-53, IV-D-58, IV-D-77, IV-D-78, IV-D-99,
IV-D-107, IV-D-115, IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-166, IV-D-222,
IV-D-230, IV-D-260, IV-D-261, IV-D-265) said that the
separation provisions will complicate the permitting process
and delay permits as MWC's and governments negotiate who has
responsibility and liability for separation. They said that
this will impede the ability of local governments to secure
financing for MWC's and to negotiate long-term performance
guarantees from the private sector which will result in a
reduction in the number of new MWC's and the projected amount
of MSW combusted. One commenter (IV-D-115) said that the
financial community has indicated that tying this uncertain
requirement to air permits threatens the status of financing
for MWC's. Some commenters (IV-D-153, IV-D-164) said that
when municipalities are considering new waste management
alternatives, landfills will seem preferable to MWC's due to
the difficulty in organizing and financing separation
programs.
Response; The materials separation provisions are not
included in the final rule.
4-57
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-23) said that the 25-percent
materials separation requirement would hamper the development
of waste-to-energy projects, especially in small communities.
The commenter said that if there is no curbside separation
program in the community, the high capital and operation and
maintenance costs associated with meeting the 25-percent
reduction level would be cost prohibitive for smaller
projects. This commenter said that their types of MWC
facilities already separate noncombustibles, but that meeting
the 25-percent reduction level would require separating
combustibles which are more economical to use as fuel to
produce electricity. They added that in a small community,
removing a substantial portion of the combustible waste stream
may lessen the feasibility of waste-to-energy projects by
restricting the amount of available waste fuel below the
minimum amount needed to operate a facility economically.
Response; First, this NSPS only covers MWC's with unit
capacities above 225 Mg/day 9250 tpd), so most MWC's in
smaller communities will not be covered. Second, the
materials separation provisions have been deleted from the
final rule.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-1.22, IV-D-205) said markets
for recycled materials will develop as the supply of separated
materials and public awareness increase. Commenter IV-D-160
said that the provisions will go a long way towards ensuring a
stable supply of recyclable materials that may eliminate
disincentives to market development. Others (IV-F-1.22,
IV-D-136) claimed studies have shown that market fluctuations
.should not hinder recycling programs designed to reduce the
waste stream by over 50 percent. Another (IV-D-121) said that
market limitations, in principal, should not hinder recycling
since when avoided costs of alternative disposal are figured
in, recycling will almost always be economically competitive.
Commenter IV-D-105 referred to a study they showed that there
would be greater demand for recyclables if there were a more
consistent flow of materials into recycling programs.
4-58
-------
However, others (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-1.16,
IV-F-1.29, IV-F-2.11, IV-F-2.12, IV-F-2.15, IV-D-30, IV-D-32,
IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-37, IV-D-38, IV-D-39, IV-D-41, IV-D-42,
IV-D-43, IV-D-45, IV-D-46, IV-D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-53,
IV-D-54, IV-D-66, IV-D-77, IV-D-78, IV-D-90, IV-D-99,
IV-D-101, IV-D-107, IV-D-115, IV-D-122, IV-D-128, IV-D-138,
IV-D-145, IV-D-153, IV-D-155, IV-D-161, IV-D-162, IV-D-163,
IV-D-164, IV-D-166, IV-D-194, IV-D-206, IV-D-221, IV-D-222,
IV-D-223, IV-D-229, IV-D-230, IV-D-251, IV-D-252, IV-D-259,
IV-D-260, IV-D-261, IV-D-265, IV-D-274, IV-D-282, IV-D-287)
said that increasing the supply of separated materials will
not necessarily increase the markets for them. The commenters
said a lack of markets would result in separated materials
being stockpiled, landfilled, or combusted under a combustion
permit, which are less desirable alternatives in the waste
management hierarchy than recycling. Commenter IV-D-299 said
that his State already had an oversupply of materials which
were piling up in warehouses. Commenter IV-D-101 referred to
studies showing that utilization of materials will only
increase with increased demand and incentives.
Commenter IV-D-138 referred to information showing that in
areas where recycling has been mandated, markets have reacted
with declining prices or collapse. Commenters IV-D-115 and
IV-D-197 referred to gluts in the newspaper market and said
that it would be futile to encourage more separation of this
material. Commenter IV-D-153 said that EPA never evaluated
the fate of materials that would be separated.
Commenter IV-D-297 said that if the Agency cannot guarantee
markets for all separated materials, the proposed standards
simply impose unnecessary costs on towns.
Some commenters (IV-F-2.12, IV-D-126) said they favored a
Federal goal of 25 percent separation, but that because of the
immaturity of recycling markets in all areas of the country
(particularly for paper), the volatility of these markets, and
municipal market procurement restraints a requirement of
25 percent is unrealistic and will be unreasonably expensive.
One commenter (IV-D-107) said that in the "Agenda for Action,"
4-59
-------
EPA slated market fluctuations are an impediment to recycling
and that both supply and markets need to be stabilized since
recycling is often demand driven and markets need to be
stimulated to avoid gluts. Two commenters (IV-D-78, IV-D-164)
thought that the separation requirements would create such a
large influx of recyclable materials that markets for these
materials would collapse and remain flat for many years.
These commenters thought that EPA should study such potential
impacts on communities as well as the whole Nation before
establishing such requirements. Commenter IV-D-158 thought
that markets do not exist for levels of recycling much greater
than being achieved currently.
Commenter IV-D-111 said that an oversupply of materials
would cause private groups to stop recycling as the price for
materials drops, and citizens would be turned against
recycling because it will not be cost effective.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that many nonprofit groups no longer
collect recyclable because of price declines.
Response; The Agency recognizes that there is significant
controversy over whether adequate secondary markets would
exist for separated materials had the proposal's requirements
been incorporated into the final rule. The uncertainty
associated with future scrap prices is one of the reasons, as
outlined in the preamble, that EPA determined that materials
separation could not be determined to be BDT on a nationwide
basis on the basis of the record before the Agency at this
time.
Comment: Commenter IV-D-173 said that the greatest
limitations to higher recycling rates are distortions in the
fiscal policies of most cities and States that favor landfills
and MWC's such as: (1) contracts guaranteeing delivery of
waste through "put or pay" agreements, (2) substantial tipping
fees, (3) clauses that pass financial risks to communities, .
(4) donations of land, (5) assistance with ash disposal,
(6) favorable contracts for electricity, and (7) large State
grants. The commenter suggested that all waste management
financing should be on a "level playing field" and that
4-60
-------
recycling should be considered equally when considering waste
management options.
Response: The authorities of the CAA do not allow the Agency
to mandate changes in State and local fiscal policies but many
cities and States have acted to promote recycling. For
example, Seattle, Washington, has a "put or pay" contract with
one recycler and has taken on market risk in return for lower
tipping fees for another, other towns such as Woodbury, New
Jersey, have provided capital and funding for operations for
recycling facilities.
States have augmented local efforts by encouraging both
recycling and the use of recycled materials. To induce
recycling, 23 States and the District of Columbia,
representing almost 68 percent of all U. S. citizens, have set
recycling goals ranging from 10 to 50 percent to be achieved
within 10 years. Over 35 million Americans reside in States
mandating municipal recycling. Nine other States have set
recycling goals of 20 to 50 percent which localities must
meet. To encourage use of secondary materials, seven States
give tax credits and/or sales tax exemptions to producers of
goods containing recycled materials. Seven other States give
loans and/or grants to these manufacturers.
Whether or not one judges the playing field to be level,
municipal and State governments are clearly taking steps that
actively promote recycling.
Comment t Commenter IV-D-145 cautioned that the costs
associated with the materials separation requirements would
drive waste away from the city's MWC to landfills in
surrounding counties.
Response; In the near term, some MSW may be diverted to
landfills as a result of the higher costs associated with
materials separation and emission control requirements. Also,
some planned MWC's may be deemed uneconomic. These issues are
addressed by the substitution analysis in the revised economic
impact analysis.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-3.10) said that a large
percentage of separated papers are not readily marketable
4-61
-------
because they are contaminated with food, plastics, or other
materials and combustion of these materials should be favored.
Some commenters (IV-D-131, IV-D-148, IV-D-174) said that paper
can only be recycled so many times before the fiber gets too
weak. Commenter IV-D-115 said that "recycled paper" is only
50 percent secondary fiber since no process is currently able
to rid the paper of contaminants. One commenter (IV-D-131)
opposed mandatory separation requirements which include paper
saying that: (1) many types of wastepaper, such as mixed
wastepaper are undesirable for recycling, (2) paper
manufacturers will be unwilling to incur costs associated with
plant modifications and additional transportation in order to
use wastepaper, and (3) manufacturers will continue to
purchase a minimum amount of recycled fiber. Therefore, the
commenter felt that the providers of wastepaper would be at an
economic disadvantage in trying to move the product.
Commenter IV-D-181 said that the real demand for old newspaper
will not increase in the mid-Atlantic area for at least 5 to
7 years, and communities would be penalized in the meantime
since they would have to give it away or pay to have it taken
away instead of using it to produce energy.
Several commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-D-02, IV-D-04,
IV-D-131) said that there are practical limitations on the
amount of paper products than can be recycled in a short time
frame since it takes years to add new paper recycling
capacity. These commenters cautioned that creating a large
supply in a short time frame may create market gluts. Two
commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-D-140) speculated that mandatory
recycling would make available large amounts of low quality or
contaminated paper which may be undesirable to manufacturers.
Commenter IV-D-138 also said that EPA had not addressed the
incongruity between the timing for recycling infrastructure
development and widely fluctuating markets. The commenter
said that forcing supplies may drive down prices if capacity
to accept the materials is not available and this may
discourage investors from investing in recycling.
4-62
-------
However, one commenter (IV-F-1.2) said that it is
incorrect to say that there is no market for paper. He said
that the wastepaper stream must be separated in a way that
industry can depend on it.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that recycled steel scrap and
plastics are weaker and less suited for some products than
virgin products because of the inability to remove
contaminants from the secondary materials.
Response: The final rule does not include materials
separation requirements.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-15, IV-D-17, IV-D-74) said
that since markets for separated mixed wastepaper are not well
developed, EPA should allow this material to be combusted as
fuel (possibly cofired with other fuels in industrial boilers)
until alternative markets are developed. They added that the
high cost of meeting the proposed standards would eliminate a
potential fuel market for mixed wastepaper and would result in
increased landfilling of this material. Commenter IV-D-174
felt that EPA should let the market determine whether source
separated paper is combusted for energy or recycled. The
commenter said that the proposed regulations make it
uneconomical to burn separated paper even though this is
preferable to landfilling.
Response; Cofired combustors (those combustors that combust a
fuel stream containing 30 percent or less MSW or RDF) are not
subject to the MWC standards. Facilities that burn small
amounts of wastepaper or other MSW materials with other fuels
would not be subject to the NSPS. Facilities that fire more
than this amount of MSW or components of MSW would be subject
to the NSPS but the final rule does not include materials
separation requirements.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.26, IV-F-3.1, IV-D-06,
IV-D-14, IV-D-122) thought that materials separation should
not be mandated if it is uneconomical or if markets for
recyclable are unavailable.
Response; The materials separation provisions are not
included in the final rule. One of the concerns which led EPA
4-63
-------
to conclude that these requirements did not represent BDT was
the uncertainty at this time over the impact of scrap prices
would have on the overall benefits of materials separation on
an aggregate basis.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-3.6, IV-F-3.8, IV-D-216,
IV-D-238) from Alaska said that the 25-percent materials
separation requirement is not appropriate for most Alaskan
communities since there are limited markets for separated
materials in the State of Alaska, and, with the exception of
nonferrous metals, it would be prohibitively expensive to ship
the materials to the nearest markets which are in Seattle.
Also, many Alaskan communities do not have year-round surface
access outside of their community. These commenters added
that separated materials would probably be landfilled, and
this would significantly reduce landfill life. In Alaska,
combustion is strongly favored over landfilling because
climatic conditions make landfills difficult to'operate, and
landfills attract bears which could prove to be a danger to
the community. Other commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-200,
IV-D-232) referred to small towns or rural areas which may
have special difficulties in locating markets and meeting the
25-percent goal and thought that these areas should be
exempted from the requirement. One commenter (IV-D-112) said
that small MWC's will be impacted more than larger facilities
by the materials separation requirements since they are at
greater distances from markets and they will not have an
economy of scale.
Response: First, these standards do not apply to facilities
with unit capacities less than 250 tons per day (225 Mg/day).
Second, the materials separation provisions are not included
in the final rule.
Comment; . One commenter (IV-F-1.16) asserted that the Federal
Government should make funds available for States, counties,
and municipalities implementing separation programs like they
did in the 1960's and 1970's for improving water and sewage
treatment facilities. Otherwise, States and local areas with
MWC's will have trouble financing facilities or programs
4-64
-------
needed to comply with the separation requirements. One
commenter (IV-F-1.14) stated that the citizens see the EPA's
actions as mandatory expensive projects without providing any
funding for them. Commenter IV-F-1.13 also felt that the
Federal Government should fund the fiscal impact resulting
from the proposed rules.
Response; EPA has decided not to require material separation
part of national BDT standards at this time.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.6) was concerned that since
tipping fees in their State are regulated by the State Public
Utility Commission, their private MWC facility could possibly
have to subsidize community recycling activities if the
commission does not grant tipping fee increases consistent
with the real costs of complying with the 25-percent materials
separation requirements.
Response; The materials separation provisions have not been
included in the final rule.
Comment! Several commenters (IV-F-2.36, IV-F-2.44, IV-F-2.50,
IV-F-2.52, IV-D-57) said that recycling is preferable to
incineration because recycling creates more jobs.
Response: If recycling creates more jobs than combustion,
this may be a benefit of materials separation that communities
can consider in individual cases.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) said that his State had
limited staff in air and solid waste programs and that
monitoring commercial and municipal generators from out of
State to comply with the materials separation requirements
will be cost prohibitive. This commenter suggested that the
Federal Government should pay the associated monitoring costs.
Response: There will be no costs associated with the proposed
requirements as they have not been included in the final rule.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-1.16)
expressed concern that financially stressed communities in the
northeastern United States will be adversely impacted by the
materials separation requirements. One commenter (IV-F-1.1)
said that the EPA's worst case impacts for the materials
separation requirement ($10 to $20 tipping fee increase) would
4-65
-------
be unaffordable for many municipalities, and short-term costs
are likely to be much higher.
Response; Concern over the potential impacts on communities
where the costs of separation were high and the potential for
the benefits to materialize uncertain was one of the reasons
EPA decided not to require materials separation on a
nationwide basis at this time.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-107) said that EPA neglected to
analyze the cost impacts of materials separation with respect
to MWC technology and size. The commenter was concerned that
the materials separation requirements may provide competitive
advantages for certain types of MWC technologies.
Response; The requirements for materials separation are not
included in the final rule.
Comment: Commenter IV-D-90 said that in order to effectively
recycle any material, the material must be acceptable to the
market place and must be provided at a cost below that of new
materials with which the recycled material competes.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that materials sorting and grading is
much more difficult than many fledgling recyclers realize.
The commenter said that there are over 40 different grades of
paper and 200 grades of metal, and that recyclable must be
treated as commodities whose values are determined by demand.
Response; It is true that effective recycling requires a
steady supply of quality materials at a competitive price.
The Agency encourages citizens, businesses, and organizations
to adopt the frame of mind that when one separates materials
for recovery, they are supplying a raw material — not simply
discarding waste. Statment's by representatives of the paper,
plastic, glass, and metals industries indicated that demand
for each of these recyclable materials will increase and that
capital investments are being made into facilities to use
these recyclables.
Comment: Commenter IV-D-106 said that incineration of glass
and metal should be minimized because if separated, they are
easily recycled, but processing them in an MWC destroys their
value as a resource.
4-66
-------
However, Commenter IV-D-101 said that incinerating
noncombustibles such as ferrous metals is desirable because
these materials are rendered biologically inert and are easier
to market.
Response; Metals separated after combustion may be clean and
marketable, but metals separated prior to combustion are also
favorable for market, and separation programs generally
encourage residents to rinse containers before separating
them. Separating metals after combustion can lead to
secondary benefits when these materials are recycled, but
primary benefits are lost since they pass through the MWC and
may contribute to air emissions. Furthermore, some
steelmakers disfavor scrap steel which has gone through an
incinerator.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-122) said that repeated
recycling can adversely affect product quality and suggested
that the long-term potential impact of the materials
separation requirements on product quality be evaluated.
Response; Since major manufacturers are seeking supplies of
recyclable glass, paper, plastic, and metals, it is believed
that product quality will not diminish since product
manufacturers would not seek recyclable materials if they
would adversely affect their products. Product manufacturers
have their own quality specifications, and they purchase raw
materials that can be made into products meeting these
specifications.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-138) cautioned that the proposed
standards may encourage further consolidation of the waste
management industry since MWC's may want to buy out recycling
operations in order to gain control of the recycling processes
to ensure compliance with the 25-percent requirement.
Response: The materials separation requirements are not
mandated by this rule and therefore the projected concern
would not materialize as a result of this rule.
Comment! Commenter IV-D-166 said that nothing will turn
citizens away from recycling more than reports of separated
materials being landfilled or stored in warehouses.
-------
However, Commenter IV-D-173 said that with intelligent
planning and investment, no community should have to stockpile
materials. The commenter said that initially, programs could
de-emphasize materials with problematic markets, but could
invest in market development to improve markets by the time
the regulations take effect. The commenter said that the most
problematic commodity market, newspapers, will be much
expanded by the time the regulations take effect.
Response: The materials separation provisions are not
mandated therefore materials separation should occur when
local communities determine that they can recycle those
materials.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-138 suggested that brokers may stall
acceptance of separated materials in order to artificially
adjust prices, thereby putting communities at an economic
disadvantage in moving the materials.
Response; A market is competitive when there are low (or no)
barriers to entry and exit, many rival firms sell a
homogeneous product, and each seller only holds a small
portion of the total market. Most recycled goods markets are
characterized by these statements.
The barriers to entry and exit in the recycled materials
brokering markets are very low. The condition of homogeneity
is satisfied in the recycled materials markets, the problem of
contamination aside. The large number of communities and the
potentially large number of brokers involved in the trade
prevent concentration of market share by any single actor.
Given the low barriers to entry and exit, no single broker
could easily obtain a large enough market share to exert
control over prices. If such a broker were to stall
acceptance of materials, other brokers could enter the market
and contract with the material supplier.
Comment; Commenter IV-D-161 and IV-D-167 said that a fixed
national recycling requirement ignores differences in
geography, commodity, time, and demand, and, therefore, is
flawed. Commenter IV-D-153 said that EPA has underestimated
both the costs of recycling and the complexity of markets.
4-68
-------
Response; The proposed materials separation requirements are
not included in the final rule.
^"fTT?nt; One commenter (IV-D-138) said the materials
separation provisions would lead to the siting of many very
small MWC's in a region instead of one large regional
facility.
Response: The materials separation provision are not included
in the final rule.
4.3 COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR MATERIALS SEPARATION
4.3.1 Calculation of Percent Separation
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.10, IV-F-1.30, IV-F-2.15,
IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.56, IV-F-3.1, IV-D-51, IV-D-83,
IV-D-98, IV-D-108, IV-D-114, IV-D-126, IV-D-128, IV-D-134,
IV-D-138, IV-D-139, IV-D-146, IV-D-153, IV-D-164) said that
the list of materials that count toward the 25 percent should
be broadened to include all types of waste that are being
recycled including textiles, wood chips, construction and
demolition waste, junk cars, commercial grease rendering,
asphalt, dirt, and rubber as well as any other reductions that
are achieved. Five commenters (IV-F-1.30, IV-D-117, IV-D-121,
IV-D-186, IV-D-268) said wet organic foodstuffs, which can be
composted, should be counted toward the 25 percent. Some
commenters (IV-D-114, IV-D-128) said that broadening the list
of creditable items could help minimize the use of combustion
permits. These commenters suggested that preconsumer
recycling by businesses, such as the recycling of pressroom
waste and returned (unsold) newspapers, be included in the
list of creditable items or activities. Another commenter
(IV-D-116) also questioned why the proposed NSPS offered no
credit for industrial recycling. One commenter (IV-D-139)
said there should be no limits placed on any recyclable as to
how much of the 25-percent requirement it could meet. Some
requested that the baseline against which the 25 percent is
measured and the materials counted toward the 25 percent also
be more clearly defined.
4-69
-------
Response; Because the Agency has decided not to impose
materials separation, it is unnecessary to address to this
comment.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-1.27, IV-F-1.28, IV-F-2.47,
IV-F-2.50) said composting of yard waste should be mandatory,
but should not count toward the overall percent separation.
Another (IV-D-16) also said composting should not be included
in the 25 percent. One commenter (IV-F-1.27) said that yard
waste should not be credited toward the 25 percent, but that
at least 50 percent of all yard wastes should be separated.
Others (IV-F-2.50, IV-F-3.7) said that all yard waste removed
should be credited, but the overall 25-percent requirement
should be increased accordingly. Another commenter (IV-D-238)
thought yard wastes should be excluded from incinerators based
on their NOX emissions, high moisture content, and seasonal
variation.
Conversely, several commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-108,
IV-D-126, IV-D-128, IV-D-153, IV-D-184) said that there should
be no limit on the credit for yard waste. Some commenters
(IV-D-108, IV-D-134, IV-D-147) said that the cap on creditable
yard wastes discourages efforts to recycle or compost such
wastes. Two commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-282) said that the
proposed materials separation requirement's 10-percent credit
limit on yard waste was technically inappropriate, since yard
waste is not a good combustible (and is therefore a good
candidate for separation). One of these commenters (IV-D-282)
said that EPA could promote the separation of several kinds of
material by putting a 15-percent cap on credit available for
any one class of materials. Commenter IV-D-164 also said it
is inconsistent with the "Agenda for Action" emphasis on yard
waste composting. One of the commenters (IV-D-148) said that
an alternative to giving full credit for all yard wastes is to
allow only a percent for yard wastes separated after the first
10 percent credit is given. A third commenter (IV-D-153) said
it will be difficult to accurately reflect an appropriate
credit for backyard composting of yard waste, even though it
may be a significant portion of the overall waste volume. One
4-70
-------
of the commenters said all composted yard waste, even that
left in place ought to be credited, so long as it were fit to
make a marketable compost. However, another (IV-F-1.9) said
there should be a maximum credit available for yard wastes.
Another commenter (IV-D-116) asked that some credit must be
available for backyard composting.
Another commenter (IV-D-108) was concerned that composted
yard waste that is not actually resold for a profit might be
excluded from the 25-percent determination, even though it
still would not be burned or landfilled.
Response: Because the Agency has decided not to impose
materials separation, it is unnecessary to address to this
comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-180) said that the limitation on
creditability of yard waste conflicts with California law,
which allows full credit for yard waste diversion. One
commenter (IV-D-191) said that a mandatory composting program
should be a prerequisite for permitting an MWC, and that the
final product must be demonstrated.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-154, IV-D-184) said that
allowing increased credit for composting of yard waste would
result in increased composting which then results in better
NOX control.
Response; Because EPA has decided to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-108) argued that credit should
not be given for materials that are separated at the MWC but
ultimately end up in a landfill. The commenter said it was
preferable for the Administrator to allow a lower compliance
rate for a given operator who cannot find a reuser for the
separated materials, than to fictitiously report that material
as recycled.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
4-71
-------
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.41, IV-D-116, IV-D-132,
IV-D-168, IV-D-171, IV-D-205, IV-D-219) said that some
communities already achieve 25 percent separation and that it
would be unfair to consider current practices as the baseline
and require an additional 25 percent. These and other
commenters (IV-D-277) said credit should be given for
separation already achieved. Another commenter (IV-D-134)
said the 25 percent should be based on all waste produced in
the areas served by an MWC, not just the amount brought to the
combustor.
In contrast, two commenters (IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50) said
the Federal materials separation requirements should be based
on current waste disposal practices and should not give credit
toward the 25-percent requirement for reductions currently
being achieved. One commenter (IV-D-134) said that a baseline
year against which to compare the 25-percent reduction should
be established, as is currently done in New York.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-98) said reductions due to
source reduction programs should be creditable. Another
commenter (IV-D-116) agreed, noting that source reduction is
higher on the solid waste management hierarchy found in the
"Agenda for Action." Another commenter (IV-F-2.62) suggested
the calculation of 25 percent separation should give credit
for waste reduction resulting from nonrecycling activities,
such as a shift to products with less packaging.
However, two commenters (IV-D-16 and IV-D-186) said the
25-percent separation should not include credit for source
reduction. One commenter (IV-D-186) noted that the State of
New York has a combined source reduction and recycling goal of
50 percent already. Another commenter (IV-D-187) said that
credit should not be given to an MWC for off-site (source)
reduction to the extent that no separation on site is
4-72
-------
necessary, because the MWC ought always to have to sort out
batteries and to reduce the load to the MWC.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment! Some commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-139, IV-D-146) said
the regulations should provide specific estimation methods for
accounting for credit due to source reduction programs,
backyard composting, and bottle bills. The commenters
requested that this credit ought to be plainly stated within
the regulation, rather than just expressed in the preamble.
Some commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-279) asked if bottle bill
returns would be credited and how they would be measured.
Another commenter (IV-D-134) requested that credit for
deposit/return systems be measured by scales or very specific
calculations rather than estimation methods which must be
reviewed by EPA. This commenter (IV-D-134) also said that EPA
needed to develop specific estimation methods for calculating
the percent credit allowed for materials that cannot be
weighed directly. One commenter (IV-D-146) noted that the
State of Washington had developed some expertise in crediting
off-site programs that could be modeled in this rulemaking.
However, some commenters (IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.48,
IV-F-2.50, IV-D-268) said that only materials which actually
enter the municipal waste collection system should be given
credit. No credit should be given for materials that are not
typically collected with MSW such as white goods, bottles and
cans returned under bottle bills, and backyard compost.
Response: Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Eight commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-D-101, IV-D-116,
IV-D-131, IV-D-139, IV-D-153, IV-D-155, IV-D-158) thought
"back-end" recycling of materials, such as metals and ash,
recovered after combustion in an MWC should be credited toward
the 25 percent. Another commenter (IV-F-3.9) representing an
alternative combustor process concurred with the proposal's
requirement for 25 percent materials separation. The
commenter went on to say, however, that in his process, glass
4-73
-------
and aluminum were actually more easily separated from the ash
residue than at the front end (i.e., by separation prior to
combustion).
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-F-2.56, IV-D-66, IV-D-101,
IV-D-153) said energy recycling achieved by recovery of heat
from incinerated waste should be credited toward 25 percent
because the energy offsets the pollution which would result
from producing an equivalent amount of energy by burning a
fossil fuel. One commenter (IV-F-2.56) said this is currently
allowed in Ohio. One commenter (IV-D-153) suggested a maximum
credit of 5 percent (out of 25 percent) be allowed for
waste-to-energy facilities because they produce energy in an
environmentally protective manner. Other commenters
(IV-D-163, IV-D-282), however, said no credit should be given
for separated materials that are processed into RDF. The
commenters did stipulate, however, that separated tires burned
for fuel should be credited.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-116) was concerned that if
prices for recyclable materials increased enough, individuals
would sell the recyclables themselves. The commenter wondered
how this would impact compliance.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50) said batteries
should be separated, but not counted toward the 25 percent.
However, other commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-209) said lead-acid
and household batteries should count toward the 25-percent
requirement. The first commenter (IV-D-209) said this would
give operators an additional incentive to thoroughly monitor
the incoming waste for lead-acid batteries which have not been
source separated.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
4-74
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-153) said credit should also be
given to a municipality having requirements for the use of
recycled products, because those requirements increase demand,
thus promoting recycling.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-139, IV-D-209) said that since
local governments are responsible for waste management, a
local government should be allowed to "distribute" credit for
materials separation which occurs anywhere within its
jurisdiction among any operators serving the locality, so long
as the whole management area achieves the 25-percent
reduction. The commenter argued that this allowed day to day
flexibility in solid waste management while accomplishing the
overall goal of 25 percent separation. Another commenter
(IV-D-219) said that a community ought to receive credit for
anything it separated out as a result of a State or local
ordinance or prohibition.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
4.3.2 Contractual Arrangements
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.10) said that the need to
become a co-operator should not be mandated in the standards.
Rather, responsibilities should be specified in individual
contracts. However, two commenters (IV-D-190, IV-D-235)
argued that it was necessary to involve the community as a
co-operator in order to ensure compliance because the facility
has no way to control and/or validate recycling efforts. The
commenter recommended the compliance provisions be
strengthened by EPA through more developed procedures for
certification, co-operator contracts, and auditing. Some
commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-D-222, IV-D-229) said that assigning
responsibility for the materials separation requirements would
complicate and prolong contract negotiations. These and other
commenters (IV-D-115) said the materials separation
requirements would hinder the ability of operators to obtain
financing. One commenter (IV-D-225) said that tying the
4-75
-------
materials separation provisions to a preconstruction permit or
permit to operate would cost many applicants who were already
several years into an MWC project 2 to 3 more years, even in
the case where recycling is already being aggressively
implemented. Another commenter (IV-D-282) said the materials
separation provision would tip the scales toward delay for any
project facing uncertainty.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-158) said that the
consent decree envisioned by the proposal was unworkable
because it was voluntary, and needed to have all parties
contractually bound, with one of them having authority to
bring about corrective actions. Another commenter (IV-F-3.6)
thought this regulation provided no help for entities (i.e.,
MWC owners or operators) that have no control over contractual
arrangements, and no authority to force communities to
separate wastes, recycle, or even reveal quantities separated
or recycled.
Two commenters (IV-D-106, IV-D-186) thought that the
threat of enforcement action against the owner or operator or
even shutdown was appropriate, in order to provide the
incentive to perform separation, or to require it of any and
all contractors or subcontractors.
Response: Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned that MWC's may need
to rely on the word of others that waste has been separated
prior to delivery to the MWC. One commenter (IV-D-153) said
that the regulation needed to provide protection to those
operators who rely in good faith on the word and records of an
off-site entity under this type of cooperator contractual
arrangement. Another commenter (IV-D-138) recommended that
the regulations clearly state that where an MWC has contracts
which specifically state that delivered wastes will have
undergone separation, the contracts themselves be accepted as
a demonstration of compliance.
4-76
-------
Response: Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
4.3.3 Combustion Permit
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-F-1.28, IV-F-2.6,
IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.52, IV-F-2.53, IV-F-3.13, IV-D-56, IV-D-57,
IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-158, IV-D-201, IV-D-217) favored
elimination of the proposed combustion permit provisions.
They saw this as a potential loophole that would take away
from achieving the goal of recycling. One commenter
(IV-D-238) said that materials incinerated under the
combustion permit should never be accounted for as "recycled."
Another commenter (IV-D-186) said that composting of separated
materials should be considered before either landfilling or
combustion, when recycling is not available. Another
commenter (IV-D-246) said the combustion permit should only be
allowed when the 25-percent requirement cannot be achieved
through the separation of other materials.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
comment• One commenter (IV-D-114) favored the combustion
permit as proposed.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.2, IV-D-105, IV-D-120,
IV-D-121, IV-D-209) said that a comparison between the cost of
paying a recycler to accept separated combustibles and the
landfill tipping fee is not always an appropriate basis for a
combustion permit, since landfill tipping fees are influenced
by many factors and are not a good reflection of true disposal
costs. One commenter (IV-D-117) said the landfill tipping fee
was inappropriate to use in justifying an application for a
combustion permit because landfilling was at the bottom of the
solid waste hierarchy. The commenter was concerned that even
though the availability of landfill space was likely to
decrease in the future, landfill tipping fees were not
representative of the true costs of disposal, and, as such
should be avoided in the combustion permit decision. Another
4-77
-------
commenter (IV-D-186) said that the tipping fee often does not
represent the cost of landfilling in a landfill meeting all
the applicable regulations because so many landfills are
currently out of compliance with many ordinances. The
commenter also noted that the tipping fee also seldom includes
the long term cost of maintenance after closure. However,
another commenter (IV-D-209) said that in some counties
landfill tipping fees include the cost of community recycling
programs. Other commenters (IV-D-146, IV-D-246) said the cost
of transportation should be figured into the comparison
wherever transportation costs occur.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.10, IV-D-51, IV-D-238) thought a
comparison between the cost that would be paid to a recycler
to accept the material and the MWC tipping fee or landfill
tipping fee for the given weight of material was a more
appropriate comparison. Another commenter (IV-F-1.2) said it
must not be easy to obtain a combustion permit, and that the
avoided MWC tipping fee must be less than the cost to have it
recycled before a permit should be granted. Most of these
commenters thought better guidance ought to be provided as to
the baseline for such comparisons.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.5, IV-F-1.29, IV-D-83,
IV-D-115) said that if there is no market for separated
materials, separation should not be required prior to
combustion (under a permit) or landfilling. They said
separation in such cases would be costly, unnecessary, and
inefficient. One commenter (IV-D-115) argued that storing
these materials would be difficult due to space constraints,
and would result in health and sanitation problems.
However, others (IV-F-1.10, IV-D-186) said that
separation should still be required regardless of whether
separated materials are recycled or disposed of because
markets often rebound. One commenter said that only if the
markets show no recovery for a prolonged period of time should
separation be allowed to stop.
4-78
-------
One commenter (IV-D-135) said that any combustion permit
should be based on the overall marketability of a given
recyclable material, and not result in an entire year of
exemption. This commenter said markets will rebound, and the
exemption granted would be irrelevant and contrary to the
intent of the proposed standards. However, one commenter
(IV-D-219) said that most solid waste management programs are
not able to respond quickly to changes in the recycling market
by separating an alternate material in greater demand,
especially when the specifics of source separation and
reduction programs are embodied in local ordinances. The
commenter said a community should not be penalized for market
forces beyond its control.
Another commenter (IV-D-121) said that the cost
effectiveness of the overall materials separation should be
the basis for granting a combustion permit, not just the costs
involved in recycling one unsuccessful component. The
commenter argued that sale of a highly profitable material,
such as aluminum, can help support the recycling of a material
which needs to be subsidized in order to be recycled.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-F-3.13 and IV-D-56, IV-D-121)
said that if costs for recycling and landfilling are to be
compared for the purpose of exempting facilities from
separation requirements, then environmental costs should be
assessed for global warming effects and ozone destruction as
well as for toxic air emissions, toxic ash leaching, and
resource destruction.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-D-116, IV-D-138,
IV-D-153, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-164, IV-D-167,
IV-D-174, IV-D-184, IV-D-235, IV-D-257) saw the combustion
permit provision as unworkable. The commenters said that MWC
owners or operators would have to spend an inordinate amount
of time in negotiations with EPA for combustion permits,
4-79
-------
especially where markets are highly volatile. Another
coxnmenter (IV-D-184) said that new MWC's may not be able to
burn the unrecyclable materials for which a combustion permit
has been granted because many States will seldom permit any
excess capacity at MWC's.
Another commenter (IV-D-140) noted that there are some
areas where a 1-year combustion permit would not help, such as
Fargo, North Dakota, which is very far from any mills where
used paper could be used. The commenter recommended that the
permit granting authorities ought to be granted flexibility to
respond to local and regional situations. One commenter
(IV-D-221) said that the authority to grant combustion permits
ought to be given to the States, when a State has an approved
SIP with RCRA authorization.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Many commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-108, IV-D-155,
IV-D-158, IV-D-193, IV-D-235, IV-D-279) said the
120 days necessary prior to applying for a combustion permit
was too long. Some of these commenters felt the long time
period would provide fire hazards and opportunities for "sham"
recycling operators who might collect revenues from
municipalities for storing waste which they would subsequently
abandon. One commenter (IV-D-108) stated that this sort of
operation has already been a problem in his State,
particularly with tires. The commenter recommended a holding
time of 30 days.
Other commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-D-101, IV-D-116, IV-D-128,
IV-D-138, IV-D-153, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-164,
IV-D-167, IV-D-174, IV-D-184, IV-D-235) commented that wastes
held for 120 days would present a health hazard.
Additionally, some commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-F-1.5, IV-D-116,
IV-D-138, IV-D-153, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-164,
IV-D-167, IV-D-174, IV-D-184, IV-D-193, IV-D-235, IV-D-257)
were concerned that the facilities would never have enough
space to store 120 days worth of stocked wastes. One of the
commenters (IV-D-138) said that this is simply a physical
4-80
-------
impossibility. Some commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-166)
opposed the 120-day holding provision prior to combustion
because they believed the combustion permit provisions would
result in landfilling rather than burning the materials
separated and stockpiled, resulting in an increased use of
landfills. Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-128) suggested a
permit ought to be available as soon as the price turned
negative. Other commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155, IV-D-158)
opposing the 120-day holding period noted that many State and
local laws currently prohibit the storage of waste for any
protracted time periods. Some commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-155,
IV-D-257) said that since the proposal only requires that
25 percent of the waste stream be separated, and not that it
be recycled, many operators would therefore landfill anything
that it could not recycle immediately rather than wait to
combust it under a permit. One commenter (IV-D-138) said any
health or environmental benefit gained by diverting the waste
from the combustor would be more than offset by increased
landfill gas emission levels at the landfill.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106) recommended that
owners or operators applying for the combustion permit must
first do extensive waste analysis and market studies to
document that a market is not expected to develop in the near
future.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-167) wondered who would be
responsible for wastes separated at an MWC when they cannot be
recycled if 25 percent reduction is also required at landfills
sometime in the.future.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
4.3.4. Enforcement Guidance and General Enforcement Comments
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-138, IV-D-282) were
concerned that owners and operators of MWC's do not have
4-81
-------
control over the level of separation achieved by individuals
in the waste shed. One commenter (IV-F-1.32 and IV-D-28) said
that neither the MWC nor the community should be held
responsible if separation is not achieved because individuals
failed to recycle. Another commenter (IV-D-193) said that the
penalties for prohibited items that are found in the waste
stream should be levied against the homeowner that slipped
them into the trash bag. One commenter (IV-D-187), however,
said that off-site processors should not be penalized for any
shortfall in the 25-percent requirement and that all penalties
should apply against the MWC operator.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.26, IV-F-2.8, IV-F-2.11,
IV-D-166) wondered if noncompliance meant the MWC could be
shut down, because the garbage would be on the curb every
morning, whether or not the 25-percent requirement were met.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.2) expressed doubt that EPA
would enforce sanctions on municipalities in cases where the
municipality providing MSW to the MWC is responsible for
separation.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-D-146, IV-D-166,
IV-D-205) said that State air agencies have little control
over solid waste disposal. They said it makes little sense
for State air agencies to keep records on waste separation,
and that the State solid waste offices should be involved.
The commenters recommended that development of the scheme for
enforcement be left up to the States, provided it meets the
specified goals of the Federal regulation. Other commenters
(IV-D-101, IV-D-282) said that it was preferable for EPA to
develop the system for compliance demonstrations through OSW.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-18) suggested that the
regulations for materials separation should regulate weighing
4-82
-------
operations so that compliance would be based on standard
weighing practices. Another commenter (IV-D-104) suggested
that daily weights be used in determining the 25-percent
reduction required, in order to be more representative of the
incoming waste profile. A third commenter (IV-D-171)
recommended that the enforcement compliance provisions specify
the units of measurement, base dates, and what may be included
in the count. The commenter further recommended that only
actual weights or volumes be used and argued that estimations
should be avoided for all but rural or smaller communities.
Another commenter (IV-D-184) said that weighing and measuring
solid waste is currently more of an art than a science. The
commenter believed that the workload required to account for
separated materials is therefore underestimated. Another
commenter (IV-D-60) said that even though he approved of the
separation requirements, weighing the incoming garbage would
be too much of a burden for very small incinerators.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-116) said that a merchant plant
operator might be forced to separate materials for many, or
even every, "spot" load of waste the operator accepts, even if
their long-term contractors bring only processed waste. A
second commenter (IV-D-173) said that enforcement for merchant
MWC's would involve random inspections of incoming loads to
verify that the waste has been pretreated. The commenter
recommended that such MWC's be allowed to accept waste only
from communities having effective recycling programs in place.
Another commenter (XV-D-11) asked how the material separation
requirements would be enforced when wastes are brought from
other States.
Response; Because EPA has decided not impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.27, IV-D-56, IV-D-105)
felt that compliance should be demonstrated 1 year rather than
4-83
-------
2 years after start-up to ensure health protection. Several
(IV-D-106, IV-D-117, IV-D-186) agreed that the compliance
times allowed are unnecessarily long. One of these (IV-D-186)
suggested that interim enforceable requirements are needed.
However, several commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-153, IV-D-155,
IV-o-158) thought 2 years was too short a time in which to
develop a program which could demonstrate compliance with a
25-percent requirement. One commenter (IV-D-155) cited
several examples of large scale separation systems built in
the 1970's which failed "spectacularly," while another
commenter (IV-D-153) said that the materials separation
programs envisioned by the proposal would require political
activities which require longer time frames to execute.
Another commenter (IV-D-138) reported that programs achieving
25 percent reduction have been in operations for 2 years or
more.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-D-117, IV-D-178, IV-D-186,
IV-D-238) recommended that MWC's be required to submit
equipment specifications and other aspects of their plans for
compliance with the materials separation requirements in
advance of implementing them or obtaining an operating permit.
Two commenters (IV-D-117, IV-D-238) recommended that
applicants be required to characterize their waste stream
prior to obtaining a permit, in an effort to improve
separation efficiency.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-238) said the materials
separation plan should include a description of significant
educational or promotional efforts underway or in progress in
the service area.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation, it is unnecessary to respond to this comment.
4-84
-------
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said the
regulation needs to be strengthened in the area of compliance
monitoring by establishing specific responsibilities for who
is to provide regulatory oversight. Another commenter (IV-D-
138) noted that a specific entity providing oversight needs to
be established up front in order to ensure that all deliveries
to the facility have undergone pretreatment, since not all
deliveries are under the direct jurisdiction of the operator.
One commenter (IV-D-181) said the materials separation
requirements will greatly increase the workload and paperwork
of EPA regional offices.
Several commenters (IV-D-114, IV-D-155, IV-D-158,
IV-D-167) said EPA needs to provide guidance to municipalities
of the design of separation programs, and/or how to measure
compliance. One commenter (IV-D-167) felt enforcement issues
are of such fundamental importance to the rulemaking that
enforcement guidance documents for the materials separation
requirement should be subject to public notice and comment.
One commenter (IV-F-1.8) said enforcement of separation
would be no more difficult than enforcement of many other
programs already in place. He gave the complex technical
requirements of the PSD program as an example of something
that is currently enforced and is at least as difficult to
enforce as separation.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
4.3.5 Battery Separation Compliance
Comment; Many commenters (IV-D-107, IV-D-111, IV-D-L13,
IV-D-137, IV-D-170, IV-D-181), although in support of the
exclusion of batteries from the waste stream, felt an absolute
prohibition was unworkable. Some commenters (IV-F-1.8,
IV-F-1.30, IV-D-125) said visual identification of lead-acid
vehicle batteries by the crane operator is not a feasible way
to prevent battery combustion. One commenter (IV-F-1.8) said
EPA should make it clear that this method will not be
acceptable to demonstrate compliance with the battery
4-85
-------
combustion prohibition. One commenter (IV-D-113) said that
mandatory battery separation programs are unenforceable and,
therefore, would flounder. Two commenters (IV-D-107,
IV-D-181) said that requiring 100 percent removal of lead-acid
batteries is an unachievable requirement because neither
deposit/return systems or battery screening devices can
effectively ensure 100 percent removal. The commenter felt
that requiring "best efforts" or "reasonable efforts" to
remove the batteries was more reasonable and enforceable.
One commenter (IV-D-137) suggested that more feasible
methods 'of excluding lead-acid batteries would be:
(1) agreements between MWC operators and waste haulers stating
that batteries are prohibited, (2) signs posted at the MWC,
(3) routine inspections of incoming waste, and
(4) deposit/return incentives for the batteries. Another
commenter (IV-D-111) said that the regulations should require
documentation of local programs and regulations sufficient to
keep batteries out of MWC's. One commenter (IV-D-170) said
that the materials separation provisions for lead-acid
batteries should include mandatory recycling in order to
prevent the possibility that the separated batteries would end
up in a landfill.
Response: Because EPA has decided not to impose battery
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
4.4 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIALS
SEPARATION
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) said MWC's and communities
do not have adequate scale capacity to keep records of the
weight of MSW collected and separated. Others (IV-D-155,
IV-D-158) said they lacked authority to collect data about
household habits regarding separation.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-114) suggested that secondary
materials brokers should also submit information on the
4-86
-------
quantities of materials collected, so that efforts by civic
groups could be given credit. Another commenter (IV-D-138)
recommended that the final regulations provide a means to
safeguard against sham recyclers, such as documentation that
separated materials are actually recycled.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.41) suggested that the
recordkeeping and reporting provisions should require that
compliance data be provided on computer format.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary41 to respond to this
comment.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-153) asked that the final
regulations clarify that the reporting requirements are
fulfilled by submission to the appropriate State authority,
rather than sending reports to both the State agency and EPA.
Response; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-F-2.3, IV-D-112,
IV-D-113, IV-D-140, IV-D-164) said recordkeeping will be
burdensome. One commenter (IV-F-1.29) said this would be
especially true where multiple communities bring their waste
to the same MWC's. However, another commenter (IV-D-186) said
that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements were
inadequate, and that interim reports should be required prior
to the start-up of the materials separation program. And
another commenter (IV-D-205) said the requirements would not
be burdensome whether the separation takes place at the
incinerator or in the community. One commenter (IV-D-268)
said that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements should
not be burdensome, but that it will be easier to obtain
accurate data from a.mechanical separation processing plant
than from source separation programs.
4-87
-------
Response ; Because EPA has decided not to impose materials
separation requirements, it is unnecessary to respond to this
comment .
4.5 LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE HATERIALS SEPARATION STANDARDS
Many commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-F-1.3f IV-F-1.5,
IV-F-1.12, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-1.19, IV-F-1.26, IV-F-1.32,
IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.5, IV-F-2.7, IV-F-2.11, IV-F-2.15,
IV-F-2.48, IV-F-3.2, IV-F-3.4, IV-D-28, IV-D-29, IV-D-33,
IV-D-40, IV-D-47, IV-D-48, IV-D-52, IV-D-66, IV-D-71, IV-D-78,
IV-D-90, IV-D-107, IV-D-112, IV-D-113, IV-D-115, IV-D-116,
IV-D-128, IV-D-131, IV-D-132, IV-D-133, IV-D-137, IV-D-138,
IV-D-139, IV-D-143, IV-D-145, IV-D-149, IV-D-153, IV-D-154,
IV-D-155, IV-D-156, IV-D-158, IV-D-159, IV-D-162, IV-D-164,
IV-D-166, IV-D-184, IV-D-193, IV-D-195, IV-D-204, IV-D-219,
IV-D-221, IV-D-223, IV-D-229, IV-D-230, IV-D-231, IV-D-232,
IV-D-235, IV-D-249, IV-D-251, IV-D-252, IV-D-255, IV-D-256,
IV-D-277, IV-D-282 and IV-D-190, IV-D-284, IV-D-285, IV-D-287)
said that while the requirements may be achievable, the CAA is
not the appropriate authority to require separation or
recycling. Most of these commenters recommended that
recycling should be implemented as part of a comprehensive
solid waste management program under either: (a) existing
RCRA authority, (b) new legislative provisions developed
during the RCRA reauthorization process, (c) the President's
recycling initiative, or (d) local agencies. Another
commenter (IV-F-1.10) recommended that all parts of this
proposal not consistent with the forthcoming RCRA rules be
rescinded when those rules are promulgated.
Several commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-2.11,
IV-F-2.15, IV-D-101, IV-D-106, IV-D-107, IV-D-111, IV-D-115,
IV-D-116, IV-D-122, IV-D-128, IV-D-137, IV-D-138, IV-D-153,
IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-164, IV-D-192, IV-D-232, IV-D-255)
considered the materials separation requirements to be illegal
because they were not a demonstrated technology of emission
reduction. .Some of these commenters said the cost of the
emission reduction could not be considered in selecting best
demonstrated technology because there was no data linking
4-88
-------
material separation to emission reductions. Several also
noted that the Administrator himself had said that data are
inadequate to demonstrate the effect of materials separation
on either emissions or ash. Another commenter (IV-D-101)
cited data from four MWC's which the commenter said show no
correlation between separation and either emissions or ash
volume. However, other commenters (IV-D-117, IV-D-268)
thought the data were adequate to show that materials
separation reduces MWC emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-268) said that even when add-on
controls result in a 98-percent reduction in emissions, the
initial reduction obtained by preprocessing was sufficient to
justify the materials separation provisions of the proposed
standard.
One commenter (IV-F-2.47) stated that materials
separation was appropriate as a part of best demonstrated
technology, as a consideration of nonair quality health, and
environmental impacts. Other commenters (IV-D-107, IV-D-138,
IV-D-155, IV-D-158), however, argued that it was a misuse of
the provisions regarding the consideration of nonair quality
health benefits to base a standard solely upon such impact,
because the proper consideration of such impact was as it
relates to air emissions reductions achieved by the standard
under consideration. The commenters said these impacts could
not be considered because an emission reduction was not
demonstrated first. Another commenter (IV-D-115) argued that
the provision regarding "nonair quality health and
environmental impact" was being improperly interpreted as
being a grant of power to regulate, rather than a limit of
power, and cited Congressional records and court records to
support this position.
Other commenters (IV-D-115, IV-D-138, IV-D-153) argued
that materials separation itself results in adverse nonair
quality health and environmental impacts, which were not
properly taken into consideration. One commenter (IV-D-115)
said the air and other environmental impacts resulting from
increased use of secondary rather than raw materials had not
4-89
-------
been examined in a manner consistent with the statutory
directives of, nor the underlying intent of, the CAA.
One commenter (IV-F-2.39) defended the inclusion of the
requirements for materials separation in the air emission
standard based on the provisions in the CAA for a
technological system to include precombustion cleaning or
treatment of fuels. One commenter (IV-D-107) argued that
separation could not properly be considered a pretreatment,
rather it was actually an elimination of a fuel or a portion
of the fuel, not a treatment removing pollutants from a fuel.
Other commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-158) argued that materials
separation could not be considered a precleaning of fuel
because MSW does not meet a true definition of fuel because
many MWC's do not produce either heat or electricity for sale,
they simply burn waste. However, another commenter (IV-D-108)
said that materials separation would result in a fuel that has
lower amounts of toxic constituents, is more readily and
consistently combustible, and that produces a residual ash
posing less environmental concerns.
Some commenters (IV-D-115, IV-D-138, IV-D-155, IV-D-158)
said that the materials separation provisions are illegal
because they are an operational or work standard which is not
supported by the conditions allowed by the CAA in Section
111(h)(2)(a) or (b). According to these commenters, since an
emission limit is practicable for MWC's, EPA cannot require an
operation or work practice such as materials separation to
reduce emissions. The commenters presented several arguments
from case law limiting the use of operation or work practice
standards.where emission limits could be set or performance
measured. Another commenter (IV-D-134) recommended EPA
develop a numerical emission limit based on materials
separation technology or practices. One commenter (IV-D-180)
said that the proposed regulations should only limit
emissions, and not specify how the emission limits are to be
met.
However, another commenter (IV-D-136) said that materials
separation is a demonstrated technology and said that the
4-90
-------
EPA's Region II recently recognized materials separation as a
work practice method for separating items such as batteries,
tires, and hazardous wastes. The commenter added that
separation technology can be applied to any component of the
waste stream. Another commenter (IV-D-117) said that some
jurisdictions, such as the State of Vermont, are now requiring
pretreatment, specifically, the exclusion or separation of
certain materials as a means of reducing emission levels at
newly permitted MWC's.
One commenter (IV-F-1.10) said that battery recovery has
been addressed in RCRA legislation introduced in Congress, and
that RCRA would be a better authority than the CAA for
addressing battery disposal and recovery issues.
Commenter IV-D-115 said that the main identifiable
benefit of recycling, resource conservation, is outside the
ambit of air emission reduction.
Response; In the notice of proposed rulemaking the Agency
asserted that it possessed the legal authority under Section
111 to impose materials separation. As summarized above, some
commenters attacked the EPA's legal rationale, while others
defended it. In view of EPA's decision to delete mandatory
materials separation from the final rule, it is unnecessary to
respond to these comments.
4.6 OVERALL AGENCY STRATEGY TO PROMOTE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
4.6.1 Separation for Landfills
Comment; Over forty commenters (IV-F-1.2, IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.4,
IV-F-1.5, IV-F-1.19, IV-F-1.16, IV-F-1.26, IV-F-1.32,
IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.15, IV-F-2.48, IV-D-06, IV-D-11, IV-D-28,
IV-D-30, IV-D-66, IV-D-68, IV-D-70, IV-D-71, IV-D-73,
IV-D-114, IV-D-116, IV-D-126, IV-D-131, IV-D-134, IV-D-143,
IV-D-153, IV-D-154, IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-161, IV-D-164,
IV-D-168, IV-D-184, IV-D-189, IV-D-193, IV-D-204, IV-D-205,
IV-D-206, IV-D-208, IV-D-219, IV-D-224, IV-D-232, IV-D-240,
IV-D-246, IV-D-247, IV-D-279, IV-D-284) said that if
separation is required for MWC's, it must also be required for
landfills. Reasons given included:
4-91
-------
(a) Separation at MWC's alone will not significantly
increase national recycling. About 80 percent of our waste
goes to landfills, so this is where we need to encourage
recycling.
(b) Separation requirements will increase costs and
delay permitting of MWC's, thereby increasing the amount of
MSW going to landfills, which is in conflict with the waste
disposal hierarchy in the "Agenda for Action."
(c) If separation is not required for landfills,
materials separated at the MWC may be landfilled rather than
recycled.
(d) Landfill air emissions and water pollution would be
reduced if materials were recycled rather than landfilled.
(e) By imposing the requirement on MWC's without
applying similar requirements on landfills, an economic bias
has been created against MWC technology.
Several of the commenters said separation for landfills
could be required as a change to the proposed regulations for
landfills under Subpart D of RCRA. Others mentioned the NSPS
being developed for landfills.
Response; The Agency is currently considering materials
separation for landfills under RCRA. Furthermore, markets for
secondary materials are expanding, and it is expected that
separated materials will be recycled rather than landfilled.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-D-107, IV-D-155, IV-D-158) said
that the separated materials which cannot be recycled will end
up in a landfill, and the energy contained in the separated
materials would be lost.
Response; The Agency agrees that the landfilling of separated
combustible materials would result in a loss of the energy
that could be derived by combusting them.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-282) raised several objections
to the proposed materials separation provisions based on the
assumption that similar provisions might be required at
landfills. The commenter said that any recycling program
should be implemented through the RCRA solid waste management
planning process.
4-92
-------
Response; As mentioned above, the Agency is currently
considering separation for landfills under RCRA. The focus of
this rulemaking is on the reduction of air emissions and the
benefits of separation at MWC's.
4.6.2 Overall Strategies
Comment; Over 90 commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.5, IV-F-1.6,
IV-F-1.12, IV-F-1.14, IV-F-1.15, IV-F-1.16, IV-F-1.18,
IV-F-1.20, IV-P-1.21, IV-F-1.23, IV-F-1.29, IV-F-2.1,
IV-F-2.5, IV-F-2.7, IV-F-2.11, IV-F-2.12, IV-F-2.13,
IV-F-2.24, IV-F-2.36, IV-F-2.39, IV-F-2.45, IV-F-2.48,
IV-F-2.50, IV-F-2.52, IV-F-2.53, IV-F-2.61, IV-F-3.6,
IV-F-3.7, IV-F-3.13, IV-D-30, IV-D-31, IV-D-32, IV-D-33,
IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-37, IV-D-38, IV-D-39, IV-D-40,
IV-D-41, IV-D-42, IV-D-43, IV-D-44, IV-D-45, IV-D-46, IV-D-47,
IV-D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-53, IV-D-54, IV-D-56, IV-D-57,
IV-D-58, IV-D-59, IV-D-66, IV-D-67, IV-D-74, IV-D-77, IV-D-78,
IV-D-90, IV-D-95, IV-D-99, IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-114,
IV-D-115, IV-D-121, IV-D-122, IV-D-123, IV-D-126, IV-D-128,
IV-D-133, IV-D-135, IV-D-138, IV-D-153, IV-D-155, IV-D-156,
IV-D-158, IV-D-159, IV-D-161, IV-D-164, IV-D-166, IV-D-167,
IV-D-173, IV-D-186, IV-D-203, IV-D-205, IV-D-206, IV-D-209,
IV-D-259, IV-D-260, IV-D-261, IV-D-265, IV-D-267, IV-D-282,
IV-D-299) said that, in addition to or instead of, requiring
separation for MWC's under this rule, the Federal government
should concentrate on stimulating markets for recycled
materials. Some claimed that until stable markets exist,
separation and recycling programs will be costly and will
fail. Specific suggestions for actions the government should
take included:
(a) Fund technological development of products made from
recycled waste.
(b) Set Federal procurement standards that require
government and/or civilian procurement departments to use
recycled products.
(c) Set national standards for the minimum recycled
materials content of products labeled as recycled.
(d) Set standards for the packaging industry.
4-93
-------
(e) Develop tax policies favoring recycling (e.g., taxes
for use of virgin materials, tax credits for purchase of
equipment for recycling programs) or provide economic
incentives for the use of recycled materials.
(f) Undertake public education campaigns promoting use
of recycled material products, and increasing public awareness
of varying levels of toxicity and recyclability between
alternative consumer products.
(g) Begin a national public information program to
encourage consumers to purchase products packaged with
recycled materials.
(h) Stimulate source reduction of contaminants.
(i) Take the lead in requiring designers of new
manufactured goods to take into account the entire life cycle
of the products, i.e., "to design for recycling."
(j) End subsidies which promote harvesting of virgin
timber and other virgin materials, and reduce electric power
prices artificially.
(k) Redefine solid waste as a renewable resource.
(1) Design and fund disposal centers for sorting and
recovery.
(m) Spread the cost of pollution control across
competing industries.
(n) Require landfills to accept recyclable such as glass
and metals in separate cells where they can be held until
market conditions favor recycling.
(o) Enact a Federal bottle bill.
One commenter (IV-F-2.39) suggested a Federal leadership
role is necessary to overcome retailer opposition to the
competition from recycled goods. One commenter (IV-F-1.20)
said the bottom line was going from a throw-away economy to a
recycling economy. The commenter suggested that placing the
true economic costs of waste disposal in (or on) the
manufacturing process would be the first step in evaluating
the true cost of recycling. One commenter (IV-F-1.20)
suggested we need a national materials policy that combines
national regulatory and fiscal policies to make it more
4-94
-------
profitable for industries to reduce the volume of packaging
and to use less toxic materials.
Response: The Federal government is involved in a leadership
role promoting recycling, including the stimulation of
markets. The Agency has been involved in an ongoing effort to
consider strategies for waste reduction and recycling. This
has involved the development of procurement guidelines for all
government agencies, the development of a proposed pollution
prevention policy statement, and the policies enumerated in
the "Agenda for Action."
The procurement guidelines designate specific items which
governments must procure containing recycled or recovered
materials. Four procurement guidelines have been issued thus
far, for paper and paper products (53 FR 23546, June 22,
1988), lubricating oils (53 FR 42699, June 30, 1988), retread
tires (53 FR 46558, November 17, 1988), and building
insulation (54 FR 7328, February 17, 1989). These guidelines
are being implemented at this time. For example, in the first
6 months of fiscal year 1990, over 98 percent of EPA
letterhead and publications printed at the Government Printing
Office were printed on recycled paper.
The proposed pollution prevention policy statement
(54 FR 3845, January 26, 1989) lists source reduction and
recycling as primary pollution prevention strategies. The
proposed statement also commits the Agency to working with
States to develop and implement specific strategies and
technical assistance programs to encourage commercial and
manufacturing industries, the agricultural sector and the
general public to reduce the amount of pollution generated.
The "Agenda for Action" (EPA-530/SW-89-019, February 1989)
establishes a hierarchy for integrated solid waste management
and presents the Agency's stated goal of managing 25 percent
of MSW nationwide through source reduction and recycling by
1992. It also discusses a number of initiatives with specific
activities and timetables. The initiatives fall into six
general areas: (1) increase available information,
(2) increase planning, (3) increase source reduction
4-95
-------
activities, (4) increase recycling, (5) reduce risks of
combustion, and (6) reduce risks of landfills. Actions are
presently being taken to carry out these initiatives.
Many of the ideas presented by the commenters are
included within the broad programs envisioned by these
documents, and others may be incorporated into the final
pollution prevention policy statement, any future updates to
the "Agenda for Action," and the programs which result.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-138) said the proposal did not
acknowledge the tremendous glut of recyclables that would
result from 25 percent separation. The commenter noted that
if separation is required at landfills as well as MWC's, the
volume of recyclables would triple. The commenter was
doubtful that a reprocessing infrastructure could be developed
to accommodate the increased materials within the proposed
time frame.
Response; The final rule does not include a materials
separation provision. However, the Agency notes that while
the possibility exists that as recycling efforts grow there
may be some temporary glut of materials, EPA anticipates
strong growth in the demand for these products. For example
the American Paper Institute recently announced a program to
achieve a goal of 40 percent paper recycling by 1995. The
president of the American Paper Institute said at least 37 new
recycling facilities will be opening over the next few years,
and that the industry wanted the public to double the
collection of paper from today's level. Markets for recycled
glass, steel, and plastics are also expanding.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.20, V-F-2.32, IV-F-2.41,
IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50, IV-D-28, IV-D-55, IV-D-72, IV-D-73,
IV-D-88, IV-D-95, IV-D-103, IV-D-108, IV-D-168, IV-D-178,
IV-D-205, IV-D-208, IV-D-215, IV-D-217, IV-D-226, IV-D-259)
expressed support for the proposal to require separation for
MWC's. One commenter (IV-D-95) noted that allowing credit for
composting, curbside separation, source waste reduction
programs, the combustion permit, and a 2-year time frame gave
4-96
-------
the materials separation requirements proposed every
opportunity to succeed.
However, several commenters (IV-F-1.2, IV-F-1.9,
IV-F-1.27, IV-F-1.28, IV-F-2.10 and IV-D-13, IV-F-2.18,
IV-F-2.23, IV-F-2.24, IV-F-2.41, IV-F-2.44, IV-F-2.46,
IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.49, IV-F-2.50, IV-F-2.51, IV-F-2.52,
IV-F-2.53, IV-F-2.57, IV-F-2.58, IV-F-2.62, IV-F-3.7, IV-D-07,
IV-D-20, IV-D-56, IV-D-58, IV-D-59, IV-D-85, IV-D-105,
IV-D-118, IV-D-278) also suggested a broader waste management
program. The overall theme was that incineration and
landfilling should be last resort. Although each commenter
did not identify each area below, some common recommendations
were: waste reduction programs, mandatory composting,
separation, and mandatory Statewide recycling. Some of the
commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-F-1.24) suggested that all separated
materials must be recycled whether or not the 25-percent
requirement has been met, not landfilled or burned.
Response; The Agency and the Federal government are involved
in a broad program to promote source reduction and recycling.
And, as detailed in the "Agenda for Action," incineration and
landfilling are indeed, the last resort. Source reduction and
recycling are higher in the waste management hierarchy.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-3.1) suggested that even private
incinerators at industrial facilities should be required to
accomplish a 25-percent reduction in the waste stream to the
incinerator.
Responset The final standards do not require materials
separation.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-1.16,
IV-F-2.4, IV-&-174, IV-D-180, IV-D-299) said that a Federal
mandate for separation was unnecessary, and would be
ineffective and difficult to enforce. Many said that State
and local solid waste management agencies should be allowed
freedom to develop their own programs for waste management.
One commenter (IV-D-282) recommended that only MWC's that were
not complying with State or local legislation intended to
achieve a recycling rate of 25 percent at or near the EPA's
4-97
-------
proposed compliance date be required to submit a plan
supporting a "goal" of 25 percent recycling. Many commenters
(IV-F-2.4, IV-F-2.8, IV-D-30, IV-D-31, IV-D-32, IV-D-34,
IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-37, IV-D-38, IV-D-39, IV-D-41, IV-D-43,
IV-D-45, IV-D-46, IV-D-47, IV-D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-53,
IV-D-54, IV-D-77, IV-D-138, IV-D-153, IV-D-223, IV-D-225,
IV-D-229, IV-D-240, IV-D-243, IV-D-247, IV-D-252, IV-D-277,
IV-D-282, IV-D-297, IV-D-299, IV-D-300) said that many States
and counties already had effective recycling programs. Many
of these commenters said that an NSPS requiring 25 percent
separation was inflexible, was not needed, would interfere
with their existing programs, and would compromise efforts to
develop a balanced and realistic approach to solid waste
problems at the State and local level. One commenter
(IV-F-1.3) said these provisions would increase the paperwork
burden on States that are already recycling without increasing
the level of recycling.
Other commenters (IV-F-1.16, IV-D-243, IV-D-246), noted
that their States have recycling goals equal to or exceeding
the proposed level in the NSPS, and were requiring each county
or solid waste management district to develop comprehensive
plans to achieve the goals. The commenters preferred that
method to a Federal mandate. However, one commenter
(IV-F-2.40) disagreed, stating that Federal regulations are
necessary because municipal officials want to get re-elected,
and have difficulty raising fees to cover retrofits or more
costly technologies. The commenter said Federal regulations
establishing a minimum level of control through the best
demonstrated technology decision is necessary to force them to
install best demonstrated technology. One commenter
(IV-D-267) suggested the rule require States that have not
adopted aggressive laws aimed at achieving this level of
reduction to do so.
One commenter (IV-D-290) submitted copies of the comments
and proposed amendments to the Connecticut Recycling law
recommended by the Connecticut Municipal Solid Waste Recycling
Advisory Council. The commenter pointed out that the comments
4-98
-------
and amendments are designed to aim enforcement efforts at the
waste generators rather than the disposal facility.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.2, IV-F-2.41) wanted to be sure
the NSPS would not prevent a State or local area from
requiring more than 25 percent materials separation.
Response: The final standards do not contain a nationwide
mandatory separation requirement. The appropriativeness of
requiring materials separation for a particular facility is an
issue that can be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.3) said that EPA could help
recycling more by helping to site and finance one de-inking
plant than by the proposed rules.
Response; The Agency notes that the industry itself is taking
the lead in both siting new plants, as evidenced by the
statement from the American Paper Institute discussed above,
and in the development of alternative inks, with lower metal
content.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-D-223, IV-D-232) were
concerned that the proposal reflects a shift in the EPA's
policy as expressed in the "Agenda for Action," where
landfilling is the least preferable option in the waste
disposal hierarchy. Several commenters (IV-F-1.2, IV-D-232)
asked that the "Agenda for Action" be reflected in each rule
affecting wastes. Some of these commenters (IV-F-1.1,
IV-D-164) felt these provisions would hinder the goals of the
"Agenda for Action" because it would increase the tonnage put
into landfills both directly and indirectly due to slower
negotiations for combustor contract arrangements. These and
other commenters (IV-F-1.1, IV-D-101, IV-D-164, IV-D-179) were
also concerned because an increase in landfilling would result
in an increase in the generation of methane, a greenhouse gas,
at the landfills where additional waste deposition occurred as
a result of these regulations.
One commenter (IV-D-164) said that the proposed materials
separation requirements differ from the goals of the "Agenda
for Action" in that the 25 percent in the Agenda was a
nationwide average based on integrated waste management
4-99
-------
practices, not a mandatory reduction at each MWC as in this
action.
One commenter (IV-D-282) said the materials separation
provisions would actually discourage source reduction, which
is higher in the waste disposal hierarchy presented in the
"Agenda for Action," because no credit is given for source
reduction.
Response: The final standards do not include uniform
nationwide mandatory materials separation requirements.
Comment; Five commenters (IV-F-1.12, IV-D-135, IV-D-154,
IV-D-164, IV-D-266) stated that the proposed standards went
after the solid waste problem backwards, by putting the burden
on the facility, while the individuals, municipalities, and
haulers were all free to carry on business as usual. Other
commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-279) noted the MWC operator would
not be able to enforce the 25-percent separation requirements
in the community. The first commenter (IV-F-1.12) recommended
that a decentralized, community-based program was necessary,
so that individuals would become aware of the impact of their
choices (i.e., to purchase products with excessive packaging,
etc.). These commenters said the States and municipalities
are better able to develop and implement an effective
recycling program.
Response: The final rule does not require materials
separation by an MWC.
4.7 WORDING OF REGULATION
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-103, IV-D-134, IV-D-164)
requested that EPA clarify all definitions so that the actual
baseline upon which the 25-percent requirement depends is less
subjective.
Some commenters (IV-D-108, IV-D-109, IV-D-171, IV-D-219)
recommended that definitions be included, or expanded, within
the NSPS for MSW "recycling," "recovered materials,"
"processed MSW," and "recovery" because a consistent
understanding of these terms would be necessary to achieve the
25-percent requirement. One commenter (IV-D-219) requested
that the term "curbside source reduction program" be deleted
4-100
-------
from the regulations because if it reaches the curb it enters
the solid waste stream, and source reduction means the
introduction of less waste into the solid waste stream. One
of the commenters (IV-D-108) offered a definition for
recycling which depended on the materials being diverted from
both landfills and MWC's and being functionally returned to
the economic mainstream, even when the operator had to pay for
the acceptance of the material.
One commenter (IV-D-148) thought a miscellaneous wood and
other biomass category should be established in the
definitions of "processed MSW" and "recoverable materials" as
a recoverable material to include Christmas trees and other
pieces of wood that do not fit in the yard waste definition.
Response; The final rule does not include provisions for
materials separation. Therefore issues related to the
definition of "recycling" or "processed waste" are no longer
of concern.
The definition of MSW has been revised by the deletion of
the qualification that MSW is a mixture, and the deletion of
the requirement that the mixture must contain 50 percent or
more municipal waste. The revision is based on the intent of
the standard, which is to regulate the combustion of any waste
material or mixture of waste materials which is typically
considered part of the municipal waste stream. Additional
clarification has been given by listing materials not meant to
be included. The revised definition is:
Municipal waste consists of household, commercial/retail,
and institutional waste:
— Household waste is material discarded by single
and-multiple residential dwellings, hotels,
motels, and other similar permanent or
temporary housing establishments or facilities
Commercial/retail waste is material discarded
by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses,
non- manufacturing activities at industrial
facilities, and other similar establishments or
facilities
Institutional waste is material discarded by
schools, hospitals, nonmanufacturing activities
4-101
-------
at prisons and government facilities, and other
similar establishments or facilities
Household, commercial/retail, and institutional
waste does not include sewage, wood pallets,
construction and demolition wastes, industrial
process or manufacturing wastes, motor vehicles
(including motor vehicle parts or vehicle
"fluff"), but does include motor vehicle
maintenance parts including vehicle batteries,
used motor oil, and tires.
Wastes discarded by households, commercial, and
institutional facilities are considered part of the municipal
waste stream and are, therefore, appropriately covered by the
final standards. Refuse-derived fuel is also considered MSW
since it is derived from waste discarded by household,
commercial, or institutional sources. However, industrial
process wastes are excluded from the definition of MSW. These
wastes are usually different in character than MSW and were
not intended to be covered under this standard.
As stated in the above revised definition, other
materials which are not normally a part of MSW such as wood
pallets, construction/demolition debris, scrap automobiles,
and automobile fluff are not included in these standards. In
response to the commenters1 questions, source-separated paper
is considered MSW since it is one of the materials normally
discarded by household, commercial, or institutional sources.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-140) said the regulation needed
to provide a precise understanding of the ownership of the
waste as it moves from curb to incinerator, rather than to
leave it up to individual plans to determine.
Responset The final rule does not require a materials
separation plan, therefore the ownership of the waste should
not be an issue.
Comment; Many commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-04, IV-D-15, IV-D-17,
IV-D-74, IV-D-200) suggested that the definition of MSW needed
to be clarified in order to make the materials separation
regulation workable. Some suggested the definition be amended
to exclude source-separated clean, combustible fuels such as
mixed Wctstepaper and wood pallets. One (IV-F-3.10) said
4-102
-------
industrial boilers burning nonrecyclable paper should not be
covered by the materials separation provisions of the NSPS.
One commenter (IV-D-174) suggested that the definition of MSW
exclude clean streams of individual components which may
otherwise be a part of the mixture defined as MSW, so that
these clean streams may be combusted without subjecting the
MWC to the emission limits or materials separation
requirements. Another commenter (IV-D-17), suggested that
mixed wastepaper separated for use as a fiber fuel should not
be allowed to count toward the 25-percent separation
requirement.
Other comments on definitions of MSW that do not
necessarily pertain to materials separation are included in
Chapter 3.0.
Response; Although the final rule does not include materials
separation requirements, the definition of MSW has been
revised and clarified in the final standards to address
numerous commenters concerns. Wastes discarded by
residential, commercial, and institutional facilities is
considered MSW, whether it is a single material such as
source-separated paper or a mixed waste. Some specific items,
including wood pallets and automobiles, that are specialty
wastes that are not typically considered part of the municipal
waste stream are specifically excluded in the definition.
Industrial process and manufacturing wastes are also excluded
from the definition.
In addition, under the final standards, cofired
combustors, (those combustors that burn a fuel stream
containing less than 30 percent MSW or RDF) are exempt from
all provisions of the MWG standards. Combustors with
capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) firing more than
30 percent of a single material or a mixture of materials
considered MSW would be subject to the NSPS. Combustors
firing or cofiring small amounts of paper or other MSW
materials, therefore, would not be covered.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-3.10, IV-D-174) suggested that
a definition of nonrecyclable paper be developed, and that the
4-103
-------
combustion of this nonrecyclable paper could be an important
component of an integrated waste management program.
Commenter IV-D-174 defined nonrecyclable paper as paper which
may not be recycled because it is contaminated, commingled
with other materials, coated or laminated, part of a composite
material, unrecoverable due to lack of effective materials
separation programs, or unmarketable due to oversupply or at a
prohibitive distance from markets.
Response; A definition of nonrecyclable paper is not needed
because thee are no specific requirements for materials
separation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-160) said the wording of the
regulation should be strengthened to specify that separated
materials must be recycled. (Other comments summarized in
this chapter also suggested recycling should be required but
did not specifically request a change in the wording of the
regulation.)
Response; The final rule does not contain a requirement for
materials separation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-122) recommended that "off-site
source reduction or materials separation (recycling) program"
be replaced with "off-site or generation site source reduction
or materials separation (recycling) program" in recognition
that, unlike for commercial MWC units, industry waste
generation and the MWC may be on the same site.
Response: The final rule does not contain requirements for
materials separation, therefore the wording of the standards
has not been revised as requested by the commenter. The focus
is on the combustion of municipal-type waste, and excludes
MWC's firing industrial wastes except combustors greater than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity cofiring industrial waste and/or
other fuels containing more than 30 percent MSW or RDF. Since
the generation, source reduction, recycling, and/or combustion
of industrial waste is not covered by this standard, there is
no reason to revise the wording to include industrial waste.
4-104
-------
4.8 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MATERIALS SEPARATION
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.12) said that MWC's will not
want to risk penalties by relying on other parties to achieve
separation, but will opt for on-site processes under their
control. He said the proposed standards would, therefore,
have the undesirable result of discouraging community source
separation programs which are more efficient. One commenter
(IV-F-2.41) favored off-site separation of recyclable, because
it causes individuals to become involved and increases
awareness of the problem. The commenter suggested this would
drive society toward a strategy of waste minimization. They
said that source separation results in high purity at a low
costs and gets citizens involved.
Response; The final standards do not include requirements for
materials separation. Therefore, the commenters concerns will
not be realized because of this rule.
Comment; An environmental group (IV-F-1.18) outlined their
5-point strategy for addressing the solid waste program as
follows:
(1) ban new MWC's and phase out existing ones;
(2) reduce garbage generation, especially unnecessary
packaging materials, and disposable diapers;
(3) reduce use of toxics that enter the waste stream,
especially plastics and polystyrene;
(4) require intensive recycling and composting,
preferably a cooperative effort at all levels to achieve the
highest levels possible; and
(5) develop markets for recycled products.
Others (IV-F-1.18, IV-F-1.24, IV-F-1.28, IV-F-1.31,
IV-F-2.18, IV-F-2.19, IV-F-2.20, IV-F-2.34., IV-F-2.45,
IV-D-20, IV-D-85, IV-D-136, IV-D-298) agreed with the
strategy, including the ban on MWC's.
Several commenters (IV-F-2.45, IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50)
suggested incineration is only a temporary solution at best.
One commenter (IV-F-2.51) from Canada reported that
incineration is being discouraged in Canada, and will not be
considered until all the other alternatives have been
4-105
-------
exhausted. One commenter (IV-F-2.14) said we do not need
incinerators; if we are very careful and aggressively work at
recycling and other methods of waste reductions, we can
achieve the same percentage of reduction. Several commenters
(IV-F-1.18, IV-F-1.24, IV-F-1.31, IV-D-120) said combustion
destroys valuable resources that could be reused and competes
with and discourages recycling. Several commenters
(IV-F-1.21, IV-F-1.22, IV-F-1.28, IV-F-1.31, IV-F-2.23,
IV-D-59, IV-D-121, IV-D-298) stated that recycling and
incineration are competing for the same garbage. Several
commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-2.24, IV-D-120) said that
incinerators convert useable materials into toxic and
unnecessary emissions and waste? Some commenters (IV-F-1.22,
IV-F-2.2, IV-F-2.36, IV-F-3.12, IV-D-16, IV-D-151, IV-D-191,
IV-D-298, IV-D-301) said the United States and EPA must move
away from incineration and landfilling toward more responsible
methods of waste management through reduction, recycling, and
composting. The commenters argued that this shift would never
occur as long as we keep increasing our MWC capacity. Another
commenter (IV-F-1.21) said recycling is much cheaper and
cleaner than incineration, preserves our material wealth,
reduces mining, timbering, and chemical manufacturing, thereby
avoiding the use of water and energy resources. These
commenters argued that the proposal "sells recycling short."
The commenters recommended EPA build on successful recycling
efforts, which they claimed can achieve levels of 50 percent
or more.
Another commenter (IV-F-1.31) went so far as to say that
recycling and incineration are incompatible, because once an
incinerator is constructed, it will require a steady amount of
waste to operate efficiently. This commenter submitted an
analysis of the MWC proposal which had been endorsed by
25 environmental groups. The analysis called the 25-percent
, requirement a token effort providing a cloak of legitimacy for
inadequate recycling efforts and for incinerating or
landfilling the remaining 75 percent of the waste stream. Two
commenters (IV-F-2.10, IV-D-13) felt the rules legitimize
4-106
-------
trash incineration and place the burden of the adverse effects
on residents of working class and minority communities where
the incinerators are almost always sited. Several commenters
(IV-F-1.31, IV-F-2.1, IV-F-2.13, IV-F-2.19, IV-F-2.20,
IV-D-136) concluded that if the Federal government is serious
about pollution prevention, incineration should be banned, and
municipal governments should be required to guarantee that all
recyclable are, in fact, recycled. One commenter (IV-D-151)
noted that recycling is the optimum method of air pollution
control because "if you don't burn it, you don't breathe it."
Response; The Agency cannot agree with the commenters who
believe that combustors should be banned, or that combustors
are incompatible with recycling or source reduction. As
discussed in the "Agenda for Action," although source
reduction and recycling are preferred over incineration in the
waste management hierarchy, incineration is an important part
of an integrated solid waste management program. The Agency
is promoting recycling, source reduction, and composting.
The Agency is promulgating emission limits under these
MWC standards to further reduce the level of MWC emissions.
Combustion may still be an important part of some solid waste
management program, because not all materials can be recycled,
or the market for the material is currently inadequate. Some
examples of materials that cannot be recycled are contaminated
papers. Since there is inadequate and shrinking capacity in
landfills for nonrecyclable materials, combustion may be
useful to reduce the volume of materials that will be
otherwise disposed of in landfills. Additionally, energy can
be produced through the incineration of combustibles, which
offsets the need for increased fossil fuel combustion.
It is not expected that combustion at MWC's will
discourage recycling by competing for the combustible
materials in MSW. The Federal government, many States, and
many individual communities are promoting recycling.
Recycling is on the increase, and this has not typically been
reversed by the siting of new MWC's. In many communities, the
siting of an MWC has been accompanied by the development of a
4-107
-------
recycling program, and in others, recycling is seen as a way
to put off the need for new landfills or combustors. However,
there will always be some waste that must be disposed of, and
in some cases, combustion may be preferable to landfilling.
The Agency is hopeful that in the future, as markets
grow, and innovative uses of secondary materials are
developed, the recyclable fraction of the solid waste stream
will continue to increase.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.31) noted that most recyclable
materials make poor fuel. Another commenter (IV-F-1.30)
reported that his firm's precombustion separation process
increases the efficiency of waste as a fuel by removing poor
combustion materials.
Response; The Agency encourages the removal of
noncombustibles incinerator-toxic combustibles from the MWC
waste stream.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.24, IV-F-2.41, IV-D-62,
IV-D-141, IV-D-168, IV-D-178, IV-D-191) said the standards
should clearly specify that household hazardous wastes cannot
be combusted and should mandate the establishment of regional
household hazardous waste collection sites or practices.
Response; These standards cannot mandate regional household
hazardous waste collection sites, however, the Agency
encourages the removal of household hazardous waste from the
MWC waste system.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-02 and IV-D-04) recommended
excluding paper and paperboard from the material separation
requirements because of its high energy content, which makes
it a good replacement for imported oil as a fuel in an MWC.
The commenter also noted that paper products are a "renewable"
fuel. Other commenters (IV-D-15, IV-D-17, IV-D-74) added that
until a dependable market is developed for mixed wastepaper,
it should be regulated as a fiber fuel, as is currently done
in Washington State, where it is fired in "clean-burn" MWC's.
Response; The final standards do not contain a materials
separation requirements. Therefore, a source may combust
paper for fuel.
4-108
-------
one commenter (IV-D-02) stated that the EPA's
guidelines on procurement of paper and paperboard products
from recycled papers would actually act as a disincentive to
recycling.
Response; The procurement guidelines issued by the Agency
will not act as a disincentive to recycling. In fact, the
existence of such guidelines, in and of themselves, promotes
recycling. Whether the guidelines can be improved upon to
discourage the type of avoidance cited and increase recycling
rates still more is not at issue under this regulation.
one commenter (IV-F-2.43) stated that used oil
should be prohibited from combustion due to the high
concentration of metals and other toxics. From an energy
standpoint, it is preferable to recycle used oil into
lubricating oil. He also said Federal procurement policies
should do more to encourage use of recycled motor oil.
Response ; The Agency has issued a procurement guideline for
re-refined engine and gear lubrication oils, which should
result in an increase in demand for these products
(53 FR 24699, June 30, 1988) . Although burning used oils
harvests the high heat content, is it a one-time reuse. The
Agency prefers re-refining to burning the used oil because of
the potential for multiple recycling.
Comment t Many commenters (IV-F-2.11, IV-F.2.12, IV-F-2.30,
IV-D-25, IV-D-31, IV-D-33, IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-37,
IV-D-38, IV-D-39, IV-D-41, IV-D-43, IV-D-44, IV-D-45, IV-D-46,
IV-D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-53, IV-D-54, IV-D-58, IV-D-60,
IV-D-77, IV-D-78, IV-D-99, IV-D-111, IV-D-184, IV-D-260,
IV-D-261, IV-D-265, IV-D-267, IV-D-287) who otherwise favor
recycling and source separation, opposed tying the fulfillment
of the 25-percent preprocessing requirement to MWC operating
permits because they had little control over what goes into
the waste stream or the market for recyclable. Others
(IV-D-25, IV-D-30, IV-D-31, IV-D-32, IV-D-33, IV-D-34,
IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-37, IV-D-38, IV-D-39, IV-D-41, IV-D-43,
IV-D-44, IV-D-45, IV-D-46, IV-D-48, IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-53,
IV-D-54, IV-D-58, IV-D-60, IV-D-77, IV-D-78, IV-D-99,
4-109
-------
IV-D-111, IV-D-115, IV-D-145, IV-D-223, IV-D-229, IV-D-260,
IV-D-261, IV-D-265, IV-D-267, IV-D-287) saw these provisions,
and the resultant uncertainty about permit violations as
threatening the viability of MWC's as a solid waste treatment
strategy.
Response; The final standards do not include a materials
separation requirement.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-28, IV-D-30,
IV-D-31, IV-D-32, IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-37, IV-D-38,
IV-D-39, IV-D-41, IV-D-43, IV-D-44, IV-D-46, IV-D-48, IV-D-49,
IV-D-52, IV-D-53, IV-D-54, IV-D-58, IV-D-60, IV-D-77, IV-D-78,
IV-D-99, IV-D-111, IV-D-123, IV-D-140, IV-D-141, IV-D-145,
IV-D-164, IV-D-181, IV-D-193, IV-D-223, IV-D-225, IV-D-229,
IV-D-240, IV-D-247, IV-D-249, IV-D-251, IV-D-252, IV-D-255,
IV-D-256, IV-D-259, IV-D-260, IV-D-261, IV-D-265, IV-D-267,
IV-D-274, IV-D-282, IV-D-285, IV-D-287, IV-D-297, IV-D-300)
recommended that the materials separation requirements be
deleted from the MWC regulation. Another commenter (IV-D-71)
recommended that the materials separation requirements be
deferred until alternative means of implementing them were
examined. Some commenters (IV-D-32 and IV-D-83, IV-D-116,
IV-D-225) suggested that requiring States to develop a plan
for reducing waste volume by 25 percent might be a workable
alternative to the materials separation requirements.
Response; The materials separation requirements have been
deleted from the final standards.
Comment: Some commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-117) said
that materials separation of metals would reduce wear and tear
on MWC's. Commenter IV-D-105 mentioned, for example, that
solid metals increase wear on grates, and vaporization of
metals (from the noncombustibles) causes fouling and corrosion
of boiler tubes. The commenter referred to studies that they
said showed that materials separation results in reduced
downtime for MWC's due to reduced wear and tear.
Response; The Agency is aware of claims that removal of
noncombustibles may improve combustor operation. If this is
true, it is an added benefit of materials separation.
4-110
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-110) said that no MWC permit
should be issued where recycling and incineration are
independent^of each other. The commenter said that recycling
and incineration should be coordinated, especially since
removal of a high proportion of combustible materials could
decrease the combustibility of the waste stream.
Response; For the reasons outlined in the preamble materials
separation is not being required as part of this rule.
Nevertheless, the Agency anticipates that communities will
take an overall approach to solid waste management. Such an
approach would include consideration of the appropriate role
for source reduction, source separation, recycling,
incineration and landfilling.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-238) said that under
the proposed standards, it would not be in the best economic
interest of the MWC to reduce waste except for noncombustible,
nonrecyclable materials. These commenters said that,
therefore, a mandatory recycling requirement may discourage
waste reduction.
Response; The final standards do not require materials
separation.
Comment; Another commenter (IV-D-117) said that EPA should
target separation of materials containing toxic heavy metals
and should attempt to reduce the amount of these metals in
noncombustibles such as batteries, electronics, and appliances
as well as combustibles such as plastics.
Response; This Agency encourages the separation of these
materials. The "Agenda for Action" describes activities
directed at reducing the amounts of these items in products
and reducing the amounts ending up in the waste stream.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-110) recommended that every
incinerator be equipped with a staging area where wastes could
be examined prior to combustion and sent through a radioactive
detector. The commenter stated there must be provisions for
removal of radioactive waste.
Response; The MWC standards apply to incinerators that
combust MSW. Municipal-type solid waste is composed of
4-111
-------
discards from residential, commercial, and institutional
facilities and includes medical waste. In general, MSW
contains little if any radioactive waste. Radioactive
discards could include defective smoke detectors, old clocks,
or old watches. If combusted in an MWC, these wastes would
produce a low level radioactive discharge and are not of
concern. Therefore, there is no need for the final standards
to include specific requirements for a staging area for
radioactive waste removal.
An exception to the above discussion could be the burning
of certain medical wastes or industrial wastes with MSW.
These may contain radioactive materials in various amounts.
When medical wastes or small amounts of industrial wastes are
burned in an MWC, the State may wish to adopt an MWC-specific
program to monitor these wastes. The Agency is also in the
process of developing separate regulations for medical waste
combustors.
The Agency is also aware of recent NRC plans to
deregulate the disposal of certain radioactive waste. The
Agency will continue to monitor the status of the NRC disposal
regulation.
4-112
-------
5.0 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - NITROGEN OXIDES
5.1 SELECTION OF NITROGEN OXIDES FOR REGULATION
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-164, IV-D-184,
IV-D-255, IV-D-257) believed that the NOX emissions from MWC's
have an almost minuscule impact on ambient air quality. One
commenter (IV-D-257) pointed out that MWC's operating without
add-on controls cause a minimal incremental increase in
ground-level NOX concentrations, which is often below the PSD
significant impact level of 1 M9/»3 (0.4 gr/million dscf).
The commenter added that this level is well below the
detectable concentration that can be measured by available
monitoring equipment.
Two commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-184) felt that the NOX
emissions from MWC's are insignificant when compared to
overall NOX emissions. These commenters cited two recent
sources (EPA and CARB) and quoted NOX emissions from MWC's as
0.053 percent and 0.023 percent, respectively, of total NOX
emissions.
Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-257) stated that the
proposed NOX rule would reduce NOX emissions from new MWC's by
12,000 Mg/yr (13,000 tpy) (in the fifth year), or less than
0.2 percent of national NOX emissions. These commenters cited
an EPA study (National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,
March 1989), which reported national annual NOX emissions to
be 19,000,000 Mg/yr (21,000,000 tpy). One commenter
(IV-D-257) reported that 76,000 Mg (83,800 tons) (0.4 percent)
of this emitted NOX is attributed to burning solid waste,
where open burning accounts for about 59,100 Mg/yr
(65,200 tpy) and controlled combustion accounts for only
5-1
-------
16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 tpy) (less than one-tenth of 1 percent of
the total NOX emitted annually in the United States).
One commenter (IV-D-101) felt that the NOX reductions
achieved by the proposed rule would be very small, especially
when compared to a single fossil fuel utility boiler that is
capable of emitting far greater than 12,000 Mg/yr (13,000 tpy)
of NOX.
Response; As discussed in Section 3.1, MWC's have been
considered an important emissions source category for many
years. The decision to promulgate an NSPS for NOX emissions
from new sources is based on the availability of technology,
the projected rapid growth of new MWC's due to increasing
regulatory requirements and decreasing space availability for
landfills, and the fact that control costs are not
unreasonable. Impacts from NOX emissions include: acid
deposition; increased regional/global ozone background
concentrations; untold nutrient effects on some natural
waters, including estuaries; visibility/PMio problems in
western cities; and potential effects of transformation
products of KOX. In addition, the new section 129 of the
Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate NOx emissions at new
and existing combustors.
Since demonstrated technology exists to control NOX
emissions from MWC's, limits for NOX have been established.
This decision is independent of other sources and their
emissions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-164) did not understand why NOX
was not considered a component of MWC emissions.
Response: As discussed in Section 3.2, NOX is a criteria
pollutant regulated under Sections 108 to 110 of the CAA so it
cannot be designated individually; and unlike S02, PM, and CO
it does not indicate control of a broader class of pollutants
included in MWC emissions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-218) objected to the EPA's
assertion that NOX emissions from MWC's do not influence
production of urban smog or ozone.
5-2
-------
Response; The Agency does consider the contribution of NOX to
increased regional/global ozone background concentrations and
visibility problems as two of the reasons to set NOX emission
standards under Section 111.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-277) felt that it was premature
to promulgate a specific NOX limit without data to quantify
the correlation between NOX emissions and recycling.
Response; Sufficient data are available to show that the NOX
limit can be met using demonstrated air pollution control
technologies. These data are from MWC's where the waste does
not undergo materials separation prior to combustion. The
final standards do not include materials separation
requirements. However, materials separation in general is not
expected to increase NOX emissions and, in fact, programs that
include removal of yard waste and/or other nitrogen-rich
organic material may help decrease NOX emissions. Therefore,
the NOX limits are achievable by MWC's that operate in areas
which have materials separation programs as well as those
areas which do not have materials separation programs.
5.2 SELECTION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY FOR NITROGEN
OXIDES
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-139) suggested that
if a NOX limit is promulgated, then provisions should be
included to allow sufficient flexibility for the development
of alternative and innovative NOX emission control
technologies (e.g., the use of alternative reagents such as
anhydrous ammonia and urea). These commenters also thought
that provisions should be included that allow system vendors
to provide long-term NOX emission guarantees.
Response; The NOX standard is based on a review of achievable
NOX emissions from various types of MWC's and on the
performance of available NOX control technologies. The
promulgated standard reflects emission levels achievable by
all affected MWC's. An individual owner or operator of an MWC
is free to select any approach or technology that can meet the
limit. The owner or operator of the facility may request a
long-term performance guarantee from NOX control technology
5-3
-------
vendors. However, compliance with the standard is the
responsibility of the facility owner and operator.
Comment; Six commenters (IV-D-131, IV-D-138, IV-D-154,
IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-257) stated that ammonium chloride
plumes resulting from chemical reactions between ammonia and
HC1 occur at facilities using SNCR. One commenter (IV-D-131)
pointed out that of the three operating MWC's using SNCR
constantly, one has an opaque blue-white detached plume which
is clearly associated with the use of the SNCR system and at
least one of the other MWC's has reported such a plume in the
past. Three commenters (IV-D-154, IV-D-164, IV-D-184) stated
that all three of the facilities in California have noticeable
plumes resulting from ammonium chloride emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-154) attached a report outlining the
problems associated with the chemical reactions of ammonia and
chloride. One commenter (IV-D-164) noted that ammonium
chloride is not only a more hazardous pollutant than NOX, but
it also exudes a pungent odor.
One commenter (IV-D-131) noted that residual ammonia can
also react with sulfur trioxide to form ammonium sulfate and
ammonium bisulfate. This commenter explained that all of
these reactions contribute to the visible plumes as well as
corrosion.
One commenter (IV-D-154) stated that before a NOX limit
is established, it should be determined whether the plume
causes an opacity violation. This commenter felt that the
opacity of the plumes reported in the submitted data was high.
This commenter recommended an evaluation and study of ammonia
slip versus NOX control before the NOX standard is finalized.
Response; Ammonium chloride particles are formed by the
reaction of low levels of ammonia and HC1 at reduced
temperatures downstream of the stack exit. Under certain
light conditions, the resulting "detached" plume is visible
even when the concentration of ammonium chloride is very low.
Careful operation of the ammonia injection system and the acid
gas control system can lower the formation of ammonium
chloride and reduce plume visibility. The small amount of
5-4
-------
ammonium chloride is not environmentally significant. To the
extent ammonium chloride might create an opacity problem using
Method 9, the facility can request a site-specific opacity
limit under the provisions of 40 CFR 60.11(e).
f?otmn«»Tifc • one commenter (IV-D-257) noted that using SNCR can
cause fouling of MWC tubes with ammonia salts. This commenter
pointed out that corrosion resulting from this fouling can
cause operational problems, reductions in efficiency, and
reduced MWC life.
Response; It has been hypothesized that ammonia salts, which
are formed from unreacted ammonia and SC>2 and HC1, may cause
boiler tube corrosion. There have been, however, no boiler
corrosion problems attributable to ammonia salts reported by
U. S. plants.
Comment: Ten commenters (IV-D-65, IV-D-101, IV-D-124,
IV-D-138, IV-D-184, IV-D-189, IV-D-190, IV-D-210, IV-D-235,
IV-D-277) supported a NOX emission limit of 200 ppm. Five
commenters (IV-D-65, IV-D-101, IV-D-138, IV-D-184, IV-D-277)
stated that SNCR as applied to mass burn waterwall MWC's can
meet an emission rate of 200 ppm (dry basis at 7 percent 02)
on a 24-hour block average basis. One commenter (IV-D-210)
claimed that large MWC's in California are currently using
ammonia injection to reduce NOX emissions to below 50 and
200 ppm.
One commenter (IV-D-189) recommended a NOX limit of
200 ppm (at 7 percent ©2 on a 24-hour basis) because it is
equivalent to the New Jersey permit limit of 225 ppm for
3 hours. The commenter felt that if the NOX limits were set
too low, EPA may be relying too heavily on the success of a
technology that is not appropriate for all MWC's or sites.
Commenter IV-D-124 said a level of 200 ppm would promote
development of other NOX control technologies such as fuel
reburning and FGR. Another
commenter (IV-D-184) suggested that the NOX standard should be
set at 200 ppm and allow the BACT process to drive technology
development to achieve lower levels, if possible.
5-5
-------
One commenter (IV-D-138) cited NOX GEM data used in
developing the regulation, which indicated uncontrolled NOX
values of 333 ppm (dry basis at 7 percent ©2)• Based upon
these data, this commenter referenced a report which stated
that a 99-percent confidence uncontrolled level emission rate
of 319 ppm would give an achievable emission rate for
controlled NOX between 207 and 191 ppm. This commenter cited
additional data from the PSD permit application for the
Brooklyn Navy Yard Project to support the achievability of 200
ppm (at 7 percent 02) on a 24-hour block basis.
Another commenter (IV-D-101) felt that large mass burn
MWC's could achieve the NOX limit of 200 ppm at 7 percent O2
or 40 percent reduction, whichever is less stringent,
throughout all seasons of the year if yard waste is removed.
This commenter submitted data that support the achievability
of this NOX limit during New England's winter when there is
comparatively little yard waste. However, the commenter
pointed out that NOX emissions vary by season in direct
correlation with the amount of yard waste burned.
On the other hand, eight commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-139,
IV-D-149, IV-D-153, IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-189, IV-D-277)
stated that the data collected to support the NOX limit of 120
to 200 ppmv were insufficient to ensure that the range could
be achieved consistently. Two commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-277)
noted that these data are the results of short-term rather
than long-term compliance tests. One commenter (IV-D-149)
stated that because an MWC with SNCR could meet the 120 ppmv
limit only on an instantaneous basis, the NOX standard should
include time averaging, dual controls, or a standard higher
than 120 ppmv. One commenter (IV-D-153) pointed out that
there is significant variability in Thermal DeNOx performance
over time and stated that nothing justifies a 120 ppmv NOX
limit. This commenter felt that the NOX limit could be
adjusted when additional data become available to justify the
lower limit.
Another commenter (IV-D-184) asserted that the lower end
of the range was virtually impossible to meet for some
5-6
-------
combustion designs, given the small amount of experience with
add-on NOX technology. Two of the commenters (IV-F-1.35,
IV-D-164) recommended a NOX limit of 225 ppm. This was based
on the assertion that vendors can guarantee this level and
that lower levels may not be continuously achievable.
Commenter IV-F-1.35 also said a limit of 225 would allow
development and use of controls other than SNCR.
Response; The final standards include a NOX limit of 180 ppmv
for all new MWC's with unit capacities larger than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) of MSW. To address the issue of long-term
continuous compliance, 9 months of NOX GEM data were collected
from a grate-fired mass burn MWC with Thermal DeNOx control.
Statistical analysis of these data demonstrated that a level
of 180 ppmv, calculated on a 24-hour arithmetic average basis,
is achievable. This limit is consistent with a long-term
average NOX level of about 130 ppmv for the data set. The CEM
data included various seasons when different amounts of yard
waste was combusted with the municipal waste, and the 180 ppmv
limit was achievable throughout the period. Further
information on the analysis is contained in an appendix to
this BID and in Docket No. A-89-08.
Based on a review of short-term compliance test data from
over 35 mass burn waterwall, mass burn refractory, RDF,
modular excess air, and modular starved air MWC's,
uncontrolled NOX emissions from this MWC are representative of
most other types of MWC's. As a result, these other MWC types
would also be able to continuously comply with a NOX emission
limit of 180 ppmv (24-hour arithmetic average) using add-on
controls.
Some MWC types may achieve the 180 ppmv level through
combustor design rather than add-on controls. Continuous NOX
data from a water cooled rotary mass burn MWC were examined.
The combustor was designed and operated to control the
temperature and fuel-air ratio in the primary combustion zone
to inhibit NOX formation. The continuous emissions data
obtained from this unit indicates that some MWC's can achieve
a 180 ppm (24-hour average) NOX emissions limit without use of
5-7
-------
the SNCR. The average emission rate from this unit was below
120 ppmv, and the maximum expected 24-hour average was below
180 ppmv.
To assure continuous compliance with the 180 ppmv limit
(24-hour arithmetic average), MWC's will need some type of NOX
control. Any control technology (including combustor design
or any add-on control technology) can be used as long as
continuous compliance is demonstrated by CEM data.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-168) argued that the proposed
NOX standard of 120 to 200 ppmv for new, large MWC's is not
stringent enough for most sources. This commenter claimed
that some States in Region V currently impose a NOX standard
more stringent than 120 to 200 ppmv for all new sources except
fluidized beds. This commenter urged EPA to tighten the
proposed NOX standard to the level already required in
practice.
Response; The goal of the NSPS program is to set national
standards based on emission reductions continuously achievable
using the best demonstrated technologies considering cost and
other factors. As explained in the previous response, the NOX
emission limit of 180 ppmv (24-hour arithmetic average) was
selected because data analysis show that level to be
continuously achievable for all types of new MWC's using a
demonstrated NOX control technology. Continuous data from one
of the few MWC's in the United States with an SNCR NOX control
system indicate that lower levels may not be continuously
achievable.
While current data support a limit of 180 ppmv, research
and testing of NOX control technologies is being conducted by
various firms and agencies, and this NSPS NOX limit should
encourage further development of NOX control technologies. If
there are local factors that warrant more stringent NOX
control or data indicate a lower limit can be achieved at a
particular MWC, more stringent limits can be considered by
individual States. Furthermore, the Agency could consider any
new data that becomes available over the next few years during
the periodic NSPS review.
5-8
-------
Comment: Eight commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.4, IV-D-101,
IV-D-131, IV-D-139, IV-D-149, IV-D-153, IV-D-155) felt that a
NOX standard of 120 ppmv was not based on best demonstrated
technology. Two commenters (IV-D-139, IV-D-155) stated that
the selection of SNCR for NOX control was justified based on
only two facilities using Thermal DeNOx in nonattainment areas
for NOX. Five commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-D-101, IV-D-139,
IV-D-149, IV-D-155) felt that these facilities represented
LAER rather than best demonstrated technology.
Six commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-101, IV-D-131, IV-D-155,
IV-D-164, IV-D-184) viewed SNCR as a "developmental" rather
than "demonstrated" technology. Three commenters (IV-D-101,
IV-D-155, IV-D-164) pointed out that the only facilities in
operation in the United States with add-on NOX control are
located in California in NOX nonattainment areas. Two
commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155) further explained that the
facilities using Thermal DeNOx were not permitted using a BACT
or LAER analysis, but rather were permitted as an
"experimental technology" under California's permitting
program.
These commenters stated that besides Thermal DeNOx, no
other method of NOX control had been thoroughly evaluated by
EPA because the other types of add-on NOX control discussed in
the NSPS and BID'S relied on data from non-MWC technologies or
anecdotal data from other countries. These commenters felt
that data collected from two facilities burning MSW and one
facility burning commercial waste using Thermal DeNOx do not
support best demonstrated technology as set out in
Section 111.
Response; Selective noncatalytic reduction is a demonstrated
technology. It has been in use on commercial MWC's in the
United States since 1987, and roughly 9 months of continuous
emission data were reviewed by the Agency. The NOX emission
limit in the standards is 180 ppmv (rather than the 120 ppmv
referenced by the commenters). As explained in previous
responses, data show that a level of 180 ppmv is continuously
achievable using a demonstrated NOX control technology (SNCR).
5-9
-------
Other technologies may also be used to meet the limits. The
NOX limit will achieve significant national NOX emission
reductions. Costs and economic impacts of controlling NOX
have been analyzed and are reasonable for MWC's with unit
capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, this NOX
limit represents use of best demonstrated technology.
Commenti Three commenters (IV-D-184, IV-D-190, IV-D-235)
cited operational problems with NOX control. One commenter
(IV-D-184) felt that the lack of operating experience was a
drawback to using SNCR. Two commenters (IV-D-190, IV-D-235)
stated that the operational problems associated with NOX
control would jeopardize the fundamental mission of the MWC.
In view of this, both commenters felt NOX control might be
best left as a local option.
Response; Operational problems with various NOX control
technologies were considered by the Agency in developing
standards for new MWC's. The objective of the NSPS program is
to define national requirements that can be achieved by all
affected facilities within a source category. A local agency
can require controls that exceed these national requirements.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-131) pointed out that EPA
acknowledges that the desired reactions for SNCR only occur
within a relatively narrow temperature window, and that
visible chloride emissions result when ammonia is injected
outside that window. The commenter felt that, from an
operating standpoint, it is difficult to ensure that the
controls are performing in an optimum fashion because the
precise point of injection varies with operating load. This
commenter also mentioned other problems with SNCR, which were
noted in the BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d), such as increased CO
emissions and reduced mercury removal.
Response; Selective noncatalytic reduction systems are
typically designed with multiple rows of injector nozzles with
the ability to change the ammonia injection elevation, and
thus injection temperature, in response to changes in MSW
composition and boiler load. Furthermore, the NOX standard
applies to new MWC's with unit capacities larger than
5-10
-------
225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Such MWC's would produce steam and/or
electricity and would operate at relatively stable loads.
Although potential problems with SNCR technologies can occur,
there is no reason to believe the technology cannot be
operated in compliance with the promulgated standard. Impacts
of SNCR on CO and mercury emissions have been examined and
were found not to be significant.
Comment! Three commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-153, IV-D-164)
believed that if the NOX standards were implemented, vendors
would be unwilling to guarantee the performance of their
equipment. One commenter (IV-F-2.15) questioned the ability
of existing control technologies to meet even the upper limit
of the proposed NOX emission range and argued that the limit
was clearly beyond the capability of any BACT.
Response t The final standards have been set at levels
achievable by all MWC's using best demonstrated technology.
The owner or operator of an MWC can solicit a guarantee from a
technology supplier. However, compliance with the standards
are the responsibility of the plant owner or operator.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-149) disagreed with the control
strategy for NOX in the proposed NSPS. This commenter
recommended setting a NOX emission limit for large MWC's then
allowing the owner or operator to use whatever means necessary
to achieve this limit.
Response; The standard includes emission limits for NOX, but
does not specify a particular control technology. Owners or
operators can use any technique to reduce NOX emissions as
long as the standards are met.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-144, IV-D-294)
stated that the EPA's background documents do not support the
proposed NOX standards. One commenter (IV-D-294) believed
that the use of FBC technology to control NOX is BACT and
attached a cost analysis to support this position. Two
commenters (IV-D-144, IV-D-294) stated that NOX emissions from
FBC's are substantially lower than from conventional MWC's
because these FBC's operate at lower temperatures and have
lower excess air requirements. These two commenters pointed
5-11
-------
out that the BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d) does not address this
difference. These commenters guaranteed that their FBC's
could achieve less than 200 ppmv NOX at 7 percent 02 for large
MWC's without SNCR and felt that SNCR should not be considered
best demonstrated technology for FBC's.
These two commenters also recommended that a NOX emission
limit for large MWC's be set at 200 ppmv at 7 percent 02.
However, the commenters recommended that the standard should
differentiate between those technologies, requiring SNCR to
meet this limit and those technologies that do not require
SNCR to meet a different limit. The commenters suggested that
the NOX standard require an "operational demonstration period"
to optimize NOX control. The commenters envisioned that the
final NSPS limit for NOX (which would likely be less than
200 ppmv) would be set following the demonstration period.
One commenter (IV-D-119) thought that NOX emissions
should be based on an allowable emissions rate, but not on a
percent reduction format. This commenter stated that
establishing a blanket percent reduction format is likely to
discourage the further development of emerging technologies
such as circulating bed FBC's, which have uncontrolled NOX
emissions of 200 ppm or less. The commenter pointed out that
mass burn and stoker MWC's achieve these NOX emission levels
only when controlled. The commenter felt that because an FBC
offers a more complete combustion condition and better quality
ash characteristics as well as lower NOX emissions, further
development of this and possible other emerging, alternative
technologies, should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
Response; The standards set a NOX limit of 180 ppmv (24-hour
arithmetic average basis) for all MWC's with unit capacities
above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). They do not require use of any
particular technology. If FBC's or other types of combustors
can meet this limit (as monitored continuously using NOX
CEM's) without the use of SNCR or other add-on controls, they
would be in compliance with the standards.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.8, IV-D-149) recommended that
the proposed NSPS limits be reevaluated to consider natural
5-12
-------
gas reburning as a control alternative. One commenter
(IV-F-2.8) was working actively to develop a gas reburn
project at his facility. This commenter expected to reduce
NOX emissions by 60 percent, to enhance the controllable
temperature profile to achieve more effective destruction of
organics, and to reduce the potential for metals emissions.
Response; This technology was considered, and is discussed
briefly in the BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d). However, data on the
performance of natural gas reburning applied to MWC's are
limited so it was not the basis of the performance standards.
However, any technology which meets the NOX emission standards
may be used, including natural gas reburn.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155) pointed out that
throughout the development of the NOX standard, combustion
control has been best demonstrated technology for NOX. These
commenters cited support for this Agency position in the BID'S
and RIA. These commenters felt that if ammonia injection were
being considered as best demonstrated technology, then an
analysis should have been performed to determine the most
cost-effective add-on NOX control. The commenters
acknowledged that some new MWC's in areas of NOX attainment
are being built with ammonia injection as a requirement of the
permit. However, the commenters argued and included
attachments to support that the requirement for add-on NOX
control is not warranted under Section 111 and should only be
used under LAER situations or through voluntary acceptance.
Response; Combustion controls have been applied to a number
of MWC's to limit NOX emissions. For some MWC's, however,
post-combustion add-on NOX controls are technically applicable
and were found to be cost effective in achieving NOX emission
reductions. The promulgated standard establishes an emission
limit that individual MWC's are required to meet. Use of
ammonia injection or any other specific add-on controls is not
required.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-153, IV-D-257)
favored technology-specific KOX limits. One commenter
(IV-D-101) stated that if EPA adopted add-on NOX control as
5-13
-------
best demonstrated technology in the final rule, then limits
must be set that are achievable and would require controls to
be applied equally to all combustion technologies. The
commenter explained that different limits should be set for
each technology based on combustion characteristics and that
these limits would be inversely proportional to the technology
dependent CO limits.
Another commenter (IV-D-257) felt that a technology-based
range of NOX standards is justifiable because unabated NOX
levels vary according to the type of MWC used. This commenter
reported that unabated NOX emissions at his MWC burning RDF
are less than 250 ppmv, whereas mass burn MWC's have reported
unabated NOX emission levels greater than 300 ppmv. Two
commenters (IV-D-153, IV-D-257) requested that technology-
specific NOX limits be established similar to the proposed
limits for CO because, like CO, NOX emissions are a function
of combustor design and operational control. One commenter
(IV-D-188) noted that if different CO limits are to be
established for different sized MWC's, then different NOX
limits are also appropriate, thereby eliminating an unfair
advantage for one type of MWC over another.
Response; A uniform NOX limit of 180 ppmv has been set for
all MWC's with unit capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
The ranges of NOX emissions from RDF and mass burn MWC's
overlap and are not significantly different. As discussed in
previous responses, either technology could meet the limit of
180 ppmv (24-hour arithmetic average) using demonstrated NOX
control technologies. The great majority of MWC's would need
to use add-on NOX controls to meet this limit. However, data
indicate that a few designs of mass burn combustors, FBC's,
and modular excess air MWC's have lower NOX emissions and may
be able to meet the limit without add-on controls or with a
lower percent NOX reduction by the control device.
Examination of data related to MWC types with baseline
NOX emissions of less than 180 ppmv indicated that the cost
effectiveness of NOX controls from these units would exceed
$4,400/Mg ($4,000/ton). Review of similar data for MWC types .
5-14
-------
with NOX emissions above 180 ppmv indicated that the cost
effectiveness of NOX controls on these MWC's was between
$2,100 to $3,100/Mg ($1,900 to $2,800/ton). Because plants
with baseline NOX emissions below 180 ppmv (24-hour arithmetic
average) start with significantly lower baseline emissions
than other plants, the NOX reduction (in Mg/yr [tpy]) that
could be achieved by add-on NOX control technology is smaller.
It was therefore determined that a uniform limit of 180 ppmv
for all types of MWC's is reasonable, and technology-specific
limits are not warranted.
Two commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-164) felt that it
could be feasible to require a percent reduction in unabated
NOX emissions and a limit, whichever is less stringent. These
commenters pointed out that this is the same approach being
proposed for acid gas control. One commenter (IV-D-164) cited
data indicating that long-term reductions of 35 to 40 percent
over unabated NOX emissions may be achievable.
Response ; Demonstration of continuous compliance with a
percent reduction standard would be difficult due to the lack
of a continuously monitored uncontrolled NOX level. In
addition, the NOX emission limit of 180 ppmv is achievable by
all types of MWC's. Therefore, there is no clear reason to
establish an alternative percent reduction standard, and an
emission limit approach is more straightforward. This format
is consistent with the standards for MWC metals (measured as
PM) , and MWC organics (measured as dioxins/furans) .
Comment ; One commenter (IV-D-164) opposed the proposal of a
NOX standard at this time. This commenter suggested setting a
standard for new, large MWC's after conducting thorough
research on NOX production factors and mechanisms, and on
whether cost-effective and reliable control technologies can
be developed.
Response ; Available data on NOX emissions and emission
control technologies for MWC's were reviewed in "Municipal
Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed
Standards: Control of NOX Emissions," (EPA-450/3-89-27d) .
Based on this review, it was concluded that SNCR was a
5-15
-------
demonstrated technology. That conclusion has not changed.
Any other NOX control technology could also be used to meet
the standard. The Agency believes that the existing
information on NOX control technologies is sufficient to
support the final standard.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-D-188) observed that no
NOX limit had been proposed for MWC's less than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd). One commenter (IV-F-1.9) found the NOX limit for
large MWC's appropriate but opposed the lack of a standard for
small (<225 Mg/day [<250 tpd]) MWC's. The other commenter
(IV-D-188) pointed out that permitting criteria in
Pennsylvania establishes a maximum NOX limit of 300 ppm on a
daily average for MWC's greater than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd).
Response; The NSPS currently being promulgated affects only
MWC's with unit capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990,
standards for units with capacities of 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) or
less must be promulgated within 2 years (see Section 1.0).
Control of NOX emissions from these MWC's will be examined
over the next 2 years as a part of that rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) argued that 40 percent
reduction in NOX emissions is not consistent with the EPA's
pollution prevention policy described in the "Agenda for
Action." This commenter also stated that the time frame of
4 years before a NOX standard went into effect was
inconsistent with the EPA's pollution prevention policy.
Response: The commenter is in error in stating that a 4-year
time frame is allowed before a NOX standard goes into effect.
New source performance standards are applicable to units built
at the time of proposal and effective as of the date of
promulgation.
Further, the standard is consistent with the pollution
prevention policy.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-69, IV-D-210, IV-D-253)
stated that the use of SCR in West Germany has resulted in a
much lower NOX emissions than those being proposed for SNCR in
the NSPS. One commenter (IV-D-69) projected that if SCR,
5-16
-------
which is capable of achieving 80 to 90 percent NOX reduction,
were selected as the basis of the NSPS, an additional 12,000
to 15,000 Mg/yr (13,000 to 16,000 tpy) of NOX reductions could
be achieved.
Another commenter (IV-D-210) reported that for an SCR
under construction at an MWC in Munich South, pilot-scale
tests achieved an average of 38 ppm NOX. This commenter.
expected that two proposed facilities in California would meet
NOX concentrations of about 30 to 35 ppm with a control
efficiency of about 90 percent. In view of this, the
commenter suggested that the proposed NOX emissions be
reevaluated based on SCR, or that provisions be included in
the regulation for modifying the NOX limits as more SCR data
become available.
The third commenter (IV-D-253) acknowledged that the
proposed NOX limits are extremely lenient when compared to the
NOX permit limit of 35 ppmv for NOX (as N02) on the Munich
South MWC, which uses a dry scrubber/FF followed by SCR. This
commenter also enclosed a copy of the State of New Mexico's
proposed MWC emission limits (proposed October 13, 1989) as
additional support that the proposed NOX limit is too lenient.
Response; Commercial use of SCR technology has not been
demonstrated to date. The Munich South plant has tested a
pilot-scale SCR system. However, no data have been recorded
for full-scale SCR systems which are designed for 90 percent
NOX reduction. The full-scale plant has an anticipated 1990
start-up date. Use of SCR was considered when two facilities
in Southern California were initially proposed, but these
facilities were never permitted or constructed. Thus the
Agency does not believe that SCR is BDT for NOx at this time,
on the current record.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-116) did not believe that a
specific NOX emission reduction level is necessary for MWC's.
This commenter suggested that if NOX control were required, an
achievable emission limit should be set that allows the
various MWC technologies to achieve this limit using numerous
controls, including staged-combustion, low excess air, FGR,
5-17
-------
natural gas reburning, urea injection, and ammonia injection.
To support the assertion that a NOX reduction level is
not necessary, the commenter described and submitted data on
his Westinghouse O'Connor rotary kiln MWC. The commenter
claimed that the O'Connor MWC differs from the traditional
MWC. The commenter explained that as the overfire air slowly
mixes, the more slowly evolving fuel fragments are being
constantly added to the gases, allowing time for the fuel-
bound nitrogen to be converted to nitrogen gas. In addition,
the commenter claimed that the heat removal mechanism of the
O'Connor MWC moderates peak combustion temperatures,
alleviating the need for large amounts of excess air. The
commenter pointed out that because the O'Connor MWC requires
less air than a traditional MWC, less oxygen is available for
NOX production. The commenter reported that higher
instantaneous local temperatures may exist within the MWC, but
NOX formation rates are relatively slow, requiring a certain
residence time. The commenter included data showing that NOX
emissions from an O'Connor combustor without SNCR can be
controlled to 140 ppm or below corrected to 7 percent 02 on an
hourly average basis.
This commenter felt that applying Thermal DeNOx to his
O'Connor MWC would achieve substantially lower percent NOX
control than that achieved when applied to other MWC's. This
commenter also claimed that Thermal DeNOx would increase CO
emissions from an O'Connor combustor design because there is
much less opportunity for CO to oxidize to C02 after escaping
from the primary combustion zone before reaching the Thermal
DeNOx region. The commenter concluded that a technology
providing only minimal control for NOX while increasing
emissions of another criteria pollutant (CO) cannot be
considered best demonstrated technology and, therefore,
Thermal DeNOx is not compatible with the O'Connor MWC to
reduce NOX emissions below the already low levels.
One commenter (IV-D-296) submitted data from tests
conducted at his O'Connor MWC to support that staged
combustion is BACT for controlling NOX emissions.
5-18
-------
Response; The standards establish a NOX limit of 180 ppmv
(24-hour arithmetic average monitored continuously) for all
MWC's with unit capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). They
do not require use of any specific technology. If an MWC can
demonstrate that NOX emissions are continuously below 180 ppmv
without the use of SNCR or other add-on controls, the plant
would be in compliance with the NSPS. Decisions on BACT are
made on a site-specific basis under the PSD permit program,
and in some cases may be more stringent that a national NSPS.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-117, IV-D-188) stated that NOX
limits below 120 ppm were achievable. One commenter
(IV-D-188) noted that NOX emissions at a rotary waterwall MWC
in Pennsylvania are generally under 200 ppm, and that even
with a minimum 50-percent reduction with SNCR methods,
emission levels below 120 ppm could be achieved.
One commenter (IV-D-117) submitted information on five
different combustion design operating strategies:
(1) grate and furnace design for staging of combustion,
including starved air modular, excess air modular, split
chamber grate furnace, and natural gas reburning;
(2) waterwall cooling of the grate area (O'Connor MWC);
(3) automatic combustion controls;
(4) bubbling and circulating fluidized bed boilers; and
(5) overall boiler design to permit flue gas
recirculation.
This commenter also submitted information on add-on control
devices in addition to Thermal DeNOx. These devices include:
(1) NOXOUT,
(2) two-stage DeNOx Process,
(3) SCR, and
(4) wet scrubbing/condensation.
The commenter stated that considering the recent
developments in these NOX control technologies and their
successful demonstration and testing on a variety of new and
existing MWC's, it is probable that implementation of a
combination of technologies, including yard waste separation
and composting along with one or more combustion
5-19
-------
modifications, improved operating techniques, and/or add-on
NOX removal devices could reduce NOX emissions well below
100 ppm for new facilities.
Response; Although the Agency recognizes the information the
commenters submitted as alternative NOX control strategies,
Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS be based on
demonstrated technology. On a commercial basis, SNCR is
considered to be well demonstrated. Further, all available
data indicate that the selected emission level can be
continuously achieved by properly designed, operated, and
maintained combustors and control systems, without resulting
in severe cost, economic, and energy impacts. Owners or
operators may use any technology they choose to comply with
the standards.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-121, IV-D-138) felt that source
separation of nitrogen-rich material in the waste should be
considered a pollution control option in the control of NOX
emissions from MWC's (see discussion in Section 4.2.1).
Response; The Agency encourages removal of nitrogen-rich yard
waste prior to combustion. However, available data do not
indicate that yard waste removal alone will achieve the NOX
emission limits for many combustors. Nitrogen sources in the
waste are numerous and diverse, and removal of all the sources
is not practical. Therefore, the NOX standards are based on
other control techniques.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-154) initially reported
achieving 10 to 15 percent NOX reduction with FGR. This
commenter noted that the FGR resulted in higher CO levels and
that the initial findings may have been flawed due to an MWC
control system problem that was not apparent at the time of
the initial testing.
Response; Actual quantitative results from the commenter's
facility were not used in the BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d).
5.3 IMPACTS OF NITROGEN OXIDES CONTROL
5.3.1 Environmental and Health
Comment; Nine commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-101, IV-D-138,
IV-D-139, IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-189, IV-D-255, IV-D-257)
5-20
-------
were concerned about workplace safety when using ammonia or
urea-based SNCR. One commenter explained that control of NOX
with SNCR is based upon a feedback control logic using the
outlet NOX CEM data. Because ammonia feedrate fluctuates with
NOX generation rate, the commenter pointed out that times of
overdosing with ammonia will occur to compensate for
previously occurring high NOX levels. The commenter provided
data to illustrate that at high stoichiometric ratios, excess
ammonia desorbing from the fly ash can create a workplace
problem in the ash handling area. The commenter argued that
if the NOX standards are too stringent, the control system's
logic would not be able to compensate for the normal
fluctuations in uncontrolled NOX emissions causing ammonia
emissions in the ash handling area to become a severe problem.
Five commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-101, IV-D-139, IV-D-164,
IV-D-189) stated that the storage of ammonia associated with
ammonia injection systems can pose significant safety risks
that may be unacceptable at certain sites. One commenter
(IV-D-101) mentioned that transportation and accidental
release of ammonia posed additional risks. Two commenters
(IV-D-101, IV-D-257) also cited problems with ammonia slip and
ammonia chloride plume. One commenter (IV-D-164) noted that
anhydrous ammonia is a hazardous material that must be handled
off-site.
Response; The Agency acknowledges that ammonia injection for
KOX reduction can result in workplace safety problems if the
ammonia storage, injection, and control systems are not
properly designed, operated, and maintained. To minimize
these problems, MWC operating personnel should routinely
monitor combustion conditions, ammonia feed rate and injection
location, outlet NOX levels, and other key operating
variables. The promulgated standard recognizes the trade-off
between NOX reduction levels and the potential for ammonia
slip. At the level of NOX reduction required, buildup of
unreacted ammonia in the ash handling system should not be a
problem unless operating problems occur.
5-21
-------
With regard to ammonia storage and handling, ammonia is a
widely used industrial chemical. Procedures for safely
handling ammonia are available. The risks associated with
ammonia storage and handling can be minimized by following
these procedures.
Finally, and as stated previously, the standards do not
require ammonia injection. The owner or operator of an MWC is
free to use other techniques if site-specific factors limit
the ability to use ammonia, and it is demonstrated that the
standard is achievable without the use of ammonia.
5.3.2 Energy
Comment t One commenter (IV-D-101) stated that an MWC that
combusts 2,040 Mg/day (2,250 tpd) of MSW could be generating
about 50 HW of electricity and offsetting 50 MW of fossil fuel
generated electric power. The commenter further explained
that if this power were generated in an existing coal plant,
over 45,000 Mg (50,000 tons) of NOX would be produced.
Response; The objective of the NSPS program is to control
emissions from individual emission sources to the maximum
extent technically and economically justified based on
demonstrated technology. This rulemaking concerns MWC's, and
a comparison with other combustion sources is not a key factor
in the decision under Section 111 of the CAA.
5.3.3 Cost and Economic
comment• Seven commenters (IV-D-138, IV-D-149, IV-D-154,
IV-D-164, IV-D-184 and IV-D-190, IV-D-235, IV-D-257) felt that
the costs of the proposed NOX standard are too high. One
commenter (IV-D-138) stated that the costs and uncertainties
of controlling NOX with SNCR outweigh the environmental
benefits. This commenter estimated that the incremental cost
for NOX removal would be $5,030/Mg ($4,560/ton) of NOX, based
on data from a Thermal DeNOx system applied to a 450 Mg/day
(500 tpd) MWC. This commenter pointed out that the estimate
of $l,630/Mg ($l,480/ton) of NOX removed used in developing
the regulation underestimated the operating costs of the
system. This commenter stated that the $l,630/Mg ($l,480/ton)
estimate includes power and reagent costs but does not include
5-22
-------
costs of direct operating labor, direct maintenance labor,
direct supervision, and maintenance materials. The other
commenter (IV-D-149) noted that the data for NOX control
provided in the BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d) range from $2,130 to
$25,600/Mg ($1,930 to $23,300/ton) of NOX removed, which are
outside the generally acceptable range of $2,200 to $2,800/Mg
($2,000 to $2,500/ton) of NOX removed.
Two commenters (IV-D-154, IV-D-257) argued that the cost
justification used in developing the NOX limit is too low.
One commenter (IV-D-257) felt that the estimate in the
proposed NOX standard of $2,500/Mg ($2,300/ton) of NOX removed
or about $2.00/Mg ($1.80/ton) of MSW burned was too low. This
commenter cited data to support NOX removal costs that range
from $2.60 to $3.10/Mg ($2.35 to $2.80/ton) of MSW burned.
This commenter also mentioned that a spokesman from EPA had
stated that NOX can be controlled at utility power plants for
roughly 20 percent of the cost, on a per Mg (ton) NOX removed
basis, of installing NOX equipment at an MWC.
One commenter (IV-D-154) reported that the actual costs
in $/Mg ($/ton) of MSW burned at his MWC using ammonia
injection for NOX control was $2.60/Mg ($2.35/ton) of MSW.
The commenter felt that this number may be low. If additional
piping and repairs to observed corrosion problems are
included, the commenter projects the cost may be as high as
$3.15/Mg ($2.85/ton) of MSW burned.
Response: The proposal BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d) estimated the
incremental cost for NOX removal for a mass burn MWC plant
with an aggregate capacity of 450 Mg/day (500 tpd) (i.e.,
2 MWC units with capacities of 225 Mg/day [250 tpd]) to be
$4,640/Mg ($4,210/ton). This estimate was based on
information received from Exxon and Ogden Martin, and included
costs of direct operating labor, direct maintenance labor,
direct supervision, and maintenance materials. The $l,630/Mg
($l,480/ton) quoted by the commenter (IV-D-138) was based on
an estimate from Exxon.
As stated in the proposal preamble, the incremental cost
per Mg (ton) of NOX control for the NOX standards selected is
5-23
-------
$3,700/Mg ($3,400/ton) of NOX while the average cost per Mg
(ton) is $2,500/Mg ($2,300/ton) of NOX. This cost will vary
for individual MWC's. The proposal BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d)
showed costs per Mg (ton) of NOX control based on SNCR to
range from $2,000 to $4,600/Mg ($1,800 to $4,200/ton) of NOX
for MWC's larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). A revised analysis
conducted after proposal and included in Docket A-89-08 shows
a similar range of costs, from $1,800 to $4,500/Mg ($1,600 to
$4,100/ton) of NOX. The much higher numbers cited by
commenter IV-D-149 are for MWC's below 225 Mg/day (250 tpd),
and these are not covered under this rulemaking.
Cost effectiveness in $/Mg ($/ton) of NOX control is not
the only factor in a decision to regulate NOx emissions.
There is demonstrated technology to control NOX from MWC's.
Based on the revised cost analyses, the costs of control are
reasonable (an increase in $1.10 to $3.60/Mg ($1.00 to
$3.30/ton) of MSW for individual MWC's compared to baseline
MSW disposal costs of $40 to $100/Mg ($36 to $90/ton) of MSW
without NOX control. No severe economic impacts are
predicted. The goal of Section 111 is to apply best
demonstrated technology to all sources except where costs are
unreasonable, and not to equalize the $/Mg ($/ton) spent
across source categories.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-184, IV-D-255) suggested that,
instead of imposing SNCR controls that result in only
40 percent reductions, EPA should encourage and participate in
research programs to identify whether cost effective and
reliable methods can be developed with much higher control
efficiency. This commenter felt that if such technology can
be developed, then EPA should evaluate the types of emission
sources it can be cost effectively applied to for producing
real, measurable environmental benefits.
Response; The development of new technologies that can
achieve greater emission reductions and lower costs is
supported by the Agency. At the same time, however, the need
exists to apply existing control technologies to reduce
emissions whenever such reductions are cost effective.
5-24
-------
Waiting for new technologies to be developed in lieu of
current action is not an appropriate response. Any technology
can be used to comply with the standards, and therefore, the
standards will encourage development and use of new
technologies. In addition, the new section 129 of the Clean
Air Act requires NOx control at both new and existing
combustors.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-139) found no study to support
the cost-effectiveness estimates for the proposed NOX
standards.
Response; Nitrogen oxide is a criteria pollutant, and the
control is based on best demonstrated technology. Cost and
emission reduction estimates for typical plants are contained
in the BID, "Municipal Waste Combustors - Background
Information for Proposed Standards: Control of NOX
Emissions," (EPA-450/3-89-27d). National costs and emission
reductions were estimated by multiplying costs and emission
reductions for each model plant by the number of plants they
represent.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-138) found discrepancies between
two methods used to estimate cost of the NOX standards. This
commenter included cost estimates for NOX control based on a
technique outlined in an EPA document, "Control Technologies
for Hazardous Air Pollutants," (EPA/625/6-86/014),
September 1986 as well as estimates based on a technique
outlined in the NOX BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d). According to the
commenter, the results of the calculations showed that the
estimates based on the first method were much lower than those
based on the second method. The commenter attributed these
results to the following:
(1) equipment costs (particularly instrumentation and
controls, site preparation, foundation and structural steel)
were underestimated;
(2) no building was included in equipment costs;
(3) ammonia safety and monitoring equipment was not
included in the equipment costs; and
5-25
-------
(4) erection costs (field labor) were included in
indirect costs in the first method and in capital costs in the
second method.
The commenter pointed out that the indirect costs were
also larger when estimated by the second method. The
commenter attributed these results to the following:
(1) engineering costs were underestimated and general
administrative costs were neglected;
(2) the first method included preproduction costs to
indirect costs, whereas the second method considered them
separately; and
(3) erection costs were treated separately from indirect
costs in the first method but were treated as part of indirect
costs in the second method.
The commenter also pointed out that the annual operating
costs were greater for the first method because labor cost
estimates were greater. The commenter also noted that
Table 4-2 of the BID used an incorrect ammonia flowrate.
Response; Both methods the commenter used to estimate costs
for applying NOX controls were study estimates. The first
method was published in 1986 in an EPA document, "Control
Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants,11
(EPA-625/6-86-014). The second method was presented in the
NOX BID (EPA-450/3-89-27d) and used more recent information
obtained specifically for the MWC industry. EPA believes the
procedure outlined in the BID to be a more accurate
representation of the costs of applying Thermal DeNOx to new
MWC' S.
There is a typographical error in the BID, "Municipal
Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed
Standards: Control of NOX Emissions," (EPA-450/3-89-27d), for
the total flue gas flowrate for the 1,360 Mg/day (1,500 tpd)
plant. The correct flowrate is listed in Table 4-3 of the
document.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-69) noted that cost comparisons
of SCR and SNCR should be based not only on capital and
5-26
-------
operating costs, but also on the cost per Mg (ton) of NOX
removed.
Response; Selective noncatalytic reduction was costed to
estimate impacts of the standards. Selective catalytic
reduction has not been adequately demonstrated, therefore,
there is less data on this technology applied to MWC's on
which to base performance or cost estimates. In general, SCR
is likely to be more expensive because of higher capital and
operating costs, including flue gas reheat needed to reach the
desired catalyst operating temperatures. The cost per Mg
(ton) of NOX removed for SNCR, which varies depending on type
and size of plant, is summarized on page 5-21 of the BID,
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for
Proposed Standards: Control of NOX Emissions,"
(EPA-450/3-89-27d). Although the cost analysis was based on
SNCR, any technology which meets the standard may be used.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-154) suggested that a delayed
start up of the NOX control system after initial plant start
up would reduce significantly the installed costs of the
system and may result in optimum operation. This commenter
recommended a 6-month start up of the NOX control system, at
which time all of the auxiliary equipment could be installed
on the MWC. The commenter felt that 6 months is needed to
obtain the proper MWC fouling characteristics. The commenter
felt that this 6-month delay could reduce the total system
cost.
Response: As a result of the new section 129 of the Clean Air
Act, the effective date of this NSPS is 6 months from the date
of publication in the Federal Register. Moreover, the General
Provisions schedule does allow 180 days before compliance
testing is required. This time period is sufficient to modify
operations if necessary. There are no unique reasons to
justify delaying compliance testing beyond the 180-day period
already authorized in the General Provisions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-154) expressed concern about
wall erosion occurring in MWC's using ammonia injection for
NOX control. The commenter felt that additional cost/benefit
5-27
-------
studies should be conducted if additional refractory or boiler
tube material is needed to install the DeNOx system.
Response; Boiler tube fouling and corrosion caused by ammonia
salts may occur, but has not been documented. Increased
boiler tube maintenance from ammonia salt deposition was not
included as a separate line item maintenance cost in the
Agency's cost estimates. There is, however, a contingency
based on 20 percent of the direct and indirect capital costs
to cover unforeseen expenses. This contingency is believed to
adequately cover any problems with corrosion during system
start-up.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-164) stated that if vendors did
guarantee the performance of their NOX control systems to
achieve the proposed NOX standards, it would be at a
tremendous cost to municipalities.
Response; The performance levels specified in the standards
have been demonstrated. Vendor guarantees are agreements made
between the vendor and the MWC owner or operator at the time
of purchase negotiations. An owner or operator will generally
specify to a potential vendor what guarantees are to be
provided or are desired at the time a bid specification is
issued. It is the MWC owner or operator's responsibility to
decide what guarantees it needs. Responsibility for
demonstrating compliance with the permit is the responsibility
of the MWC owner or operator.
5.4 PERFORMANCE TESTING AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR
NITROGEN OXIDES
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-257) expressed concern about the
requirement to conduct the initial compliance test for NOX
during the first 24 consecutive MWC operating hours at full
load. This commenter felt that this requirement would not
allow sufficient time to optimize the performance of an SNCR
system on a mass burn MWC. This commenter pointed out that
because there is limited operating experience with SNCR
technology on mass burn MWC's and no experience with such
systems at RDF MWC's, compliance testing requirements
consistent with those applicable to sources subject to PSD
5-28
-------
regulations should be implemented for MWC's subject to these
NOX standards.
Response; Owners or operators are encouraged to comply with
the NSPS at start-up, however, the General Provisions schedule
allows 180 days before compliance testing is required. This
180-day period provides sufficient time to optimize system
performance.
5-29
-------
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
6.1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.29, IV-F-3.8, IV-D-63,
IV-D-132, IV-D-232) said the public comment period should be
extended due to the volume of information associated with the
rules.
Response; The Agency was not able to grant requests for
extension of the public comment period because the Agency is
under a Court schedule to issue final rules by December 31,
1990. This schedule does not permit a longer comment period.
A 70-day comment period was provided. The proposal was
publicized in press releases and in articles in several
newspapers and was published in the Federal Register. The
first of three public hearings (in Boston, Detroit, and
Seattle) was held 30 days after the proposal was published.
The record was kept open for 30 days after the hearings as
required by Section 307(d)(5) of the CAA. This is adequate
opportunity for comment and is consistent with the CAA.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.18) thought public hearings
should have been held in other States where there are large
numbers of MWC's, and the hearings should have been held at
hours convenient for working people to attend.
Response; Public hearings were held in three different areas
of the country (Boston, Detroit, Seattle) for 2 days in each
place in order to make attendance more convenient than when a
single hearing is held. Furthermore, anyone who could not
attend a hearing could submit written comments which would
have been entered into the docket. Written and oral comments
are given equal consideration. Over 300 written public
comments were received on the proposal.
6-1
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-167) felt enforcement issues are
of such fundamental importance to the rulemaking that
enforcement guidance documents for the materials separation
requirement should be subject to public notice and comment.
Response; For reasons discussed in the Preamble to this rule,
the Agency has decided to not to include the materials
separation requirements in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-149) requested that the
applicability date for NSPS be changed to the date of final
promulgation rather than the December 20, 1989, date of the
proposal.
Response; Section 111(a)(2) of the CAA sets the applicability
date as the date of the proposal of the NSPS in the definition
of "new source." Thus, the CAA and not the Agency has
directed that the NSPS must apply to any source that commenced
construction after proposal of the NSPS in the Federal
Register. The standards become effective six months after
promulgation.
6.2 COFIRING
Comment; Many commenters (IV-F-1.34, IV-F-2.4, IV-F-2.54,
IV-D-72, IV-D-90, IV-D-92, IV-D-101, IV-D-108, IV-D-116,
IV-D-147, IV-D-157, IV-D-185, IV-D-232, IV-D-257, IV-D-288)
requested that cutoff levels be set for facilities cofiring
MSW with fossil fuels. Several commenters (IV-F-1.34,
IV-F-2.54, IV-D-92, IV-D-157, IV-D-169, IV-D-174, IV-D-212)
were concerned that the rules would discourage cofiring
because even units firing a small amount of MSW would be
subject to costly add-on control requirements. The commenters
felt cofiring was an environmentally sound, cost-effective
strategy for energy recovery and material disposal. They also
said that if facilities discontinue cofiring as a result of
the regulation, RDF production facilities would be forced to
shutdown. The MSW would then be diverted back to landfills.
Another commenter (IV-D-232) pointed out EPA has proposed a
cutoff level for boilers burning hazardous waste.
Some commenters (IV-D-157, IV-D-174, IV-D-236, IV-D-268,
IV-D-308, IV-D-309) thought industrial boilers should have the
6-2
-------
option of burning source-separated, nonrecyclable wastepaper.
Conunenter IV-D-174 said this material is burned in industrial
coal or wood-fuel boilers and generally comprises a very small
percent of the unit's fuel. He said data show that firing
palletized paper with coal reduces emissions of almost every
pollutant from coal-fired boilers, and that metals and
chlorine content of mixed wastepaper are lower'than MSW or
RDF. One (IV-D-268) described a new fuel, "prepared paper
fuel," made from mixed paper and plastic. One commenter
(IV-D-308 and IV-D-309) said "fiber based fuel" made from
paper that has not been contaminated or mixed with the waste
stream can be burned in wood-fired or coal-fired industrial
boilers in the paper industry or other industries. This fuel
is usually densified (palletized) and may include plastic as
well as paper. The commenter noted that present applications
are restricted to 90 Mg/day (100 tpd) or less, but fiber based
fuel could be used in larger amounts if fuel supplies
increase. Commenters IV-D-268, IV-D-308 and IV-D-309 said
studies have shown fiber based fuel has a lower ash content
than RDF and is cleaner burning than RDF or coal. Three
commenters (IV-D-157, IV-D-232, IV-D-309) submitted papers
which discussed the markets, economics, and environmental
impacts of using mixed wastepaper as a fuel. One paper
included information to show that burning mixed wastepaper is
similar to burning coal or wood and in many instances,
environmentally better.
In addition, the commenters pointed out due to mandated
source separation requirements, the recycling markets for
paper will soon be saturated. An alternative market could be
as fuel for existing combustors. However, classification of
mixed wastepaper as MSW will increase the capital and
administrative costs of using it as a fuel. This may force
combustors not to use wastepaper as a fuel which will have
adverse impacts on the management of MSW. Commenter IV-D-157
suggested an exemption for MWC's firing no more than
20 percent mixed wastepaper.
6-3
-------
Two commenters (IV-D-90, IV-D-174) added that the lost
unit capacity might be replaced by coal which would likely
increase the combustor emissions of NOX, S(>2 / and other
pollutants. They said present and projected cofiring capacity
is not significant in relation to dedicated MSW capacity and
suggested units cofiring less than 20 percent of total heat
input with MSW derived fuels be exempt from the rules.
Another (IV-D-74) said MWC's firing or cofiring up to
90 Mg/day (100 tpd) of source-separated wastepaper should be
exempt from the acid gas control requirements.
Other commenters (IV-F-1.34, IV-D-288) said EPA should
encourage such cofiring because it greatly reduces SO2 and NOX
emissions from the coal-fired units, while only slightly
increasing HC1 emissions, and has no effect on emissions of
organics such as dioxins/furans and PCB. The commenter
submitted papers summarizing test results to show that
cofiring of up to 30 percent RDF does not increase net
emissions from coal-fired units. Another commenter (IV-D-293)
felt boilers cofiring RDF should be exempt from the standards.
He submitted test data showing SC>2, NOX, and PM emissions from
cofired units are equal or less than the emissions from units
firing coal exclusively.
One commenter (IV-D-185) presented emission data on PM,
dioxins/furans, and CO from his facility which cofires up to
20 percent RDF based on heat content. The data show the
facility already meets the emission guidelines. He felt the
rules would create cost and operational burdens without
ensuring any environmental improvements. He suggested a
cutoff limit be set at 20 percent in the NSPS and emission
guidelines to provide communities with the flexibility to
design efficient and comprehensive MSW management plans
including recycling.
Three commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-D-122, IV-D-257) claimed
that cofiring up to 15 percent RDF does not impact facilities
operationally. Furthermore, a 2-year old state-of-the-art
unit in the commenters1 town would have to discontinue
6-4
-------
operations unless cofiring is permitted because it does not
have a dedicated boiler.
Another commenter (IV-D-92) requested a cutoff level of
up to 1 percent by weight of total annual fuel input for
electrical boilers. This represents the maximum amount of MSW
his facility uses. The commenter stated that if there were no
cutoff level his unit would be dually regulated under the NSPS
for electrical utility boilers and the NSPS for MWC's.
One commenter (IV-D-101) said the cutoff level should not
be defined on heat input. He favored a cutoff of 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd). Another commenter (IV-D-215) recommended a cutoff
of 23 Mg/day (25 tpd).
One commenter (IV-D-116) requested a cutoff level but
felt the broad application of the standard was necessary to
prevent facilities from choosing to mix fuels to purposely
avoid being subject to the NSPS.
Three commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-90, IV-D-139) said
separate standards should be developed for cofired units. One
(IV-D-90) suggested regulating RDF through NSR or State
regulatory programs.
Response; This is consistent with section 129 of the CAA
Amendments of 1990. Under the final guidelines, combustors
which combust a fuel feed stream, 30 percent or less of the
weight of which is comprised, in aggregate, of MSW or RDF are
not subject to the guidelines. To be considered a cofired
combustor, a unit must be subject to a Federally enforceable
permit limiting the percent of MSW in the fuel feed stream to
no more than 30 percent by weight as measured on a 24-hour
daily basis.
The standards (Section 60.59a) require certain reports to
show that owners or operators of combustors seeking to be
exempt from the emission limits and other provisions of the
standards meet the definition of cofired combustors. This
includes an initial report of the intent to construct a
combustor and the estimated start-up date, and capacity.
Owners/operators of cofired combustors must include in this
report, estimates of the types and amounts of each fuel they
6-5
-------
plan to combust, the date combustion of MSW or RDF will begin,
and copies of Federally enforceable permits limiting the
amount of MSW or RDF that can be combusted in any single day.
Cofired combustors that do not have a federally enforceable
permit limiting combustion of MSW or RDF to 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) or less are also required to keep records of the
daily amounts (by weight) of MSW or RDF and each other fuel
combusted. These records are to be submitted in quarterly
reports. Cofired combustors are exempt from all other
provisions of the standards, as specified under Section 60.50a
of the final standards.
Combustors that fire mixed fuel streams containing more
than 30 percent MSW or RDF (by weight, daily basis) and that
fire more than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) of MSW or RDF are subject
to the NSPS.
Source-separated paper or fuels made from paper that is
discarded by residential, commercial, or institutional
facilities is considered MSW, and MWC's that fire fuel streams
containing more than 30 percent paper or other MSW and that
combust more than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) of MSW materials would
be subject to the standards. However, industrial process or
manufacturing waste is excluded from the definition of MSW.
So, for example, if an industrial boiler at a paper
manufacturing plant burned only waste paper from their
process, this would not be MSW and they would not be subject
to the standards.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-84, IV-D-147, IV-D-176,
IV-D-182) said the emission standards developed for MWC's are
not applicable to cement kilns that burn some'MSW. These
kilns typically burn coal. One commenter (IV-D-84) said that
when MSW is cofired, emissions of SC>2, NOX, and opacity would
not increase and would likely decrease. Another commenter
(IV-D-147) said cement kilns have excellent capabilities of
destruction due to extremely high temperatures and long
residence times and thus provide an effective means for waste
disposal. They did not think the practice of burning MSW in
6-6
-------
cement kilns should be discouraged by making them subject to
the MWC standards.
The commenters also said that there are differences in
the combustion technology, combustion temperatures and
residence times, and chemical processes occurring in a cement
kiln versus an MWC, so that the GCP and emission limits
developed for MWC's would not be applicable for cement kilns.
Three of the commenters (IV-D-147, IV-D-176, IV-D-182)
said EPA has addressed cement kilns in the past and determined
that they are not the same as incinerators and should not be
regulated as such. Two commenters (IV-D-176, IV-D-182) said
EPA had previously determined that it is not necessary to
limit NOX, CO, or acid gas emissions from cement kilns. They
claimed that it is not technically or economically feasible
for cement kilns to meet the limits proposed for MWC's. One
commenter (IV-D-147) noted cement kilns are currently
regulated by NSPS for new kilns and State air programs for
existing programs, as well as by boiler and industrial furnace
regulations.
Response; As explained in the previous response, the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (Section 129) exclude from the standards
and guidelines cofired combustors that fire a fuel stream
composed of 30 percent MSW or RDF or less (by weight) or that
fire 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) or less of MSW or RDF. These
provisions should exempt most cement kilns from the
regulation.
If a cement kiln fires a fuel feed stream containing more
than 30 percent MSW or RDF and more than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd)
of MSW or RDF, it would be subject to the standards or
guidelines.
However, as described in Section 7.5.4, cement kilns
which are affected facilities under the MWC standards are not
subject to CO limits, although they are subject to all other
elements of GCP.
The situation of-being covered by multiple regulations is
not unique to cement kilns. Many combustors may be subject to
6-7
-------
Subparts Db, Ea, and various State regulations for example.
In this situation, all applicable standards must be met.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-104, IV-D-199) said regulating
facilities that cofire any amount of MSW with other fuels is
appropriate since from a technical perspective it is extremely
difficult to specify a cutoff level.
Another commenter (IV-D-210) said he was not aware of
information that clearly establishes a cutoff value for
cofiring MSW below which there are no adverse air effects. In
the absence of such information, the commenter recommended
that facilities burning any amount of municipal waste comply
with the standard.
Response: The CAA Amendments of 1*990 (Section 129) specify
that combustors firing fuel feed streams comprised of 30
percent or less MSW or RDF, by weight, are not subject to the
MWC standards and guidelines.
6.3 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION CONSIDERATIONS
Comment; The Agency received several comments on the proposed
de minimis level for MWC emissions. Essentially, the comments
either support the proposed 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy) significant
emissions rate (IV-D-103, IV-D-200), or recommend that the
Agency distinguish between the constituents of MWC emissions
in setting de minimis levels (IV-D-90, IV-D-108, IV-D-137,
IV-D-149, IV-D-150). Two commenters (IV-D-149, IV-D-150) said
that if the MWC emissions classification is retained, then the
PSD significance level should be increased to 18 Mg/yr
(20 tpy). One commenter (IV-D-108) suggested a 9 Mg/yr
(10 tpy) level for HC1 and smaller levels (e.g., 0.0001 Mg/yr
[0.0001 tpy]) for dioxins/furans and chromium because the acid
gases are emitted in quantities orders of magnitude greater
than metals and dioxins/furans. Another commenter (IV-D-90)
thought the Agency should establish new PSD significance
thresholds only for those pollutants not currently addressed
under 40 CFR 52.21.
Response; After considering all comments on this issue, the
Agency has changed its approach to setting PSD de minimis
levels for emissions from MWC's. The primary goal of
6-8
-------
selecting de minimis levels is to focus the PSD review on
significant increases in regulated pollutants and not on
insignificant increases. A single de minimis level for MWC
emissions, however, allows no distinction between either
individual pollutant components or pollutant subclasses. The
Agency agrees that some distinction among the constituents of
MWC emissions is appropriate because of the different levels
of concern for emissions of, e.g., dioxins versus acid gases.
Although the overall effect of the NSPS is to regulate
MWC emissions, it is the three subclasses for which specific
emission rates, test methods, averaging times, and
calculations are being promulgated. The Agency has concluded,
however, that setting PSD significance levels for each
individual pollutant component, as some commenters suggested,
is inappropriate and unacceptable because the NSPS does not
establish emission limits for each individual pollutant within
a subcategory. Even if the individual pollutant components
were "regulated" by the Agency, this approach is impractical
because test methods are not available for each of the
pollutants listed by the commenters. So, rather than the
proposed 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy) threshold for total MWC emissions,
or thresholds for each individual pollutant, the Agency today
is promulgating separate PSD significant emissions thresholds
for the three pollutant subclasses of MWC emissions.
Therefore, today's notice establishes the following de minimis
levels: 36 Mg/yr (40 tpy) for MWC acid gases (measured as SC>2
and HC1); 14 Mg/yr (15 tpy) for MWC metals (measured as PM);
and 3.2 x 10~6 Mg/yr (3.5 x 10"6 tpy) for MWC organics
(measured as dioxins/furans).
This approach agrees in principle with those commenters
who recommended PSD significance thresholds for constituents
of MWC emissions, but does not go as far as setting de minimis
levels for each individual pollutant as some commenters
suggested. In taking this approach, the Agency is setting
significance levels for the NSPS regulated pollutants, as it
has done in the past. Also, setting PSD significance levels
for classes of pollutants is not new; the Agency has on
6-9
-------
previous occasions regulated under NSPS classes of compounds
such as total reduced sulfur compounds and fluorides. To
establish de minimis levels for each of the three MWC
emissions subclasses, the Agency used previously established
approaches. For MWC metals and MWC acid gases, the Agency
noted that the PSD concerns are similar to those addresses in
the establishment of de minimis levels for PMio and SO2. For
MWC organics, the approach previously established for NESHAP
sources was employed.
The Agency noted that emissions of MWC metals are only a
part of total PM emissions from MWC's. Particulate matter is
measured as an indicator of MWC metals since most of the
metals condense on fine PM, and no single test method will
yield individual emissions rates of these metals. A 14 Mg/yr
(15 tpy) de minimis level already existing for PM^/ the
portion of PM for which, like MWC metals, the Agency has the
greatest public health concern. The Agency believes that PSD
review of 14 Mg/yr (15 tpy) increases in emissions of MWC
metals (measured as PM) reasonably accomplishes the goals of
de minimis.
For purposes of this rule, MWC acid gases are defined as
the sum of the emissions of all acid gases for which there are
emissions limits established by the NSPS. There are emissions
limits for SC>2 and HC1, since SC>2 and HC1 constitute the
majority of acid gas emissions from MWC's and measurement
methods for these gases are readily available. If, for
example, a physical change at an MWC increases SC>2 emissions
by 27 Mg/yr (30 tpy) and HC1 emissions by 14 Mg/yr (15 tpy),
MWC acid gas emissions would increase by 41 Mg/yr (45 tpy).
Since a significant portion of MWC acid gases consist of SC>2
and the overall PSD concerns in this instance are quite
similar to those addressed in the development of the SC<2 de
minimis level of 36 Mg/yr (40 tpy), that same level was also
chosen for MWC acid gases.
Selection of the significance level for MWC organics was
based on procedures the Agency has used in the past to
establish de minimis levels for NSPS and NESHAP. When the
6-10
-------
Agency promulgated de minimis levels for regulated pollutants
on August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676), the de minimis levels for
NSPS and NESHAP were calculated as 20 percent and 10 percent,
respectively, of the emissions from a well-controlled,
moderately-sized plant. Because of the potential health
impact of MWC organics (dioxins and furans), the Agency used
the NESHAP precedent and selected an amount that is 10 percent
of the well-controlled emissions of a typical RDF plant with a
total plant capacity of 1,800 Mg/day 2,000 tpd, i.e.,
10 percent of 32 g/yr (3.5 x 10~5 tpy) or 3.2 g/yr
(3.5 x 10~6 tpy).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-27) stated microclimatological
studies,*including practical testing, should be mandated
before PSD permits are issued in populated areas where unique
geographical or meteorological characteristics have the
potential for trapping or concentrating emissions.
Further, the commenter said that the PSD permitting process
should require that pre-existing nearby incompatible uses be
considered cause for permit rejection. An incompatible use
would include anything that would require additional shutdowns
of the incinerator, since each shutdown/ start-up cycle would
result in 6 hours of exemption from the standards. The
commenter gave an example of an MWC being built near an
airport runway where FAA operating limitations would have
forced at least 12 shutdowns in one 38-day period.
Response; The current PSD permitting review process provides
mechanisms to consider the commenter's concerns.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-134) supported the decision to
require materials separation but objected to including it as
part of an emission control review, citing the lack of
guidance on how this requirement relates to BACT
determinations under the PSD program.
Responsei The Agency established in the Spokane decision
that the separation of MSW must be considered in the BACT
1PSD Appeal No. 88-12 to the Administrator in the matter of
Spokane Regional Waste-to-Energy Application. June 9, 1989.
6-11
-------
analysis for MWC's. Also established was that, at the time of
that decision, there was insufficient evidence provided by the
applicant to predict the effects of prior processing of MSW on
emissions from a well-controlled MWC. Although additional
information has become available since the Spokane decision
concerning the potential effects of prior processing of MSW on
emissions from MWCs, the Agency has decided, for reasons
discussed in detail in the Preamble to this rule, not to
require materials separation as part of a national Best
Demonstrated Technology standard at this time. With regard to
BACT, such determinations are to be made on a case-by-case
basis using data available at the time of the BACT analyses.
""Comment: One commenter (IV-D-1.34) thought emission limits
should be accompanied by an analysis of impact to avoid
production of unacceptable ground level effects by pollutants.
Response: The decision was made in 1987, and confirmed in
1989 to develop standards for MWC emissions under Section 111
of the CAA. The range of health and welfare effects and the
uncertainties of the cancer risk estimates did not warrant
listing of MWC emissions as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112 of the CAA. Section 111 of the CAA requires
emission levels to reflect the "application of the best
technological system of continuous emission reduction..."
(which considering cost and other factors)" ... has been
adequately demonstrated." Section 111 standards are not based
on achieving any target ambient concentration level of health
risk level. Rather, their purpose is to require uniform
national application of control technology at all new sources.
State and local regulatory agencies are free to require
dispersion modeling or analysis of ground level concentrations
at MWC's to address site-specific concerns.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-142) thought, once the
regulations are in effect, EPA should produce an educational
packet for municipal and tribal governments that would explain
the new air emission requirements and the reason why they are
so important.
6-12
-------
Response; A brief (roughly 10-page) information paper as
issued at proposal will be issued at promulgation.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) stated EPA must look at
MWC's as a source of multiple emissions (air, wastewater, and
solid waste) and implement comprehensive permitting. He said
the most cost-effective way to reduce overall emissions of
MWC's should be evaluated.
Response; While this standard is limited to regulation of air
emissions, impacts of this standard on water and solid waste
were considered. Furthermore, as part of the Agency's overall
regulatory program, other environmental aspects of MWC's are
being addressed. Ash handling and disposal, including control
of leachate from disposal sites, will be regulated under RCRA
or new Congressional action. Typically there is not a
wastewater stream from MWC operations.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.20) asked EPA to consider the
37 permit conditions outlined by the Boston volunteer review
committee as part of the MWC permitting process.
Response; These conditions were developed for permitting a
specific MWC. They have been included in the docket.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.9) said that adequate buffer
zones should be provided between incinerators and residential
areas to prevent long-term exposure of local inhabitants.
Response; Buffer zones could be considered by State/local
agencies in permitting a specific new MWC, however, this would
be a highly site-specific consideration and is not appropriate
to include in this national standard. As explained in the
first response in this section, Section 111 standards are
national standards based on control technology performance.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-1.20, IV-D-16) said citizens
should have an opportunity to become involved in the planning,
implementation, and use of MWC's. They felt this was the best
way to develop confidence in the facilities.
Response; Citizen comments were invited on the proposed NSPS
for MWC's. Over 300 written comments and 100 oral comments
were received and considered in developing the final
regulation. Citizen involvement is also provided for at local
6-13
-------
and State levels when particular waste disposal options or new
MWC's are considered. Citizen participation during permitting
of individual MWC's is also encouraged.
6-14
-------
7.0 EMISSION GUIDELINES - MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
Chapter 7.0 includes comments which pertain specifically
to existing facilities. Where a comment applies to both new
and existing facilities, it is presented in Chapter 3.0 and
has not been duplicated in this chapter.
7.1 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-156) supported the definition of
MWC which designates that the guidelines apply only to
facilities which combust at least 50 percent MSW.
Response; Through public comments on the proposed MWC
regulations, the Agency realized the proposed definitions of
MWC and MSW were unclear. The definitions of MWC and MSW were
revised and the term MSW is more specifically defined in the
final standards and guidelines. The 50-percent clause was
deleted from the definition. However, under the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (Section 129), combustors that fire fuel
feed streams consisting of 30 percent MSW or RDF or less (by
weight) are not subject to the MWC emission guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-156) agreed that medical wastes
should not be included in the definition of MSW, as stated in
the preamble to the proposed guidelines.
Response; Segregated medical waste is excluded from the
definition of MSW in the final guidelines. Moreover, as
directed by Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990,
guidelines for MWC's with capacities below 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. Medical waste
combustors are also being investigated for regulation under a
separate standard.
7-1
-------
7.2 SELECTION OF DESIGNATED POLLUTANT
Comments on the selection of the designated pollutant
apply to both the NSPS and guidelines and are presented in
Section 3.2.
7.3 SELECTION OF DESIGNATED FACILITIES
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-10) stated that for some
existing incinerators that burn only a specific waste type,
such as cardboard or paper, many of the monitoring and testing
requirements are unnecessary and burdensome.
Response; If the specific waste type is an industrial process
waste, such as paper at a pulp mill, it would not be covered
by the final standards and guidelines. Otherwise, if the
paper or other wastes are discarded by households, commercial
businesses, or institutions and are not specifically excluded
from the definition of MSW, then they are considered MSW and
are regulated as any other MSW component or mixture of
components. Cost analyses, which included testing costs, have
been conducted by the Agency. The Agency determined the
testing and reporting requirements to be reasonable.
7.4 MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-124) asked whether an existing
large MWC plant that expands its capacity to greater than
2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) by adding a third MWC unit would have
to upgrade the existing MWC's to meet regional requirements.
Response; If the third MWC commences construction after
proposal of this NSPS (December 20, 1989), it would be
considered a new MWC and would be subject to the NSPS
requirements. The two existing combustors would be subject to
the guidelines for either large or very large existing plants
depending on whether the total capacity of the two combustors
(added together) exceed 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). The
combined capacity of all the combustors at the site that
existed or commenced construction prior to proposal determines
the plant capacity for purposes of the guidelines. The
combined capacity of those combustors that commenced
construction after proposal determines the plant capacity for
purposes of the NSPS. In the commenter's case, the guidelines
7-2
-------
would apply to the two existing MWC's and the NSPS would apply
to the new MWC.
7.5 SELECTION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
7.5.1 Municipal Waste Combustor Organics
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-2.39, IV-D-62,
IV-D-96, IV-D-120, IV-D-134, IV-D-137, IV-D-178, IV-D-209,
IV-D-222, IV-D-238) said existing RDF-fired MWC's should be
required to meet the same level of organics emissions as other
MWC's. One of the commenters (IV-D-209) said emissions
testing was recently completed at all the RDF's in Minnesota
(the Red Wing, Mankato, Elk River, and Western Lake Superior
Sanitary District facilities). The commenter said all these
facilities have demonstrated the ability to achieve the
dioxin/furan levels specified in the guidelines for mass burn
MWC's.
The commenters saw no reason RDF units should be allowed
to create greater health risks than other MWC's. One
commenter (IV-F-2.39) added that if RDF combustors emit twice
the level of dioxins/furans as mass burn MWC's (according to
the EPA's proposal), then RDF's should be required to use the
most stringent add-on controls. Another commenter (IV-F-2.40)
said small and large existing RDF combustors should be
required to meet the same emission levels as other MWC's for
environmental reasons. Another (IV-F-1.19) said RDF's should
be allowed higher limits only if the environmental
acceptability of the higher levels could be shown.
However, another commenter (IV-F-2.4) said the proposed
levels for RDF units should also be allowed for mass burn
units.
Another commenter (IV-D-150) said literature support
higher dioxin/furan levels for RDF MWC's and added that
regional RDF plants should also be allowed higher dioxin/furan
levels than regional mass burn MWC plants.
Response: These standards and guidelines are being set under
Section 111 of the CAA as opposed to Section 112.
Section 111(a) and (d) require guidelines for existing sources
7-3
-------
to reflect "the degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of the best system of continuous
emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated for
that category of sources." Section 111 does not require
health risks to be controlled to any level or to an equal
extent from all sources.
In this case, it is the Agency's judgment after review of
all available data that the best demonstrated technology for
regional (very large) existing MWC's can achieve the same
dioxin/furan level for mass burn and RDF MWC's. Therefore, a
single dioxin/furan emission limits has been established for
regional MWC's.
However, after review of data on the best demonstrated
technologies for large existing MWC's (retrofit of GCP and
DSI/PM control) it was judged that existing mass burn units
using these technologies would achieve somewhat lower
dioxin/furan (and CO) emission levels than existing RDF stoker
units using the same technologies. This is due to differences
in combustor design discussed in the BID'S, "Municipal Waste
Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Guidelines
for Existing Facilities" (EPA-450/3-89-27e) and "Municipal
Waste Combustion Assessment: Combustion Control at Existing
Facilities" (EPA-600/8-89-058). Section 111 emission limits
must be achievable using demonstrated technology considering
cost and technical feasibility. Therefore, it is appropriate
to have higher emission levels for existing large RDF units
than for existing large mass burn units.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-111) said RDF and other MWC
plants should have the same dioxin/furan emission guidelines
and suggested a level of 500 ng/dscm (200 gr/billion dscf) for
small plants and 150 to 200 ng/dscm (60 to 80 gr/million dscf)
(rather than 125 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion dscf] or less) for
large and regional MWC plants. The commenter said a level of
125 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion dscf) was too st'rict given the
7-4
-------
variability at existing MWC plants and the uncertainty of the
relationship between dioxin/furan emissions and GCP.
However, another commenter (IV-D-137) said a dioxin/furan
level of 125 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion dscf) should be uniformly
required for all MWC plants larger than 45 Mg/day (50 tpd).
He said small plants could achieve this level cost effectively
through combustion improvements, flue gas cooling, and
retrofit of an ESP or FF. He said SD/ESP control had also
been shown to achieve this level.
Response; In setting the emission guidelines, test data were
collected and analyzed for 3 MWC plants with DSI/ESP systems
(2 with furnace injection and 1 with duct injection), 7 plants
with DSI/FF systems, 4 with SD/ESP systems, and 10 with SD/FF
systems. Some of these were retrofit applications. These
data indicate that the addition of sorbent (acid gas control)
and cooling the flue gas prior to the PM control device result
in good control of dioxin/furan emissions. The results are
summarized in the BID, "Municipal Waste Combustors -
Background Information for Proposed Standards:
Post-Combustion Technology Performance" (EPA-450/3-89-27c) and
other items in Docket No. A-89-08.
The SD/ESP systems, which are the basis of the final
guidelines for very large MWC's (those larger than
1,000 Mg/day [1,100 tpd]) achieved dioxin/furan levels below
60 ng/dscm (24 gr/billion dscf) so this level was selected.
The bases of the guidelines for large plants are GCP and
DSI/PM control systems. Information included in the BID,
"Municipal Waste Combustion Assessments: Combustion Control
at Existing Facilities" (EPA-600-8-89-058) indicates that GCP
can achieve dioxin/furan levels of 500 ng/dscm (200 gr/billion
dscf) or lower at existing mass burn and modular MWC's and
1,000 ng/dscm (400 gr/billion dscf) at existing RDF stokers.
The tests of DSI/PM control systems indicate that these add-on
control systems further reduce dioxin/furan emissions by
75 percent or greater. Therefore, levels of 125 ng/dscm
(50 gr/billion dscf) can be achieved by large existing mass
burn MWC plants and 250 ng/dscm (100 gr/billion dscf) can be
7-5
-------
achieved by RDF plants. The tests demonstrated outlet
dioxin/furan emission concentrations below these levels.
Therefore, the levels are demonstrated and appropriate for
large existing plants.
Under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990,
guidelines for HWC's with capacities of 225 Mg/day (250 tpd)
or less will be promulgated within 2 years, and acid gas
control for small MWC's will be considered as part of that
rulemaking.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) suggested that
the guidelines require existing MWC's to cool flue gas to
135°C (275°)F at the PM control device inlet. The commenters
also suggested dioxin/furan guidelines (measured in TEF) of
0.5 ng/dscm (0.2 gr/billion dscf) for plants over 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) and 0.5 to 1.0 ng/dscm (0.2 to 0.4 gr/billion dscf)
for smaller existing plants. Their rationale is the same as
described for small new MWC's in their comments in
Section 3.5.1.
One commenter (IV-D-116) suggested a dioxin/furan level
of 10 ng/dscm (4 gr/billion dscf) TEF for existing MWC's.
Response: The 230°C (450°F) temperature was proposed as a
means of preventing secondary formation of dioxins/furans in
the PM control device. Data available at proposal suggested
secondary formation could occur at temperatures of about 230°C
to 320°C (450°F to 600°F). However, as explained in
Section 7.5.4, this temperature requirement has been changed
in the final guidelines. The revised provisions specify that
existing MWC's measure the temperature at the PM control
device inlet during their compliance test. Based on this
measurement, a site-specific temperature requirement would be
established.
This change was made because the relationship between
temperature and dioxin/furan emissions may be different for
different MWC's, and lower temperatures may help to achieve
the dioxin/furan emission levels in many cases. For example,
large existing mass burn MWC's are required to meet outlet
dioxin/furan concentrations of 125 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion
7-6
-------
dscf) or less. Data show that in general, as temperature is
reduced, dioxin/furan emissions are reduced. In order to meet
the acid gas limits and a dioxin/furan level of 125 ng/dscm
(50 gr/billion dscf), many MWC's would use sorbent
injection/PM control systems. These systems generally operate
at temperatures lower than 230°C (450°F) (e.g., about 180°C
[350°F]) to enhance acid gas and dioxin/furan control. If
compliance is demonstrated (through testing) while the MWC is
operated at a temperature below 230°c (450°F), then the plant
should monitor temperature and continue to operate at this
lower temperature to assure continuous emission reduction.
Rather than specifying a uniform temperature for all
existing MWC plants, the site-specific temperature
determination approach was selected due to the site-specific
nature of MWC organic emission levels and to retrofit
considerations. For example, it could be technically
difficult and costly to install equipment at some MWC's to
allow operation at a temperature of 230°C (450°F) or below;
and in some cases it might not be necessary to achieve the
specified dioxin/furan emission levels. The site-specific
temperature determination approach will ensure that the
dioxin/furan emission levels are achieved while allowing
existing plants flexibility to design, retrofit, and operate
control equipment in the most practical way considering
site-specific conditions.
Regarding the commenters1 suggested levels for
dioxin/furan, the response in Section 3.7 explains why a total
dioxin/furan format has been selected rather than a TEF
format. The total dioxin/furan approach is appropriate for
measuring the performance of control technology, and is a more
straightforward approach. The total emission level would not
require revision of the guideline each time TEF calculation
procedures are changed when no change is intended in the
control technology basis of the guidelines,\ nor does the new
section 129 in the CAA of 1990 require use of TEF.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 111 of the
CAA, the emission* guidelines were set at levels demonstrated
7-7
-------
to be achievable using the best demonstrated control
technologies for existing MWC's. To put the emission
guidelines in perspective, the total dioxin/furan level for
large mass burn MWC's of 125 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion dscf) is
roughly equivalent to a TEF of about 2 ng/dscm (1 gr/billion
dscf).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-124) suggested a level no lower
than 30 ng/dscm (12 gr/billion dscf) total dioxins/furans for
regional MWC's using the same rationale discussed for new
MWC's in his comment in Section 3.5.1.
Response; A level of 60 ng/dscm (24 gr/billion dscf) was
selected for very large (regional) MWC's. This is consistent
with the selection of SD/ESP systems (in combination with GCP)
as the best demonstrated technology for very large existing
plants (i.e., those plants with capacities above 1,000 Mg/day
[1,100 tpd]). The rationale for selection of SD/ESP as the
basis of the final emission guidelines for very large plants
is presented Section 7.5.5.
In determining the dioxin/furan level achievable by
existing MWC's with SD/ESP systems, emission test data from
three plants were received. Tests at all three plants showed
average outlet dioxin/furan levels below 60 ng/dscm
(24 gr/billion dscf). Two of these units (Millbury,
Massachusetts; SEMASS in Rochester, Massachusetts) were
operated at temperatures consistent with most SD/FF systems
(<150°C [<300°F]). Outlet total dioxin/furan emissions from
Millbury (equipped with a SD and 3-field ESP) were 40 to
58 ng/dscm (16 to 23 gr/billion dscf) during five of six runs.
Outlet emissions at SEMASS (equipped with a SD and 5-field
ESP) were 5 to 18 ng/dscm (2 to 7 gr/billion dscf) during five
of six runs. The SEMASS emission levels are more variable
than the data from SD/FF systems, but are generally within the
same range. Testing in December 1989 at the third MWC
(Portland) with the SD/ESP operated at about 150°C (300°F)
showed average dioxin/furan levels of 36 and 44 ng/dscm (14
and 17 gr/billion dscf) for the two units. Because of the
increases variability of SD/ESP relative to SD/FF data and in
7-8
-------
line with the data from Millbury, the 60 ng/dscm
(24 gr/billion dscf) was determined to be achievable by SD/ESP
systems operated in conjunction with GCP.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-2.32) suggested a higher
dioxin/furan limit for very large MWC plants than was
proposed. The commenter said that exposure and risk modeling
indicates that a dioxin/furan level of 425 ng/dscm
(170 gr/billion dscf) for regional MWC plants would result in
an MIR of 10 chances per million. He believed this level of
risk was acceptable and more stringent emission levels were
not justified.
Another commenter (IV-D-184) said that the guidelines
should allow MWC's to exceed the dioxin/furan limits if risk
analyses demonstrate that actual emissions result in maximum
health risks of less than 1 in 100,000. Another (IV-D-255)
said dioxin/furan control should only be required for plants
where risks are above 1 in 100,000.
However, another commenter (IV-D-9) disputed this
suggestion saying that: (1) risk assessment is imprecise and
should not be used to exempt facilities from control and
(2) Michigan air toxics standards are based on a 1 in a
million rather than 10 in a million risk level.
Response; The guidelines are based on the performance of best
demonstrated technology and are not based on a target health
risk level. As stated in the ANPRM (52 FR 25339) and the
preamble to the proposed standards (54 FR 52251), it was
decided to regulate MWC's under Section 111 rather than
Section 112 of the CAA. While MWC emissions may reasonably be
anticipated to contribute to endangerment of public health and
welfare, the range of health and welfare effects and the
uncertainties in the cancer risk estimates did not warrant
listing MWC emissions as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112. And, Section lll(d) would permit more thorough
evaluation of existing MWC's at the State level.
Under Sections 111(a) and (d) of the CAA, guidelines for
existing sources are to reflect "the degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of the best
7-9
-------
system of continuous emission reduction which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction,
and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated for that category of sources."
In developing the guidelines, emission test data were
examined to determine the performance levels achievable by
control technologies. The retrofit costs and other impacts of
the controls were examined. The best demonstrated technology,
considering cost, was selected for the various types and size
classes of existing MWC's. Guideline emission levels were
then set to reflect performance of these technologies. For
large and regional plants these guidelines are below the
425 ng/dscm (170 gr/billion dscf) recommended by the commenter
because the lower levels are achievable and costs and other
impacts are not unreasonable.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-164) said the organic emission
limits for existing MWC's are not justified. He referred to a
study that concluded that maximum ground level exposure to
dioxins (on a TEF basis) near typical modern MWC's is below
typical urban background concentrations.
Response: As described in the previous response, MWC's were
selected for regulation under Section 111 of the CAA.
Guidelines for MWC emissions were then developed based on the
performance of demonstrated control technologies, as specified
by Section 111. Ambient concentrations and estimated health
risks levels are not the basis of Section 111 standards.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1.11 and IV-D-158) said the
proposed dioxin/furan emission limits for existing plants may
not be achievable and supporting emission data are limited.
He also said that since the same add-on control devices
control acid gases and PM as well as dioxins/furans, and it is
not known how to optimize these systems for dioxin/furan
control, emission limits for dioxins/furans are unnecessary.
He believed the acid gas and PM limits would ensure organics
control. However, he suggested that monitoring of
7-10
-------
dioxins/furans could still be required in order to collect
data.
Response: in developing the emission guidelines, test data
were gathered and analyzed for a total of 24 MWC's with acid
gas/PM control systems (including 3 with tests of DSI/ESP, 7
of DSI/FF, 4 of SD/ESP, and 10 of SD/FF systems). Based on
these test data and other available information, the
dioxin/furan emission levels achievable by acid gas/PM control
technologies were determined. The guidelines are based on
these demonstrated levels of performance and will be
achievable by the combination of GCP and add-on controls.
Establishing guideline levels for dioxins/furans and requiring
periodic testing will better assure that control technologies
are properly designed, operated, and maintained, and that MWC
organic emissions are reduced.
7.5.2 Municipal Waste Combustor Metals and Particulate Matter
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.4) said that small existing
MWC's should be required by the guidelines to meet a PM level
of 34 or 46 mg/dscm (0.015 or 0.02 gr/dscf). The commenter
said this level is technically feasible.
Four commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-168, IV-D-186)
said all existing MWC's should be required to achieve PM
levels in the range of 23 to 34 mg/dscm (0.010 to
0.015 gr/dscf) rather than 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). Two of
the commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said several plants in
Europe smaller than 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) have been
retrofitted with SD/FF or SD/ESP control and vendors have
guaranteed levels of 23 to 46 mg/dscm (0.010 to
0.020 gr/dscf). They also said tests at seven of the plants
have shown PM levels of 2 to 23 mg/dscm (0.001 to
0.010 gr/dscf). Another commenter (IV-D-106) stated agreement
with Commenter IV-D-117 and suggested a level of 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) based on the European retrofit data. Other
commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-D-190, IV-D-238) also said a level of
34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) should apply to plants above
225 Mg/day (250 tpd).
7-11
-------
One commenter (IV-D-101) said the proposed level of
69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) is reflective of best demonstrated
technology for existing MWC's. Another (IV-D-116) agreed, and
said many existing facilities have installed 3- or 4-field
ESP's, most of which are capable of achieving 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf), but it would be unnecessarily costly to
require more stringent PM levels for existing MWC's. Another
(IV-D-137) suggested this level for all existing MWC plants
larger than 45 Hg/day (50 tpd).
Other commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-277) favored a level of
69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) for large and regional MWC's.
Commenter IV-D-164 said more stringent levels (e.g.,
34 mg/dscm [0.015 gr/dscf]) are not justifiable on a health
risk basis because national background PM concentrations are
48 Mg/a3 (21 gr/million ft3) and levels in urban areas are
higher. Commenter IV-D-277 favored use of SD/ESP for regional
MWC's and said the addition of sorbent could cause an increase
in PM emissions from ESP's so a level of 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf) is more reasonable than 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf).
One commenter (IV-b-111) said the 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf) PM level for small and large MWC plants is
reasonable, but regional MWC plants should be required to meet
58 mg/dscm (0.025 gr/dscf) based on use of an ESP.
Response: A level of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) is included in
the guidelines for MWC units with capacities above 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) that are located at existing plants smaller than
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). The guidelines were set at a level
that would allow upgrades (if necessary) and continued use of
existing ESP's already in place at most plants, rather than
requiring demolition and complete replacement of the many
existing ESP's. The costs of retrofit control are more
reasonable if use of an (upgraded) existing ESP is allowed.
(Data for 18 existing MWC plants with ESP's and for
3 applications of DSI/ESP systems and 4 SD/ESP systems are
summarized in the BID, "Municipal Waste Combustors -
Background Information for the Proposed Standards:
7-12
-------
Post-Combustion Technology Performance" (EPA-450/3-89-27c),
and other reports in Docket No. A-89-08.
The data on performance of existing ESP's demonstrate
that PM emissions of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) can be achieved
over a range of ESP designs and operating characteristics.
Many existing ESP's designed for lower performance levels
could be upgraded to achieve a level of 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf). This level can be achieved by ESP's with 3 or
more fields. Achieving lower emissions, however, is very
dependent on state-of-the-art designs, control system
configurations, and ESP sizes that are not present at most
existing MWC's. As a result, establishment of a PM limit of
23 to 46 mg/dscm (0.01 to 0.02 gr/dscf) would have required
either addition of a new field or replacement of existing
ESP's with brand new ESP's in some situations where a level of
69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) could be achieved at a much lower
cost using (or upgrading) an existing ESP.
For very large MWC plants (with capacities above
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd), it was determined that best
demonstrated technology, considering costs, is SD/ESP control
or the equivalent. The rationale for this decision is
described in Section 7.5.5. For these very large plants, the
guidelines establish a PM level of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf).
This PM emission level was selected following review of
ESP design and performance data for existing MWC's in this
size category. Most of the ESP's on these units are
relatively new (less than 6 years old), have 3 to 5 fields,
have SCA's in excess of 300, and have demonstrated existing PM
emissions of less than 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf). Based on
the gas cooling as part of acid gas control requirements, it
is anticipated that these units will be able to continue
operation with PM emission rates of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf)
after installation of a SD system. Upgrading of the ESP's
internal configuration and instrumentation and increasing the
solids handling capacity of the unit may be required. These
costs were considered reasonable relative to the overall
emission reductions. This is especially true for very large
7-13
-------
MWC's where ESP costs show significant economies of scale, and
thus have better cost effectiveness.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-2.8, IV-D-266) suggested
maintaining the current PM standard of 180 mg/dscm
(0.08 gr/dscf) for small existing MWC's. Commenters IV-F-2.4
and IV-D-266 said ESP's on some plants were designed to meet
180 mg/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf) rather than 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf), and that it would be costly to replace these.
They did not believe the additional PM control achieved would
justify the cost. Another (IV-D-222) said more flexibility in
the PM guideline for small plants is needed to address such
cases.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). As specified in the CAA
Amendments of 1990, PM guidelines for small MWC's will be
developed under a separate rulemaking scheduled for
promulgation within 2 years.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-2.40, IV-D-168) said a PM
level of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) is not stringent enough
for existing regional MWC plants and that a level of 0.010 is
demonstrated. Commenter IV-F-2.40 supported this by saying
the permit PM limit for at least one MWC in the BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse is 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) and emission tests
at other MWC's with SD/FF also show levels below 23 mg/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf).
The commenter (IV-F-2.40) also said that regional MWC
plants should be required to install a FF rather than an ESP
in combination with a SD. He commented that ESP's are subject
to long-term corrosion and performance deterioration, and that
using a SD in combination with an ESP will cause increased
corrosion and slagging. He also commented that ESP efficiency
is subject to upsets in inlet gas characteristics, and he said
ESP's are much less efficient at collection of fine
particulates than are FF's.
Response; As described in more detail in Section 7.5.5, the
final guidelines are based on SD/ESP control for very large
7-14
-------
MWC plants (those with capacities above 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd). This decision was based on analysis of
performance and costs of DSI/ESP, SD/ESP, and SD/FF control
systems. The SD/ESP control level provides a high level of
MWC emissions control (for MWC acid gases, MWC organics, and
MWC metals). It also costs considerably less than the SD/FF
option because many plants with existing state-of-the-art
ESP's can add a SD and still use their existing ESP, whereas
to use SD/FF control the ESP's would need to be completely
removed and replaced with a FF. As described in previous
responses, a PM emission rate of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) is
achievable by well designed and operated SD/ESP systems.
Furthermore, ESP systems that can achieve a level of
34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) for total PM are also very
efficient at collection of fine particulates.
Both SD/FF and SD/ESP systems have been installed and
operated on MWC's for the past several years and have been
demonstrated to be reliable when properly designed, operated,
and maintained. Problems such as those cited by the commenter
can occur if proper care is not taken. To avoid these
problems, regular inspection and maintenance of these systems
will be required. These requirements, however, are no
different than those generally exercised for other types of
industrial process equipment. The cost of maintenance for
SD/FF and SD/ESP systems was included in the Agency's analysis
of the acid gas control requirements and is considered
reasonable.
Comment; As with the NSPS, some (IV-F-2.6, IV-F-2.41,
IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50, IV-D-26, IV-D-150, IV-D-168, IV-D-178)
thought the guidelines should establish specific levels for
mercury and/or other metals and should include provisions to
perform periodic testing of metals emissions. (See the
comments in Section 3.5.2 for more details.) One of these
commenters (IV-D-26) said that based on the EPA compliance
test results, they calculate that 2,700 kg/yr (6,000 Ib/yr) of
mercury are emitted by an MWC in Massachusetts. The commenter
said that according to SINTEF of the Norwegian Technological
7-15
-------
University, PM controls only remove about 9 percent of mercury
emissions; and about 12 percent of lead and 28 percent of
total cadmium remain in the emissions after PM controls. The
commenter suggested flue gas cooling, stringent health-based
metals emission limits, and health monitoring be included in
the guidelines.
However, other commenters thought mercury guidelines and
standards were premature (see comments in Section 3.5.2).
Response; Based on test data from a large number of MWC
plants, ESP's and FF's designed to meet the PM limits
specified in the guidelines consistently remove over
97 percent of lead, cadmium, and other MWC metals emissions
except mercury. Therefore, the PM guideline will adequately
assure metals control without setting levels and monitoring
for each individual metal.
The emission guidelines have been promulgated without a
mercury emission level at this time. However, the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (Section 129) require that mercury (and
also lead and cadmium) emission levels be promulgated within
12 months of enactment of the CAA Amendments. Mercury, lead,
and cadmium standards and guidelines will therefore be
proposed in the Federal Register and promulgated in the near
future. In developing the mercury emission guidelines,
information on mercury emissions and controls gathered during
the rulemaking for the current standards and guidelines will
be considered. This information is included in Docket A-89-
08, Category IV-M. Public comments on mercury received as
part of this rulemaking will also be considered.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.19, IV-D-106,
JV-D-134, IV-D-238) said the proposed temperature of 230°C
(450°F) at the PM control device is not adequate to ensure
condensation and removal of metals. They said a temperature
of 150°C (300°F) or 180°C (350°F) for existing MWC's should be
required to improve metals control. Similar comments were
made for new MWC's (see Section 3.5.2).
7-16
-------
Response: The 230°C (450°F) temperature was proposed for the
purpose of preventing secondary formation of dioxins/furans in
the PM control device and not to achieve metals control.
Except for mercury, metals emissions would not be
significantly reduced by lowering the flue gas temperature to
less than 230°C (450°F) . However, many large existing MWC's
would cool gas to temperatures below 230°C (450°F) in order to
meet the dioxin/furan and acid gas emission levels. As
described in Section 7.5.4, the temperature provision has been
changed in the final guidelines. Existing MWC's will now
establish site-specific temperature levels during their
compliance tests, and thereafter operate at no more than 17°C
(30°F) above this temperature level (4-hour average basis).
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) cited a table
from the EPA's August 1989 Guidance on HC1 and Heavy Metals
Control from Hazardous Waste Incinerators, which indicates
that SD/FF may achieve 90 percent mercury control, but ESP's
(allowed at existing plants) do not achieve control. The
commenters were in favor of basing guidelines for all existing
MWC's on SD/FF control and requiring a PM control device inlet
temperature of no more than 135°C (275°F) to increase mercury
capture. The commenters1 rationale for this temperature is
described in Section 3.5.2.
Response; While lower temperatures may aid in mercury
capture, it is not a simple condensation phenomenon, and other
factors (such as level of carbon in the fly ash) also
influence mercury control. As mentioned in previous
responses, the CAA Amendments of 1990 require that mercury
emissions be addressed through promulgation of mercury
emission guidelines within 12 months of enactment of the CAA
Amendments.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-2.54) said that the proposed
opacity limit is unachievable by the FBC unit he operates.
The unit can meet the PM limit. He requested that EPA allow a
facility to determine an acceptable opacity level during PM
compliance testing and that this level become their operating
limit.
7-17
-------
Response: Available information indicates that the 10-percent
opacity limit is achievable for MWC's with best demonstrated
technology. However, there is flexibility for special cases
as identified by the commenter. The General Provisions
(40 CFR 60.11(e)(6), (7), and (8)) contain procedures whereby
site-specific opacity limits can be established for sources
that demonstrate during testing that they can meet all other
applicable emission standards while the opacity level is
higher than specified.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) said a 15-percent opacity
level more closely reflects a particulate level of 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf).
Response; Existing MWC's with PM controls that meet emission
levels of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) or less generally operate
below 10 percent opacity. However, as explained in the
previous response, there are provisions that allow
establishment of site-specific opacity levels.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-143) asked for clarification of
whether the visible emissions (opacity) level is defined to
exclude water vapor.
Response; Method 9 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9,
Procedure 2.3) specifies that "opacity observations shall be
made at the point of greatest opacity in that portion of the
plume where condensed water vapor is not present."
Furthermore, the General Provisions [40 CFR 60.11(e)] specify
that "Opacity readings of portions of plumes which contain
condensed, uncombined water vapor shall not be used for
purposes of determining compliance with opacity standards."
7.5.3 Municipal Waste Combustor Acid Gases
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1*7) supported Alternative. IIA
for existing MWC's (based on DSI/ESP to achieve 50 percent S02
and HC1 control for large and regional MWC's, and an ESP but
not acid gas control for small MWC's). He thought the cost
impacts of this alternative were more reasonable. Other
commenters (IV-F-1.6, IV-F-1.35, -IV-F-2.15, IV-F-2.32, IV-F-
3.5, IV-D-116, IV-D-137, IV-D-139, IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-
184, IV-D-190) said that $0 percent S02 and HC1 control should
7-18
-------
be specified for all existing MWC's (or all existing MWC's
above 45 or 225 Mg/day [50 or 250 tpd]). They and Commenter
IV-D-111 said that regional MWC plants should not have to meet
more stringent acid gas emission levels.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-D-139, IV-D-164) said the
50-percent level allows MWC's flexibility in developing
innovative retrofit control techniques (no specific examples
were given) rather than total replacement of their entire
existing air pollution control system. Others (IV-D-116,
IV-D-137, IV-D-155, IV-D-158) said it allows facilities
various options for use of DSI or SD systems with either ESP's
or FF's which will make retrofits economically achievable.
Another (IV-F-2.15) said EPA has presented no evidence that
the stringent SO2 and HC1 levels proposed for regional MWC
plants can be met on a continuous basis, but said 50 percent
control is demonstrated.
Another commenter (IV-F-3.5) favoring 50 percent control
for existing MWC's rather than higher levels, said emissions
of HC1 and S02 from MWC's are negligible compared to overall
emissions of these substances and, therefore, do not
contribute significantly to acid deposition or materials
damage. The commenter also said the materials separation
provisions will lower HC1 and SC>2 emissions without scrubbing.
(Also see comments under "size categories for existing MWC's"
in Section 7.5.5).
Two other commenters (IV-D-115, IV-D-231) favored
requiring 50 percent acid gas control for regional as well as
large plants. However, Commenter IV-D-231 said if a regional
plant distinction is retained, emission'levels should be
70 percent S(>2 removal or 60 ppmv SO2 and 90 percent HC1
removal or 45 ppmv HC1 (8-hour block average). He said these
levels are consistent with today's most advanced SD-equipped
MWC's. The other commenter (IV-D-115) said that 85 percent
SC>2 and 95 percent HC1 reduction had not been demonstrated
continuously by SD/FF. Further, he suggested that SD/ESP
systems or ESP/wet scrubber systems may achieve comparable (or
only slightly lower) SO2 and HC1 reductions to SD/FF systems
7-19
-------
as well as similar PM and dioxin/furan emissions. These
systems would be less costly to retrofit for some plants. He
suggested the emissions guidelines should allow these options
by requiring 80 to 85 percent HC1 control and 75 to 80 percent
S(>2 control if the regional plant distinction is maintained.
Another (IV-F-2.40) said 95 percent HC1 control is appropriate
for existing regional MWC plants.
Response; The final guidelines define very large MWC plants
as those with capacities above 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd), and
include emission levels based on SD/ESP control. After
proposal, the performance and cost of SD/ESP control systems
were assessed and compared to those of DSI/ESP (the level
proposed for large plants) and SD/FF (the level proposed for
regional plants).
Analysis of long-term GEM data from a SD/ESP-equipped MWC
showed a long-term average SO2 reduction of 80 percent.
However, over a shorter averaging period (e.g., 24 hours) the
control level will vary above and below this long-term average
performance. Statistical analyses of the data demonstrated
that 70 percent S(>2 reduction, calculated as a daily (block)
24-hour geometric mean, is continuously achievable and is
consistent with a long-term average SC«2 reduction of
80 percent.
An HC1 reduction of 90 percent is achievable by SD/ESP
systems. The HC1 reduction would be measured using Method 26,
and since the compliance method is a stack test rather than a
CEM, an averaging period does not need to be specified. This
control level is based on emission tests from three MWC's with
SD/ESP control.
For comparison, as stated at proposal, DSI/ESP control
systems achieve 50 percent control of SC-2 and HC1. Spray
dryer/fabric filter systems can achieve 80 percent S(>2
reduction calculated as a 24-hour geometric mean (or about
90 percent long-term average) and 95 percent HC1 control.
The SD/ESP systems achieve reductions in MWC metals and
PM emissions comparable to SD/FF systems. Dioxin/furan levels
of less than 60 ng/dscm (24 gr/billion dscf) are also achieved
7-20
-------
by SD/ESP systems. (See Sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 for further
discussion of these pollutants.)
Because the SD/ESP alternative would allow reuse of
existing ESP's at many plants, costs are significantly lower
than SD/FF retrofits. For typical plants above 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd) the annualized cost of SD/ESP retrofit (not
including GCP costs) would be $9 to $12/Mg ($8 to $ll/ton) of
MSW whereas the costs of SD/FF retrofit would be $13 to $18/Mg
($12 to $16/ton) of MSW. The incremental cost effectiveness
of SD/ESP control compared to DSI/ESP control for plants
larger than 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) is about $3,300 to
$4,400/Mg ($3,000 to $4,000/ton) of acid gas control. In
contrast, the incremental cost effectiveness of SD/FF control
compared to SD/ESP control would be about $13,000 to
$17,000/Mg ($12,000 to $16,000/ton) of acid gas removed. The
increased cost of SD/FF control was judged to be unwarranted
relative to the small additional emission reduction achieved.
A model plant cost analysis showed that SD/ESP control
costs per Mg (ton) of MSW combusted and cost per Mg (ton) of
acid gas removed were similar for plants larger than about
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). Costs per Mg (ton) of MSW combusted
increase more rapidly for plants below this size. For plants
smaller than 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) the cost for SD/ESP
control would typically be about $19 to $30/Mg ($17 to
$27/ton) of MSW combusted, as compared to less than $ll/Mg
($10/ton) of MSW for typical plants larger than 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd).
It is therefore reasonable to define very large MWC
plants as those with plant capacities above 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd) and to promulgate emission guidelines for these
plants based on emission levels achievable with SD/ESP
control. The final guidelines include an SC>2 emission level
of 70 percent or 30 ppmv (daily block 24-hour geometric mean),
whichever results in a higher emission level. The final HC1
emission level is 90 percent or 25 ppmv, whichever results in
a higher emission level. This change results in SO2 and HC1
emission levels that are slightly less stringent than proposed
7-21
-------
for plants larger than 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) but in more
stringent SC>2 and HC1 levels for plants between 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd) and 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd). The guidelines for
plants smaller than 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) have not changed
since proposal.
There are about 45 very large existing MWC plants with
capacities above 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). About 27 are
already controlled with SD/ESP or equivalent controls, while
the other 18 are controlled with ESP's and would be expected
to retrofit acid gas controls under the guidelines. Economic
analyses concluded that no severe economic impacts are
expected to result from these guidelines.
Comment; One commeriter (IV-F-2.39) said the requirement for
regional MWC plants such as Detroit to retrofit SD's is
warranted. She said the relative efficiencies and costs of
SD/ESP versus SD/FF should be documented to decide if
replacement of an existing ESP with a FF is warranted.
Response: As described in the previous response, a relative
analysis of SD/ESP and SD/FF performance and cost was
conducted. The final guidelines would require very large
plants such as Detroit to achieve an S02 reduction of
70 percent (24-hour geometric mean) and an HC1 reduction of
90 percent, based on levels achievable with SD/ESP control
systems.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-277) said the S02 and HC1 levels
proposed for regional MWC's were more reflective of LAER than
best demonstrated technology. He said they had not been
demonstrated on a long-term basis. Further, he said recycling
could change emissions and control effectiveness since these
depend on waste characteristics. He suggested the guidelines
specify design and operating requirements rather than percent
reductions for acid gases, since retrofit performance levels
may vary. He also requested special consideration for
existing plants with space constraints.
Response; The S02 and HC1 levels were changed between
proposal and promulgation of the guidelines. The final levels
7-22
-------
have been demonstrated to be achievable based on the data
analysis described in the previous response.
Section 111 of the CAA and 40 CFR 60.24(b) specify the
use of emission levels (or percent reductions) unless it is
clearly impractical to establish or measure emission levels.
In the case of SD/ESP systems, percent reductions are
demonstrated and can be measured, so this format is used.
This format allows owners or operators of existing plants
flexibility to design and operate their systems in the most
practical way given site-specific considerations as long as
they meet all applicable standards.
In general, as specified in Section 60.24(c), State
standards developed pursuant of the emission guidelines must
be at least as stringent as the guidelines. However, the
provisions of Section 60.24(f) do allow case-by-case
consideration of less stringent limits based on unique
site-specific circumstances. Few such situations are
expected.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-111) said DSI systems have not
been demonstrated to achieve 50 percent SC>2 removal on a
continuous basis in all cases. The commenter says that the
Montgomery County plant, which was used as the basis for one
of the EPA's model plants, is achieving less than 30 percent
S02 control with a DSI system.
Other commenters (IV-D-101), IV-D-139, IV-D-155) said
50 percent SO2 and HC1 control was not unreasonable, but
questioned whether DSI was "demonstrated." Commenters IV-D-
101 and IV-D-155 said retrofits of the three types of DSI
techniques (direct sorbent injection into the furnace, sorbent
injection into the duct, and sorbent introduction into the
fuel) had each been tried at only one United States facility.
These two commenters suggested that given the lack of data on
the achievable percent removal for this technology, a
requirement for a fixed stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 would be
preferable to the 50-percent reduction limits for S02 and HC1.
The other commenter (IV-D-139) said DSI could be required
7-23
-------
without specifying an exact emission reduction until more data
are available.
Another commenter (IV-D-169) said that DSI technology is
not commercially accepted or adequately demonstrated, and he
did not know of any current commercial installation of DSI
technology on an MWC.
Response; The BID, "Municipal Waste Combustors - Background
Information for Proposed Standards: Post-Combustion
Technology Performance" (EPA-450/3-89-27C) describes tests of
furnace sorbent injection/ESP control at two MWC plants and
duct sorbent injection/ESP control at one plant. These data
include parametric testing of the Dayton MWC mentioned by the
commenter.
For the Dayton facility, SO2 and HCl emission levels were
measured with furnace injection of limestone at various feed
rates with the ESP operated at various temperatures. When
furnace injection is used, simultaneous inlet and outlet acid
gas concentrations cannot be measured. Comparison of measured
outlet emission levels to typical uncontrolled SC<2 and HCl
concentrations indicated that between 55 and 90 percent
control of both SC-2 and HCl were achieved. The higher levels
were obtained at higher limestone feed rates and lower ESP
operating temperatures. The data from the other plant with
furnace injection/ESP control indicate about 60 to 70 percent
HCl removal and a slightly higher percent SC<2 removal at a
stoichiometric ratio of about 1:1, and an ESP inlet
temperature of about 190°C (370°F).
Parametric tests of duct sorbent injection were also
conducted at Dayton. Hydrated lime was injected into the duct
prior to the ESP at a temperature of about 180 to 200°C (300
to 400°F). Emissions were measured at the ESP inlet and
outlet. The results show that 50 percent S(>2 removal and
80 percent HCl removal are achievable by DSI systems at
temperatures of 200°C (400°F) or lower.
Taken together, these tests demonstrate that both S(>2 and
HCl removals of at least 50 percent can be achieved by DSI/ESP
systems (either furnace or duct sorbent injection).
7-24
-------
Data from several tests of MWC's with DSI/FF or SD/ESP
systems are also reported in the BID, and these also achieve
over 50 percent control of both SO2 and HC1.
In response to the suggestion of specifying a
stoichiometric ratio rather than an emission level or percent
reduction, Section 111 of the CAA and 40 CFR 60.24(b) specify
the use of emission levels (or percent reductions) unless it
is clearly impractical to establish or measure emission
levels. In the case of MWC's with acid gas/PM control
systems, percent reductions are demonstrated and can be
measured, so this format is used. (Section 7.8 describes how
percent reduction may be determined to demonstrate compliance
where furnace injection is used.) This format allows owners
or operators of existing plants flexibility to design and
operate their systems in the most practical way given site-
specific considerations as long as they meet all applicable
standards.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) said
the 30 ppm and 25 ppm SC>2 and HC1 levels proposed in
conjunction with the 50-percent control are unreasonably low.
The commenters said that if emission levels are needed the
following would be more reasonable:
for S(>2, a 100 ppm level (24 hour average), based on
a 50-percent reduction from a typical uncontrolled
SC<2 level of 200 ppm, and
for HCl, a 250 ppm level, based on a 50-percent
reduction from an uncontrolled HCl level of 500 ppm.
Another commenter (IV-D-124) said the outlet SC>2 and HCl
emission levels should be raised to be commensurate with a 50-
percent reduction, but did not suggest specific numerical
values.
Response; The guidelines require 50 percent control of S02
and HCl for some existing MWC plants. However, in cases where
inlet acid gas levels are low and the specified percent
reductions would require outlet concentrations below 30 ppm
for S(>2 and 25 ppm for HCl, these percent reductions may not
achievable because of limitations in SO2 and HCl
7-25
-------
measurement and control loop feedback systems. Therefore, the
format is a combination of either a percent reduction or these
ppm levels. The S(>2 and HC1 ppm levels are not meant to be
commensurate with 50 percent reductions. It is expected that
most existing plants will demonstrate compliance with the
percent reductions rather than the ppm levels.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-127) said the preamble states
that DSI/FF is best demonstrated technology for plants in the
225 to 2,000 Mg/day (250 to 1,800 tpd) category, but he
contended that based on his company's work in Europe, DSI/ESP
can also achieve 50 percent SC>2 control.
Response; The Agency concurs that either DSI/ESP or DSI/FF
control can achieve the levels of performance specified in the
proposed guidelines for largest existing MWC's. This was
stated in both the proposal preamble (54 FR 52209) and the
BID'S. Furthermore, the guidelines specify levels for
emissions (and certain GCP operating parameters) rather than
any particular technology. As long as compliance with all
applicable guidelines (and associated State standards) can be
demonstrated, MWC owners or operators can use any technology
they wish.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-134) said the requirements for
50 percent SO2 and 50 percent HC1 control are inconsistent.
He said that if 50 percent SO2 control is achieved, a higher
level of HCl control (about 70 percent) would be achieved.
Therefore, the commenter suggested changing either the S02 or
HCl level.
Response; There are two main types of DSI systems - duct
sorbent injection and furnace sorbent injection. Duct sorbent
injection systems preferentially control HCl and would achieve
higher HCl levels when 50 percent SO2 control is achieved.
However, data on furnace sorbent injection indicate that these
systems do not preferentially control HCl. Either system can
achieve both 50 percent SO2 and 50 percent HCl control. The
site-specific configuration of existing MWC's will determine
whether furnace or duct injection technology is more feasible
7-26
-------
to retrofit. Furnace injection generally takes less space,
which is a consideration in retrofit applications.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.9) said the acid gas levels in
the proposed guidelines were not stringent enough. He
suggested applying the level of control proposed for regional
MWC plants (based on SD/FF) to all existing MWC's. The
commenter said 50 percent control of HC1 and SO2 was not
adequate for environmental protection, especially in areas
that have several large (nonregional) MWC's located near one
another so region wide acid gas emissions are high. Others
(IV-F-1.2, IV-D-253) said that some States are already
requiring "acid gas scrubber technology" for all existing
MWC's, and that the proposed limits are not stringent enough.
Response; Section 111(a) and (d) specify that emission
guidelines are to be based on the best demonstrated system of
emission reduction "taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction and any nonair quality
health and environmental impact and energy requirements...."
A range of regulatory alternatives were considered as
described in the preamble to the proposed guidelines
(54 FR 52209). The selected alternative for large plants will
significantly reduce emissions. National emissions of MWC
organics from large MWC plants would be reduced by about
90 percent, MWC acid gas emissions by about 50 percent, and PM
emissions by about 70 percent compared to baseline levels
(i.e., levels in the absence of standards). The costs of this
emission reduction (based on retrofit of GCP and DSI and use
of an existing (upgraded) ESP for most plants) would average
about $10/Mg ($9/ton) for large plants, but could typically
range from about $4 to $16/Mg ($4 to $15/ton) for individual
large plants. No severe economic impacts are predicted.
While additional reductions of about 5 percent for MWC
organic emissions and 30 percent MWC acid gases could be
achieved by application of SD/FF control systems at all large
plants, the cost impacts would be unreasonable. The average
cost would be about $23/Mg ($21/ton) of MSW, which is more
than double the cost of DSI retrofit. For individual large
7-27
-------
plants, costs could typically range from $13 to $32/Mg ($12 to
$29/ton) of MSW. About 90 percent of the large existing
plants have ESP's and would need to completely remove these
systems, and retrofit both the SD and FF. This would cause
longer downtime as well as higher capital costs. It is
therefore concluded that the increase in costs would be
disproportionate to the additional emission reduction
achieved.
States can take specific situations (such as co-location
of several plants) into account in setting State standards,
which under 40 CFR 60.24(c) must be at least as stringent as
these guidelines, but may be more stringent. Such site-
specific issues are better considered at the State level than
at the national level.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-117) said a review of
data from retrofits of MWC's in Europe showed that vendors
have guaranteed levels of 6 to 60 ppm HC1 and 10 to 60 ppm SC>2
(at 7 percent 02). The MWC plants ranged in size from 180 to
1,800 Mg/day (200 to 2,000 tpd). The commenters also said
data from five retrofit MWC's in Europe shows HC1 levels below
50 ppm. The commenters said the percent reduction provision
for S(>2 and HCl should be eliminated because: (1) where
uncontrolled levels are high, a percent reduction could allow
higher outlet emissions than are achievable by demonstrated
technology; and (2) it would be difficult for some MWC's, such
as FBC's, to calculate percent reduction. These commenters
and others (IV-D-106, IV-D-186) recommended emission
guidelines of 50 ppm HCl and 60 ppm SC-2 for all sizes of
existing MWC plants.
Response; Data from MWC's with state-of-the-art control
systems show that the percent reductions specified in the
final guidelines are achievable using demonstrated control
technology. A percent reduction format was chosen because it
is the most accurate and representative measure of the
performance of acid gas control systems. The ppm levels were
set because in cases where inlet acid gas levels are low and
the specified percent reductions would result in outlet
7-28
-------
concentrations below 30 ppm for SO2 or 25 ppm for HC1, these
percent reductions may not be achievable.
Furthermore, inlet acid gas levels can be highly variable
over relatively short periods of time. In cases where inlet
acid gas levels are intermittently high, compliance with a ppm
level would require use of significantly more sorbent than is
generally needed, would make design and operation of the
control instrumentation for SD and DSI systems more complex,
and would require the overall emissions control system to be
larger than is otherwise required. Finally, the emissions
data gathered for the best demonstrated technologies for
existing MWC's (e.g., DSI/PM controls for large MWC's)
indicates that higher percent reductions (or outlet levels of
50 to 60 ppm) are not demonstrated to be achievable on a
continuous basis by all MWC's with best demonstrated
technology.
In response to the commenters' point that it would be
difficult for some MWC's to calculate percent reduction
(because inlet and outlet levels cannot be measured
simultaneously), the response in Section 7.8 describes how
these MWC's could demonstrate compliance.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-111) said that HC1 emission
limits are unnecessary since any system achieving good SC-2
control will automatically achieve good HC1 control.
However, another commenter (IV-D-134) claimed that
continuous SC>2 monitoring will not ensure HC1 control. He
said, for example, when little or no S02 removal is required
due to low sulfur in the waste, a facility could feed little
reagent to the system and still meet S02 levels. However,
during this time HC1 levels could be high.
Response; While SC<2 is a good indicator for acid gas control
technology performance, the results of the periodic HC1 test
will provide additional assurance that all of the acid gases
are being controlled to the prescribed level. Furthermore,
because the MWC operator will have to perform periodic stack
tests for PM and dioxins/furans, testing set-ups will be
7-29
-------
required, and the additional cost of conducting a performance
test for HC1 at the same time is small.
In response to the second comment, the guidelines require
50 percent SC>2 removal or 30 ppm for large MWC's. Any MWC
complying with either of these limits would be expected to be
achieving both SC>2 and HC1 control. If enough sorbent is
added to achieve 50 percent S(>2 control, then good HC1 control
would also be achieved. Since uncontrolled SC>2 levels are
typically about 200 ppm, an MWC complying with the 30 ppm
level rather than the percent reduction would generally be
achieving about 85 percent control and would require adequate
addition of sorbent to control both SO2 and HC1.
7.5.4 Good Combustion Practices
7.5.4.1 Operator Training and Certification. Several
commenters made exactly the same comments about certification
and training for existing MWC's as they did for new MWC's.
The standards and guidelines include the same certification
and training provisions. These comments and responses are all
included in Section 3.5.4.1 and have not been repeated here.
Comments specific to the guidelines for existing MWC's are
listed below.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-169) recommended the
certification requirement in the guidelines be removed due to
the inherent potential liability. The commenter continued to
state that the liability properly rests solely with the owner
or operator.
Response; As explained in Section 3.5.4, the Agency believes
training and certification are necessary inclusions into the
regulations. The certification and training requirements
would not affect liability associated with violations of the
standards and guidelines.
Commenti Two commenters (IV-D-137, IV-D-138) stated that the
comprehensive facility operating manual will not be available
for appropriate Agency review until after completion of final
design and selection of equipment vendors, for any retrofits
required for compliance with proposed regulations.
7-30
-------
Response; The operating manual must be complete and available
for Agency inspection at the same time a facility is required
to comply with the other operating provisions. As stated in
Section 60.38(a)(b), the compliance time for existing
facilities is 36 months after the effective date of the State
standards developed pursuant to the Section lll(d) emission
guidelines.
Comment: Commenter IV-D-153 requested that the regulation be
clarified to state that the existing manuals may be approved
if the State determines that the substance of the EPA's
requirements have been met.
Response; If an existing manual addresses all the required
topics, then the operating manual is satisfactory.
7.5.4.2 Carbon Monoxide Limits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-159) stated that in many modular
system applications the CO is consistently low and fairly
insensitive to the operation due to high combustion
efficiencies and as a result, its measurement is of little
value. Two commenters (IV-D-116, IV-D-241) state that it has
not been proven that continuous monitoring of CO predicts the
dioxin/furan emission limits. Commenter IV-D-116 cites
examples of data which indicate no correlation between CO and
dioxin/furan at low levels of CO.
Response t Carbon monoxide is used as an indicator of the
amount of organics leaving the furnace. High emission levels
of CO are associated with high organic emissions at the exit
of the furnace. The regulations, by eliminating periods of
high CO emissions, reduce periods of high organic emissions.
This then reduces the amount of organic precursors entering
the APCD and minimizes the amount of organic formation
downstream of the combustor. The CO emission requirement is
to ensure continuous organic destruction. See
Section 3.5.4.2.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.4, IV-D-61,
IV-D-62, IV-D-80, IV-D-137, IV-D-190) recommended that a
single CO limit be set for all MWC technologies and capacities
such as was included in the EPA's dra'ft guidelines dated
7-31
-------
June 1987. Commenter IV-F-2.4 recommended that the limit be
set at the level proposed for RDF combustors.
Commenter IV-D-80 believed that modular units were being
unduly penalized as a result of their more efficient
combustion process and that requiring a 100 ppm limit (1 hour
average) will actually result in less CO emissions.
Commenter IV-D-78 stated that grouping mass burn rotary
waterwall, RDF, coal/RDF cofired, and other technologies under
one CO limit creates inequity. Commenter IV-D-137 was
concerned that the proposed guidelines give an unfair retrofit
advantage to some MWC technologies. Commenter IV-D-209 stated
that RDF facilities should be held to a more restrictive CO
limit due to RDF's capability to control its fuel input to a
much better degree than mass burn facilities. Commenter
IV-D-235 stated that a 100 ppm limit should be established for
all technologies except RDF which should be set at 250 ppm due
to difficulty in continuous compliance with 100 ppm limit.
Several commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-117) stated
that the CO limits were not chosen in accordance with data
truly representative of the better operated facilities and
therefore this standard will not ensure the best combustion
practices. Three commenters (IV-D-105, IV-D-106, IV-D-117)
stated that the CO emission limit should be changed to 50 ppm
over a 4-hour averaging time for all technologies, a value
recommended in a 1987 EPA report. One commenter (IV-D-131)
stated that the CO limit set for RDF combustors is
insupportable and therefore the proposed emission limit can
only be regarded as an arbitrary value. Commenter IV-D-159
stated that not enough data are available for the different
size classes of modular units and that the CO limit should be
raised to 100 ppm until more data are obtained. One commenter
(IV-F-1.11) indicated that some existing RDF facilities may
not be able to meet the CO limit, which was established based
on the performance of new RDF combustors. \
Response; Different types of combustors may have inherently
different average CO emission levels when applying GCP. The
7-32
-------
CO limits are based on technology specific available data.
See Section 3.5.4.2.
The limits for RDF and rotary waterwall facilities have
been readdressed based on new data available to the Agency.
Analysis of the data support establishing different limits for
existing RDF and rotary waterwall facilities. The Agency
outlined retrofit items for model plants which would
incorporate GCP (EPA-450/3-89-27e). For RDF facilities these
included modifications to the overfire air arrangement,
installation of a metered RDF feeding system, and other items.
Data were obtained from an existing RDF combustor which
incorporates all of these items into the design. Analysis of
the data show that a CO level of 200 ppm, corrected to
7 percent ©2 is achievable on a 24-hour averaging period.
Analysis of rotary waterwall combustors show that a level of
250 ppm, corrected to 7 percent 02 is achievable on a 24-hour
averaging period. See Section 3.5.4.2. Note that the
averaging time for RDF and rotary waterwall facilities has
been changed from 4 hours to 24 hours. This is because RDF
facilities experience combustion conditions which are more
highly variable than most other MWC's due to the semi-
suspension burning process. Existing rotary waterwall
facilities also have unique combustion conditions which are
much more variable than the majority of mass burn and modular
facilities. For more information refer to the memorandum
entitled, "Good Combustion Practice: CO Emission Limits" in
the docket.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.54, IV-D-162) questioned the
need to reduce CO emissions to satisfy the proposed levels
when compliance with the dioxin/furan limits has been
demonstrated. The commenters recommended that the guidance
allow each State to evaluate facilities within their borders
on a case-by-case basis and, where appropriate, develop
alternate CO limits. Some commenters (IV-D-78, IV-D-119,
IV-D-122) recommend that the guidelines allow for site-
specific technology CO limits based on achievability.
7-33
-------
Response: The CO limits have been developed for different
combustor types which may have inherently different
steady-state CO emission levels. The CO limits are based on
achievable emission levels from units which have incorporated
GCP. Dioxins/furans are not the only organic species of
concern, and by reducing CO, emission of all organics will be
minimized.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-119) stated that the CO emission
limits should not preclude the use of dry bottom ash systems.
Response: There is no technical reason why the method of
bottom ash storage should have an impact on CO emissions from
MWC's unless the lack of a water seal (as provided by a wet
bottom ash system), prevents complete air control to the
facility. In that situation, it is possible for higher CO
emissions. Such a system would not represent GCP. If
complete air control is maintained, the CO emissions should
not be higher from a dry bottom system than from a wet bottom
system.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-84) stated that the CO limits
cannot be applied to cement kilns because they would not serve
the purpose of controlling combustion since cement kilns emit
CO based on process chemistry and raw material reactions
occurring in noncombustion zones of the kiln.
Response; A review of data from tests on cement kilns
indicates that high concentrations of CO in stack gas may
result from cement feed material properties and process
conditions. The CO emission levels are not always a good
indication of process fuel combustion conditions in cement
kilns. The GCP provisions of the final standards and
guidelines do not include CO emission limits for cement kilns.
(See the memorandum entitled "Good Combustion Practice: CO
Emission Limits" in Docket A-89-08.)
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-80) stated that no provisions
are made in the CO standards for the type of waste burned
(i.e., wastes with higher moisture may result in higher CO
emissions). The commenter recommended that modular units
7-34
-------
which burn RDF should have a higher CO limit, such as in the
case of stokers.
Response; Average achievable CO emissions are dependent on
the type of combustor, the varying waste properties and the
manner in which the combustor is operated. Many of the data
sets examined included naturally occurring changes in short
term and seasonal waste conditions including moisture content.
The technology-specific CO limits have been based on those
levels that have been demonstrated to be achievable.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-60) stated that continuous
monitoring of CO at very small facilities would be of little
value due to daily start-ups and a continuous burn time on the
order of 6 hours. Two commenters (IV-D-149, IV-D-150) stated*
that the 50 ppm emission limit for modular units is
unattainable for very small units and recommended an emission
limit also based on size if a lower size cut-off is not
adopted. Commenter IV-D-159 stated that smaller modular units
may have trouble meeting a 50 ppm 4-hour block average and
recommended a 100 ppm 1-hour block average.
Response: The guidelines currently being promulgated apply
only to MWC's with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd). It is assumed that the very small facilities
referenced by Commenter IV-D-60 would be below the size and
will not be covered by the monitoring requirements.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-137) recommended that the CO CEM
location not be fixed at the combustor exit because it is the
most difficult CEM operational environment due to high
particulate loading and uncontrolled acid gases. The
commenter recommends allowing the facility the option to
install the CO CEM at the APCD outlet with the other CEM's
since the small delay in correlating real time CO data with
combustion conditions is meaningless.
Response: The CO CEM location will be left to the discretion
of the facility operator, as( long as the CO monitor and the ©2
(or CO2> monitor are in the same location. See
Section 3.5.4.2.
7-35
-------
7.5.4.3 Time at Temperature/Temperature.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.19,
IV-D-106, IV-D-168, IV-D-186, IV-D-189) recommended that the
regulation include a time at temperature requirement such as
980°C (1,800°F) for 1 second. Several commenters (IV-D-81,
IV-D-86, IV-D-105, IV-D-117) stated that the regulation should
include a combustion temperature requirement (both a minimum
to ensure PIC destruction and a maximum to reduce NOX
formation) since it is documented that temperature is critical
and that technology to measure the temperature is commercially
available. Commenter IV-D-107 also recommended that auxiliary
burners be required to maintain a required minimum
temperature. Commenter IV-D-186 recommended continuously
monitoring furnace temperature.
Response: The Agency chose to regulate on a performance basis
whenever possible. While the Agency believes that it is
necessary to measure temperature to properly control
combustion conditions, the best method to monitor combustion
performance is to monitor CO. Carbon monoxide concentrations
rather than a predetermined range of combustion temperature
are the best measure of performance. See Section 3.5.4.3.
7.5.4.4 Capacity.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-F-3.5, IV-D-137,
IV-D-138, IV-D-222) believed that the proposed demonstrated
capacity measurement is overly restrictive and that operation
within a range of 80 (or 90) to 110 percent of demonstrated
capacity is more appropriate due to the variability of MSW
heat content. Two commenters (IV-D-101 and IV-D-155) stated
that the limit should be 100 percent plus or minus 2 percent
to account for the error band of the instrument.
Several commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-F-2.30, IV-D-78, IV-D-
101, IV-D-107, IV-D-111, IV-D-115, IV-D-137, IV-D-153, IV-D-
154, IV-D-155, IV-D-159, IV-D-164, IV-D-222) stated that the
load level averaging time should be increased or eliminated
due to the variability of MSW. • Commenters IV-F-2.15, IV-F-
2.30, IV-D-115 and IV-D-164 recommended the load level
averaging time be changed to 24 hours, similar to other EPA
7-36
-------
standards. Commenters IV-D-101, IV-D-137, IV-D-154 and IV-D-
155 recommended that the load averaging time match their
recommended CO averaging time of 8 hours. Commenter IV-F-2.4
stated that the capacity should be established over a 4-hour
average test.
Response; The proposed 1-hour averaging time for steam load
has been changed to a 4-hour averaging time to account for
variability in steam flow rates related to changes in waste
properties. The maximum operating load has been set to 110
percent of the average load demonstrated during the
dioxin/furan performance test. See Section 3.5.4.4.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-164) requested that
EPA clarify whether emission tests are to occur at design
capacity or available load level.
Response; The regulations require dioxin/furan performance
tests to be conducted at the highest average continuous load
at which the facility will be operated. It is the
responsibility of the facility owner or operator to define
this load and then demonstrate through a dioxin/furan
performance test that all emission and operating requirements
can be met at that load. See Section 3.5.4.4.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) stated that it is unequal to
regulate the maximum demonstrated capacity for only steam
producing units. The commenter recommended dropping the
guideline.
Response; Excessive flue gas flowrates entrain additional PM
and carry it to locations in the HWC system where low
temperature formation of organics occurs. Those MWC's which
produce steam can use steam flowrate measurements to limit
operation at excessive loads. The object of the maximum load
requirement as measured by steam flowrate is to limit the
volumetric flowrate of flue gases. Several alternate
techniques for measurement of flue gas flowrate were initially
considered for units which do not generate steam, but none
were considered sufficiently accurate or easily applied for
inclusion in the original standard proposal. Further
investigation has shown that vendors are now offering a number
7-37
-------
of different techniques for continuous measurement of flue gas
flowrate. Although none of these techniques has been
validated by the Agency for use on combustion sources, one or
more of them may be applicable to all classes of MWC's
including refractory units without heat recovery. If one of
these techniques is validated for MWC facilities, the Agency
will require their use at units without heat recovery for the
purpose of avoiding operation at excessive loads. For more
details of this alternative method of measuring combustor flue
gas flowrates, see the memorandum entitled, "Good Combustion
Practices: MWC Steam Load Requirement" in Docket A-89-08.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-134) recommended that the
requirements establish a method to define exactly how load
capacity should be measured and what calibration or other
quality assurance measures are required. Two commenters
(IV-D-149, IV-D-150) recommended that the proposed standards
for load capacity include consideration of the enthalpy
recovered in the steam.
Response; The Agency will utilize ASME's Power Test Codes
PTC4.1, Section 4 and PTC19.5, Chapter 4 to specify
measurement and calibration methods for steam load. See
Section 3.5.4.4.
Commenti One commenter (IV-D-219) recommended the rules be
amended to allow exemption of the steam load requirement to
facilities which generate a minimal amount of steam for a
limited use and that operate for the primary purpose of
burning MSW.
Response: For facilities where the total volume of flue gas
is not consistently passed through the boiler or waste heat
exchanger, the steam load is not representative of total flue
gas flowrate. Therefore, it does not accomplish the purpose
of the requirement which is to limit flue gas flowrate. When
a methodology is validated, these facilities will be required
to measure load by the method described for nonsteam producing
facilities. See Section 3.5.4.4.
7-38
-------
7.5.4.5 Particulate Matter Control Device Inlet Flue Gas
Temperature.
Comment; Several commenters discussed the 230°C (450°F) PM
control device inlet temperature requirement. Commenter IV-D-
03 believed that the requirement was to improve condensation
and capture of metals and organics and pointed out that the
best ESP operation is achieved at temperatures greater than
230°C (450°F). Commenters IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.19, IV-D-106,
IV-D-108, IV-D-134, IV-D-149, IV-D-150, IV-D-186 and IV-D-238
thought that the temperature was too high and recommended a
150°C (300°F) temperature to ensure metals condensation and
collection. Commenters IV-D-62, IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-186
and IV-D-238 also recommended a 150°C (300°F) or 135°C (275°F)
PM control device inlet temperature in order to minimize
dioxin/furan formation and to maximize their condensation.
Commenter IV-D-168 recommended a 180°C (350°F) inlet
temperature. Commenters IV-D-190 and IV-D-235 recommended an
outlet maximum temperature of 180°C (350°F) to capture metals
and dioxins/furans. Commenter IV-D-186 further stated that
acid gas corrosion can be minimized or prevented with the use
of acid gas adsorbents or by using acid resistant surfaces.
Two commenters (IV-F-3.5, IV-D-266,) felt that there should be
flexibility in the PM control device inlet temperature
requirement if compliance with the dioxin/furan limit can be
demonstrated.
Response; The PM control device inlet temperature requirement
is for continuous dioxin/furan compliance, not for the control
of metals. The requirement has been changed to a temperature
limit of 17°C (30°F) above the temperature demonstrated during
a successfully completed dioxin/furan performance test. See
Section 3.5.4.5 and the memorandum entitled, "Good Combustion
Practice: PM Control Device Inlet Temperature Requirement" in
Docket A-89-08.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.4, IV-D-122, IV-D-266)
indicated that no temperature limit should be required since
dioxin/furan emission limits are established. One commenter
7-39
-------
(IV-D-159) recommended that modern modular systems be exempt
from the PM control device inlet temperature requirement due
to the high combustion efficiencies and destruction of
dioxins/furans and their precursors.
Response t The temperature requirement is necessary to ensure
continuous dioxin/furan compliance. See Section 3.5.4.5.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-111) recommended that the
averaging time be lengthened to avoid constantly attempting to
correct for waste variability. Commenter IV-D-137 recommended
that the inlet temperature averaging time be changed to an
8-hour block average.
Response: Data indicate that facilities with good operating
practices can meet a 4-hour block averaging time. See
Section 3.5.4.5.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-60) questioned the benefit of
lowering the flue gas temperature at a facility with
afterburners in the stack and no heat recovery system. The
commenter pointed out that dioxin/furan formation is retarded
at temperatures greater than 400°C (750°F) and that many such
facilities operate with flue gas temperatures considerably
higher than this value.
Response; The GCP requirement does not limit flue gas
temperature, only temperature at the inlet to the PM control
device. To meet the guidelines, all MWC facilities larger
than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are expected to employ PM control
and must limit temperatures at the inlet to the final PM
control device.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-158) was considering
retrofitting a SD/FF downstream of an existing ESP and air
preheater. The preheater is at the exit of the ESP for
cleaner operation. The cost of this retrofit would increase
significantly if the ESP had to be removed and new air
preheaters installed. The commenter recommended the wording
be changed to specify the temperature limit at the entrance to
the final PM control device.
Response; The proposed regulation has been changed to
regulate the final PM control device inlet temperature.
7-40
-------
7.5.4.6 Overall Good Combustion Practices Comments.
Two commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-219) believed that
compliance with GCP is sufficient to minimize production of
organics and that dioxin/furan testing should not be required.
Another commenter (IV-F-2.4) indicated that operational
parameters should not be dictated since specific emission
limits have been proposed.
Response; Due to the complexity of MWC design/operating
conditions and emissions, a prior specification of GCP
requirements alone are not sufficient to ensure compliance
with the dioxin/furan emission levels. Thus, periodic
dioxin/furan performance testing is necessary to determine
dioxin/furan emission levels. Continuous monitoring of
operational parameters such as PM control device inlet
temperature and load levels are also necessary in order to
ensure continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
levels. See section 3.5.4.6.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-2.39, IV-D-65, IV-D-10.1)
were concerned about the pollutant tradeoffs between CO and
NOX. Commenter IV-F-2.39 stated that GCP for control of
organics and CO emissions includes operation at O2~rich
conditions which will lead to the formation of excess NOX.
Commenter IV-D-65 stated that the CO limits should be
achievable if the NOX emission limit for new incinerators is
set at 190 to 200 ppm in the final standards.
Response; While there is a potential for a tradeoff between
NOX and CO, there is no evidence that the proposed CO emission
limits will invalidate combustion techniques intended to
control NOX emissions. See Section 3.5.4.6.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-84) stated that GCP for cement
kilns is better accomplished by regulating direct combustion
controls such as excess ©2 minimums, kiln rotation speed and
raw material feed minimums, proper draft fan operation, and
fuel feed minimums, instead of monitoring emissions.
Response; The Agency has examined cement kiln operations and
in the final standards and guidelines has exempted cement
kilns from the CO emission level provisions of GCP. (See the
7-41
-------
memorandum entitled "Good Combustion Practice: CO Emission
Limit", in Docket A-89-08.) Furthermore, since cement kilns
usually do not generate steam, they would not be required to
measure load level (see Section 7.5.4.4).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-105) stated that automatic
combustion control systems should be required on all MWC's.
Response: It is believed that automatic combustion control
systems will generally be used to ensure compliance with GCP
requirements. See Section 3.5.4.6.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-108, IV-D-159) stated that
hydrocarbon monitors should be used to ensure continuous
dioxin/furan compliance rather than CO monitors.
Response; Carbon monoxide is a more sensitive predictor of
poor combustion conditions. See Section 3.5.4.6.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-117) argued that as part of GCP
to reduce secondary dioxin/furan formation a provision should
be required which prevents metals which have been shown to
catalyze dioxin/furan secondary formation from entering
incinerators. Commenter IV-D-241 recommended the removal of
noncombustibles and toxins prior to combustion.
Response; Sufficient data are not available to demonstrate
the effectiveness of these approaches in minimizing
dioxin/furan emissions.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-106 and IV-D-117) recommended
reestablishing the 6 to 12 percent range of 02 content in the
flue gas. Commenter IV-D-186 recommended continuously
monitoring for a minimum ©2 level in the furnace.
Response; Oxygen content in the flue gas is not a direct
emission concern and is not a direct indicator of performance.
Therefore the standards do not specify ©2 level. See
Section 3.5.4.6.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-158) stated that the field test
data do not exist (and the preliminary data do not confirm)
the ability of GCP to demonstrate a reduction in dioxin/furan
emissions to the level predicted. The commenter recommended
that numerical emission levels not be mandated at this time.
7-42
-------
Commenter IV-D-241 stated that GCP will not be effective in
controlling dioxins/furans.
Response; The regulations are based on available data. See
Section 3.5.4.6.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-159) stated that insufficient
data on modern modular units exist and that extrapolation from
waterwall and older modular systems is inappropriate for
developing best demonstrated technology for modern units.
Response; The regulations are based on available data. See
Section 3.5.4.6.
7.5.5 Size Categories for Existing Municipal Waste Combustors
7.5.5-1 Size Category Distinction Between Regional and
Large Municipal Waste Combustors.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.6, IV-F-1.7, IV-F-2.5,
IV-F-2.32, IV-F-3.2, IV-D-78, IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-115,
IV-D-137, IV-D-139, IV-D-145, IV-D-152, IV-D-155, IV-D-164,
IV-D-231, IV-D-255, IV-D-257) said the 2,000 Mg/day
(2,200 tpd) capacity distinction between large and regional
MWC plants was not justified. Some (IV-F-2.5, IV-D-115,
IV-D-145, IV-D-231) said the decision was arbitrary and
capricious, while another (IV-D-152) said it was arbitrary and
unlawful.
Some (IV-F-1.7, IV-F-2.32, IV-D-78, IV-D-101, IV-D-152,
IV-D-155, IV-D-164, IV-D-184, IV-D-231, IV-D-255, IV-D-257)
favored the same guidelines for regional MWC plants as was
proposed for large MWC plants and claimed that facilities over
2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) do not produce greater emissions and
health risks than many facilities smaller than 2,000 Mg/day
(2,200 tpd). One commenter (IV-F-2.32) submitted a table of
modeled ambient HC1 levels around regional and large MWC
plants to show that HC1 concentrations can be higher for some
MWC plants below 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) than they are for
MWC plants above this size. He presented another table
showing that the proposed dioxin/furan levels result in much
lower MIR's for regional MWC plants than for large MWC plants.
He, therefore, viewed the more stringent requirements for
regional MWC plants as inequitable. Some commenters
7-43
-------
(IV-D-115, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) said the preamble refers to
regional plants exceeding the HC1 welfare effects level of
3 Mg/m3 (1 gr/million ft3) and short-term health effects
level; however, no background documentation was provided to
support this statement, and the referenced effects levels have
not undergone public comment and peer review. Another
commenter (IV-D-101) said dioxin/furan emissions from many
large and regional plants are already well below the proposed
level for large plants, so more stringent controls on regional
plants will result in relatively little emission and risk
reduction. Test results and information from a permit
analysis were presented for two MWC plants. One commenter
(IV-F-1.7), while not presenting data, said that MWC plants
below 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) may have shorter stacks,
resulting in greater health risks. Commenter IV-D-78 said the
regional MWC in their city causes health risks of only 1 in a
billion, while another (IV-D-152) said a multipathway analysis
concluded risk from their plant was less than 1 in a million.
A State agency (IV-D-277) said risks from a regional MWC in
their State with ESP control and dioxin/furan emissions of
120 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion dscf) are lower than 1 in a
million; the plant complies with State air toxics rules, has
one of the lowest PM levels in the country, and should not be
required to replace their ESP with a FF to meet a regional
plant dioxin/furan limit.
Some commenters (IV-F-1.6, IV-F-2.5, IV-F-2.32, IV-F-3.2,
IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-115, IV-D-137, IV-D-139, IV-D-152,
IV-D-155, IV-D-184, IV-D-257) said the 2,000 Mg/day
(2,200 tpd) size category distinction was not environmentally
or economically justified. Some of these commenters said the
BID'S and the regulatory alternatives did not present an
analysis of regional MWC's as a distinct category. One
commenter (IV-D-101) said the cost to replace control
equipment at a regional plant would be no less expensive, on a
cost per Mg (ton) of MSW basis, than for a large plant; while
another said there is no economy of scale basis for requiring
7-44
-------
more stringent control of regional plants. Another (IV-D-184)
said retrofit cost per Mg (ton) of MSW more than doubles from
"good" to "best" control for both large and regional MWC
plants. Commenter IV-D-115 cited the BID'S analysis of a
regional mass burn MWC model plant where capital and
annualized costs for SD/FF retrofit are more than double the
costs of DSI/ESP retrofit. Others (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.5,
IV-F-2.32, IV-D-78, IV-D-115, IV-D-152, IV-D-164, IV-D-255)
said the cost and economic impacts and disruption of service
that would result from the requirements to retrofit SD/FF on
regional MWC plants are disproportionate to the small
environmental benefits of the more stringent control. One
(IV-D-152) calculated that for their plant, the incremental
cost of SO2 control for SD/FF versus DSI/ESP would be
$29,000/Mg ($26,000/ton) of S02. One of these commenters
(IV-D-78) suggested EPA perform a cost-benefit analysis for
their area before requiring more stringent controls for
regional MWC plants. Others (IV-D-115, IV-D-130, IV-D-152)
said the cost per Mg (ton) of adding DSI and upgrading an
existing ESP is far more reasonable than retrofitting a SD/FF.
Others (IV-D-115, IV-D-137, IV-D-155, IV-D-257) said a SD/ESP
control alternative should have been analyzed. Commenter
IV-D-115 said an ESP/wet scrubber may also be a viable
retrofit option.
Two commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-257) said SD/FF technology
is equally applicable, and has been applied, to both large and
regional MWC plants, so there is no technological basis for
the size distinction.
One commenter (IV-F-2;5 and IV-D-78) referred to the
statement in the preamble that many existing regional
facilities have provided space to retrofit the proposed SD
technology, and said that there is little space at the
existing regional MWC plant the commenter operates. Another
(IV-D-137) said space constraint and technical feasibility
issues would be the same for plants larger and smaller than
2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd). Commenter IV-D-152 said space
constraints are not related to the age or size of the plant as
7-45
-------
the preamble implies, and another (IV-D-115) said the
remaining useful life is the same for some large and regional
plants.
Commenter IV-D-137 further stated that costs for actual
regional MWC plants may be very different from costs
calculated for the EPA's model plant. He said that
Section lll(d) allows States discretionary authority to
consider site-specific factors, but by setting the guidelines
for regional MWC plants at the most stringent possible level
of control, EPA had preempted State and local agencies from
exercising this allowed authority. Another (IV-D-152) said
EPA did not follow the requirements of Section lll(d) because
it failed to do a full analysis of control technology costs
and environmental impacts in determining best demonstrated
technology for regional MWC plants, and the model plant
approach did not take site-specific factors into account.
Responset The final guidelines for very large (regional)
MWC's reflect changes since proposal. First, the final
guidelines define very large plants as those larger than
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) rather than the 2,000 Mg/day
(2,200 tpd) proposed. Second, emission levels for these
plants are based on SD/ESP rather than SD/FF as the best
demonstrated control technology considering costs and other
relevant factors. The MWC acid gas guidelines for very large
plants are: (1) an SC>2 reduction of 70 percent or an emission
level of 30 ppmv (24-hour geometric mean), whichever results
in greater emissions and (2) an HC1 reduction of 90 percent or
• an emission level of 25 ppmv. The final guidelines for very
large plants include a dioxin/furan level of 60 ng/dscm
(24 gr/billion dscf), and a PM level of 34 mg/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf). The basis for selection of SD/ESP control as
the best demonstrated technology for very large existing
plants and responses to the commenters1 points are described
below.
In response to commenters who cited health risk
information, Section 111 of the CAA and 40 CFR 60.22(b)
specifies that emission guidelines are to reflect the
7-46
-------
application of the best system of emission reduction
(considering the cost of such reduction) that has been
adequately demonstrated for designated facilities. These
sections also provide the authority to distinguish among
sizes, types, and classes of designated facilities in
establishing guidelines. Emission guidelines established
under Section 111 for regional MWC plants are, therefore,
based on demonstrated control technology performance, and are
not based on the level of health risk posed by particular
sources.
In response to the comments, the performance and retrofit
costs of SD/ESP systems were analyzed and compared to those of
DSI/ESP systems (the proposed control level for large plants)
and SD/FF systems (the proposed control level for regional
plants). The analysis results, including emission reductions
and costs for model plants, are contained in Docket
No. A-89-08. Capital and operating cost estimation procedures
were consistent with those for SD and ESP retrofits and
modifications contained in the BID volume on cost procedures
(EPA-450/3-89-27a). Retrofit factors and scope adder costs
were used to reflect retrofit constraints, and downtime costs
were included.
The analysis results show that the costs to retrofit
SD/ESP systems (in terms of $/Mg [$/ton] of MSW) are similar
for plants larger than about 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd), but
increase more rapidly for plants below that size. Costs for
add-on SD/ESP control at plants above 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd)
are about $10 to $12/Mg ($9 to $ll/ton) of MSW, whereas costs
for plants below this size typically range from about $19 to
$30/Mg ($17 to $27/ton) of MSW. The same pattern in observed
for DSI/ESP and SD/FF costs. It is therefore reasonable to
establish a size category distinction at 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd) rather than the proposed 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd).
In terms of both performance and costs, SD/ESP control
systems are intermediate between DSI/ESP and SD/FF control.
Table 7-1 shows the performance levels achievable by the three
control systems. The table shows that SD/ESP systems achieve
7-47
-------
TABLE 7-1. PERFORMANCE OF ACID GAS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Pollutant
Technology
DSI/ESP SD/ESP SD/FF
MWC Acid Gases
SO2 (percent reduction,
24 hour geometric mean)
HC1 (percent reduction)
50
50
70
90
80
95
MWC Metals
PM, mg/dscm (gr/dscf)
69 (0.03) 34 (0.015) 34 (0.015)
MWC Oraanics
Dioxin/furan, ng/dscm
(gr/billion dscf)
125"
(50)
60
(2Q)
30
(12)
a For most MWC types. Level for RDF is 250 ng/dscm
(100 gr/b'illion dscf).
7-48
-------
high levels of control for MWC acid gases, MWC metals and PM,
and MWC organics. Further information on the data supporting
performance levels of SD/ESP systems are contained in
responses in Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.2, and 7.5.3 and in Docket
No. A-89-08.
The costs of SD/ESP retrofit control are considerably
less than the costs of SD/FF retrofit, because at many plants
the SD/ESP option will allow use of existing ESP's, whereas
the SD/FF option would require removal of ESP's and complete
replacement with a FF system.
For plants larger than 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd), the
costs of SD/ESP systems are reasonable. The cost is about $10
to $12/Mg ($9 to $ll/ton) of MSW. The incremental cost
effectiveness compared to DSI/ESP control is about $3,300 to
$4,400/Mg ($3,000 to $4,000/ton) of acid gas emissions
reduction. No severe economic impacts are expected from
application of these controls. The costs of SD/FF controls
are higher (from $13 to $17/Mg [$12 to $16/ton]) of MSW. The
incremental cost effectiveness of SD/FF compared to SD/ESP
controls for regional plants is about $13,000 to $17,000/Mg
($12,000 to $16,000/ton) of acid gas emissions reduction. It
was determined that the costs of SD/FF control are not
warranted given the relatively small additional emissions
reductions that would be achieved. Therefore, SD/ESP control
was selected as the best demonstrated technology for very
large existing MWC plants.
For MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) located at
MWC plants with plant capacities between 225 and 1,000 Mg/day
(250 and 1,100 tpd), the guidelines are based on DSI/ESP.
This is the same level of control that was proposed. For an
example mass burn refractory MWC model plant with a capacity
of 800 Mg/day (900 tpd), the cost of DSI/ESP control is $9/Mg
($8/ton) of MSW, whereas the cost for SD/ESP is over $19/Mg
($17/ton) of MSW. The incremental cost effectiveness of
SD/ESP control compared to DSI/ESP control is about $5,700/Mg
($5,200/ton) of acid gas emission reduction for this model
plant. The decision made at proposal that DSI/ESP control is
7-49
-------
the best demonstrated technology, considering costs, for
plants in the 225 to 1,000 Mg/day (250 to 1,100 tpd) size
range is reaffirmed considering this analysis.
There are about 45 very large existing MWC plants with
capacities above 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). About 27 are
already controlled with SD/ESP or equivalent controls, while
the other 18 are controlled with ESP's and would be expected
to retrofit acid gas controls under the guidelines. Economic
analyses concluded that no severe economic impacts are
expected to result from these guidelines.
Some of the commenters suggested that site-specific
situations be considered. The provisions of 40 CFR 60.24(c)
specify that State standards must generally be at least as
stringent as the guidelines. However, Section 60.24(f) allows
States to consider site-specific factors that may justify a
less stringent standard on a case-by-case basis. Such
specific analyses are better left to State and local agencies.
Since the characteristics of the model plants were selected to
represent the existing population of MWC's and retrofit
factors were included in the analysis, the guidelines will be
appropriate for the vast majority of plants and few
site-specific exceptions will be needed.
Comment: Other commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-1.9, IV-F-2.31,
IV-F-2.40, IV-D-186, IV-D-189, IV-D-238) also said the
2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) cutoff was not justified, but
believed all existing MWC plants, or all existing MWC plants
above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) should be controlled to the level
proposed for regional MWC plants (based on SD/FF). Two
commenters (IV-F-2.31, IV-D-178) claimed that some small
existing MWC plants (e.g., the 180 Mg/day [200 tpd] Jackson
County, Michigan, MWC) already employ the best demonstrated
technology proposed for regional MWC plants. One commenter
(IV-F-2.40) said it is inequitable to allow a large
1,800 Mg/day (2,000 tpd) MWC plant to emit twice as much PM as
a regional 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) MWC plant. Another
commenter (IV-D-238) said extending the more stringent rules
(proposed for regional plants) to large facilities would
7-50
-------
result in covering 90 percent of the MWC capacity in New York
as opposed to 33 percent, and would reduce emissions and
health risks. The commenter had estimated SD/FF retrofit
control costs for eleven facilities. He claimed that while
costs per Mg (ton) of MSW are higher for smaller plants they
are reasonable in light of the additional emission reductions
achieved.
Response; For the reasons described in the previous response,
the very large plant size category has been extended to cover
plants larger than 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). The control
levels for very large plants are based on SD/ESP control,
which achieves a high level of emission reduction at a lower
cost than SD/FF control. As at proposal, the guidelines for
MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) located at MWC
plants between 225 and 1,000 Mg/day (250 and 1,100 tpd) are
based on GCP and good acid gas and PM control (i.e., DSI/ESP
systems). For existing plants smaller than 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd) the higher costs of applying SD/ESP or SD/FF
control were determined to be unreasonably high relative to
the emission reduction achieved. Individual States are free
to develop more stringent standards for various size plants to
address State or local concerns.
In accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, guidelines
for MWC's smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) are being
developed as part of a separate rulemaking and will be
promulgated within 2 years.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-104, IV-D-199) suggested
regional MWC plants be defined as those with capacities at or
above 900 Mg/day (1,000 tpd) rather than 2,000 Mg/day
(2,200 tpd). He said there was little difference between the
two sizes in the economics of control technology, and the
900 Mg/day (1,000 tpd) size definition would result in greater
air quality and environmental benefits.
Another commenter (IV-D-186) said there are only
15 plants larger than 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd), but there are
an additional 45 plants with capacities between 900 and
2,000 Mg/day (1,000 and 2,200 tpd), burning more than
7-51
-------
54,000 Mg/day (60,000 tpd) of MSW. The commenter said
requiring levels based on SD/FF control for these plants would
achieve significant emission reductions.
Response; As described in the previous responses, the
definition of the very large (regional) plant size category
has been changed to include MWC plants larger than
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). There are about 45 plants in this
size category. After analysis of comparative performance and
costs of SD/ESP versus SD/FF control systems, it was decided
to base the emission guidelines for very large plants on
levels achievable with SD/ESP control systems. The analysis
results and rationale for the change are described in the
previous responses in this section.
Comment; Some commenters raised the question of how the
regional size category capacity would be determined. Two
(IV-F-2.32, IV-D-115) said that the MWC they represent
consists of three facilities, only two of which are permitted
by the State to operate at a time. The third unit is a spare
used to maintain plant capacity during unit outages for
maintenance. The commenters claimed that based on the
existing permit that allows them to operate only two of the
three units and burn 1,990 Mg/day (2,194 tpd), the plant is a
"large" MWC plant; however, based on the total installed
capacity, it is a "regional" MWC plant.
Another commenter (IV-F-2.41) said the same MWC plant
falls 5.8 Mg (6.4 tons) below the regional size category
definition with two units operating. This commenter and
another (IV-D-178) suggested the cutoff be changed or
clarified to ensure the facility is controlled with the most
stringent technology. Commenter IV-D-238 said it should be
clarified that the regional plant status is based on total
combustion design capacity (of all three combustors) rather
than on the amount the facility is currently burning and
favored SD/FF control for this plant.
One commenter (IV-D-239) said the rules should clearly
state that "aggregate capacity to combust" refers to the
maximum capacity the facility was built to combust and not the
7-52
-------
level at which the facility may chose or be forced to combust
at a reduced rate.
Another commenter (IV-D-78) said while EPA listed their
plant capacity as 2,751 Mg/day (3,032 tpd), the facility
usually operates at 1,800 to 2,000 Mg/day (2,000 to
2,200 tpd). The commenter said the maximum amount combusted
was 2,100 to 2,300 Mg/day (2,300 to 2,500 tpd). Furthermore,
he said that since their RDF has a high moisture content, the
heat content (kJ or Btu) was only equivalent to about
1,540 Mg/day (1,700 tpd). He urged EPA to include a
definition of capacity.
Another (IV-D-132) said that while the preamble lists
their MWC as a regional facility, operational tests and
experience dictate that the city's demonstrated maximum
charging capacity necessary to maintain plant operation is
1,800 to 2,000 Mg/day (2,000 to 2,200 tpd), so it should not
be considered a regional MWC plant. The commenter said
classifying their facility as a regional MWC plant would be
"arbitrary and capricious."
One commenter (IV-D-134) said the Federal Register notice
(54 FR 52219) indicates capacity is "the maximum demonstrated
charging rate for each MWC measured in Mg/day (tpd) of MSW
combusted," and asked if that meant a facility is classified
as small, large, or regional based on the highest such number
ever recorded at a facility. He also said permit conditions
might limit charging capacity to less than the threshold
capacity and asked how this situation would be handled.
Response; The aggregate design capacity of all existing
combustors at an MWC site will be used for purposes of
determining size categories. Megagrams per day (tpd) would be
calculated based on continuous operation at the maximum design
rate. Even if a permit specified a lower operating rate than
the design capacity, or if one unit was not in use, the total
installed design capacity would still determine the size
category. This is a more straightforward approach for
enforcement purposes, and would not result in changes in the
required level of control at an existing plant over time due
7-53
-------
to permit modifications or decisions to stop using or restart
existing units at the site.
Because of thermal considerations, MWC's are generally
limited by heat input capability rather than tonnage. Because
of differences in the heat content of MSW from site-to-site,
two MWC's of the same size (i.e., same heat input capacity)
could have different tonnage feed rates. To avoid this
possibility, a standard design heat rate of 10,500 kJ/kg
(4,500 Btu/lb) for MSW and 19,800 kJ/kg (8,500 Btu/lb) for
medical waste is to be used in calculating capacity. This
will provide a more consistent basis for calculating tonnages
of individual MWC's.
7.5.5.2 Size Category Distinction Between Small and
Large Municipal Waste Combustors.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-1.4, IV-F-2.4, IV-F-2.8,
IV-D-159, IV-D-222) supported the distinction between small
and large existing MWC plants and agreed that acid gas
controls were warranted for large but not small MWC plants as
defined by a 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) capacity breakpoint.
However, as with the NSPS, others (including IV-F-1.9,
IV-D-134, IV-D-155, IV-D-168, IV-D-178, IV-D-186, IV-D-275)
did not believe the 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) size category
distinction was justified and thought equivalent control
should be required for all sizes of MWC plants or for MWC's
above 45 Mg/day (50 tpd). (See comments in Section 3.5.5.1).
Two of these commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-186) said that
the BID'S showed that about half of the plants subject to the
guidelines are below 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). They, therefore,
concluded that acid gas, organic, and mercury emissions from
small plants are significant and acid gas control should be
required.
One commenter (IV-D-188) recommended keeping the
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) size category distinction, but said
plants smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) should be required to
meet emission levels based on DSI/ESP systems while emission
levels for those larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) should be
based on SD/FF.
7-54
-------
One commenter (IV-D-03) questioned the rationale for not
requiring acid gas control at small MWC plants. He said costs
per Mg (ton) were in the $22 to $58/Mg ($20 to $53/ton) range
only for the smallest model plants, but for those near the
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) breakpoint, Figure 1 of the preamble
shows lower costs of $6 to $39/Mg ($5 to $35/ton).
Furthermore, the EPA analysis predicted no severe impacts on
households or government units. The commenter also said a
State agency's analysis of a small MWC showed a possibility of
short- and long-term adverse health effects from HC1
emissions, and that this suggests there should be acid gas
guidelines for small MWC plants. Another commenter (IV-D-168)
suggested 50 percent HCl and S02 for small as well as large
existing MWC's.
Some commenters suggested small size category
distinctions other than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Some commenters
(IV-F-1.7, IV-D-137, IV-D-155) suggested that a capacity of
45 Mg/day (50 tpd) be used to define small plants and
suggested that plants larger than this be subject to control
levels based on DSI/ESP. They said there could be health and
welfare risks from a large number of plants below 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) capacity.
One commenter (IV-F-3.2) suggested EPA consider requiring
acid gas control for units above about 54 or 90 Mg/day (60 or
100 tpd) capacity. Another (IV-D-104) said that while there
are some economies of scale, the cost per Mg (ton) of applying
controls to a 90 Mg/day (100 tpd) MWC may not be much
different than a 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) MWC. He suggested an
economic analysis of control costs for these two sizes to
determine if the small versus large plant definition should be
changed to 90 Mg/day (100 tpd).
Another (IV-F-1.34) suggested that small plants be
defined as those less than 400 Mg/day (450 tpd), based on
cost-effectiveness considerations described in detail in
Section 3.5.5.1.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated affect only MWC's with MWC unit capacities
7-55
-------
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). This is consistent with
the CAA Amendments of 1990 (Section 129). Under Section 129,
guidelines for MWC units smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd)
will be promulgated within 2 years. The emission guidelines
for small plants may be different than those for large plants.
The provisions of 40 CFR 60.22(b)(5) state that "the
Administrator will specify different emission guidelines . . .
for different sizes, types, and classes of designated
facilities when costs of control ... or similar factors make
subcategorization appropriate." Section 129, which addresses
solid waste combustion, also allows the Administrator to
distinguish among sizes and classes of MWC's. The guidelines
proposed in the Federal Register on December 20, 1989
(54FR 52209) made a distinction between small and large plants
because: (1) control cost increases associated with the
various control technologies, on the bases of percent of
capital cost and dollars per Mg (ton) of MSW combusted are
greater for small plants, and (2) large plants generally have
larger emissions potential and in total account for over
90 percent of existing capacity. During the next two years,
the level of control for small MWC's will be reconsidered in
light of the CAA Amendments of 1990, and comments on the size
category distinction between small and large MWC plants will
be addressed as part of that rulemaking.
7.5.5.3 Lower Size Cutoff.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-60) argued that the guidelines
(and NSPS) should not cover MWC plants with total capacities
below 23 Mg/day (25 tpd) that operate intermittently, have no
heat recovery, or serve populations of less than 10,000.
Another (IV-D-276) whose town operates a 4 Mg/day (4 tpd) MWC
suggested a cutoff of 9 or 23 Mg/day (10 or 25 tpd). Another
commenter (IV-F-3.2) suggested a cutoff at a charging rate of
360 to 450 kg/hr (800 to 1,000 Ib/hr).
Two commenters (IV-D-93, IV-D-196) specifically
addressing only existing MWC's, said the guidelines should not
apply to MWC's below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) which is consistent
with the cutoff in Subpart E. The first commenter's town
7-56
-------
operates a 11 Mg/day (12 tpd) stoker-type, refractory wall MWC
with a wet ESP. it operates intermittently (3 to 5 days per
week, 6 hours per day in the summer and once a week in the
winter). The second commenter's town operated a 5 Mg/day
(5 tpd) facility which is hand-fed and is open 32 hours per
week. This commenter (IV-D-196) and commenter IV-D-276 said
there are 15 other small towns in New Hampshire operating very
small MWC's. The commenters said the guidelines would have
severe impacts or cause closure of such existing facilities.
Others suggested different lower size cutoff levels for
new and existing MWC's. More detailed comments and responses
are contained in Section 3.5.5.2 since the same comments were
made for new MWC's. *
Response: As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's of the
size discussed by the commenters will not be subject to these
guidelines. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, guidelines applicable to MWC units smaller than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. The
inclusion of a lower size cutoff will be considered as part of
that rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-130) representing a State agency
said existing MWC plants smaller than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd)
should be exempted from the PM and organic emissions
provisions of the guidelines and should continue to be
regulated under existing State rules. They said that such
facilities are too small to require PSD permitting and that
States should be allowed to decide what, if any, increase in
control is reasonable based on cost/benefit analyses and
estimates of the impacts on these facilities. In the
commenter's State, small MWC's account for only 2.6 percent of
total existing MWC capacity.
Response; The CAA Amendments of 1990 require that guidelines
for MWC units with capacities of 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) or less
be promulgated within 2 years and specifies that these
7-57
-------
guidelines should include PM and dioxin/furan emission levels.
7.5.6 General Comments on Emission Levels
comment• one commenter (IV-F-1.28) said the guidelines should
be as stringent as the NSPS, because equal health protection
should be provided regardless of whether the MWC is old or
new.
Response; For reasons described in other responses, new and
existing MWC's are being regulated under Section 111 of the
CAA rather than Section 112. As stated in the CAA,
Section 111 standards and guidelines are to reflect emission
levels achievable by demonstrated control technologies
considering costs of control and other factors. The Act
specifies that the standards can distinguish between sizes,
types, and classes of facilities within a source category.
Section 111 of the CAA does not indicate that any particular
health risk level should be achieved or that the same health
level be achieved by all sources, rather it requires
technology-based standards and guidelines.
As explained in the proposal preamble (54 FR 52209) and
other comment responses, there are differences in control
technology feasibility and cost for existing versus new
sources. Costs are higher for existing MWC plants because of
retrofit considerations. The emission reductions, costs, and
other impacts of a range of control alternatives for new and
existing MWC's were examined, and best demonstrated technology
(considering costs and other factors) were selected for each
category of MWC plants in accordance with Section 111 of the
CAA. The standards and guidelines are based on performance of
these technologies.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-135) said a sliding scale for
emissions as a function of MWC capacity, rather than step-
function regulations should be considered. This way, emission
rates could be roughly held constant regardless of capacity.
Response; The suggested approach would be unreasonably
complicated. As described in the previous response,
Section lll(d) emission guidelines are based on performance of
control technologies. The objective of Section 111 is not to
7-58
-------
equalize emissions from all sources, but to achieve maximum
control based on the best demonstrated technology considering
cost and other factors.
eoTOTngpf- Some commenters (IV-F-1.19, IV-D-134) stated that
all units at any given facility should have to meet the same
emission levels regardless of when they were constructed and
whether they are new or existing. He said circumvention might
be possible if different levels are allowed.
Response; Best demonstrated technology for existing units is
generally not the same as for new units. Having different
standards for new and existing units at the same location is
not likely to lead to circumvention since emission levels must
be measured at the stack for each combustor. New combustors
would not be routed to the same controls as existing
combustors. Measurement of emissions and operating parameters
for each new and existing combustor is feasible. Furthermore,
although control requirements are different for existing
versus new plants, because of retrofit costs for existing
plants, the total costs of combustion and control are similar
across new and existing facilities.
New capacity (i.e., capacity that commenced construction
after proposal) is not considered in determining the size
category of that part of the MWC plant that was previously
existing and subject to the guidelines. Such a procedure
could result in multiple retrofits of existing units each time
new capacity is added, which could be costly.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) said that all MWC's should
be required to installed MACT, because all sources result in
toxic deposition regardless of size and age. She said
existing MWC's that do not have MACT and are not able to meet
stringent emission standards should be closed within a
"reasonable" time, for example, 5 years.
Response; Section 111 of the CAA specifies that standards and
guidelines be reflective of the best demonstrated technology
considering cost and other factors. Section lll(d) further
states that remaining useful life and other factors be taken
7-59
-------
into consideration for existing sources. This section of the
CAA does not require MACT.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-1.9, IV-D-275) supported more
stringent guidelines for small MWC plants. One (IV-F-1.9)
said the proposed guidelines for small MWC plants would result
in little or no emission reduction. The other (IV-D-275) said
their 180 Mg/day (200 tpd) MWC is located in a populated
community and may cause health risks. They also said the
guidelines will undermine more stringent regulations proposed
for small MWC plants by States such as New York.
Response; The guidelines currently being promulgated apply
only to MWC units with capacities greater than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd). Under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990,
guidelines for smaller MWC's will be promulgated within
2 years. These national guidelines will not "undermine" State
programs because States are free to develop standards that are
more stringent than the guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.7) said that the proposed
guideline levels for regional MWC plants would be very hard to
meet even for new MWC plants. He said the guidelines for
regional MWC plants put local communities in the difficult
position of having to spend $30 or $40 million to retrofit
control equipment without a reasonable assurance that the
emission levels could be met.
Response; The emission levels and percent reductions for very
large (regional) plants are demonstrated as detailed in
Section 7.5.3. The costs were considered and determined to be
reasonable (see Section 7.6.4). Therefore, it is appropriate
to require these levels of control in the guidelines for very
large plants.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) said the guidelines should
include a procedure for determining whether severe economic
impacts occur in a municipality and provide specific
provisions for municipalities that would experience severe
impacts.
Response; Some of the factors considered in determining
whether economic impacts of the guidelines would be "severe"
7-60
-------
are described in Chapter ll.o of the BID, "Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Air Pollutant Emission Standards and Guidelines
for Municipal Waste Combustors."
The provisions of 40 CFR 60.24(f) allow that "on a
case-by-case basis for particular designated facilities,
or classes of facilities, States may provide for the
application of less stringent emission standards or
longer compliance schedules . . . provided that the state
demonstrates with respect to each such facility (or class
of facilities):
(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting
from plant age, location, or basic process
design;
(2) Physical impossibility of installing
necessary control equipment; or
(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or
class of facilities) that make application
of a less stringent standard or final
compliance time significantly more
reasonable."
No rigid procedure has been provided for making these
determinations, because the important factors to consider are
likely to be different in each specific situation. The
determinations are to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-184) said the
guidelines should be flexible and allow for site-specific
exemptions or variances when the total cost of retrofit would
be prohibitive and facility shutdown would result in a
disposal method lower in the "Agenda for Action" hierarchy of
waste management alternatives (i.e., landfilling). They said
this type of approach is supported by the language of
Section lll(d) of the CAA, which says state plans can take
into account factors including remaining useful life of a
source. These commenters and Commenter IV-D-152 suggested
that a "top down" best available retrofit technology
evaluation approach could be applied to each site based on the
EPA-developed evaluation criteria. States would then
establish emission levels and compliance times as part of the
implementation plan required under Section lll(d). Similarly,
Commenters IV-D-115 and IV-D-287 said site-specific cost
i
7-61
-------
effectiveness analyses should be the basis of retrofits, and
that control levels that would result in shutdowns and
increased landfilling should not be required. Another
(IV-D-255) also argued for greater flexibility to consider
local factors.
Another commenter (IV-D-231) suggested the guidelines
establish acceptable emission ranges rather than exact levels
and allow States to consider site-specific environmental and
cost benefit analyses in selecting limits within these ranges.
Response; The provisions of 40 CFR 60.20 through 60.29
describe the procedures for adoption and submittal of State
plans for designated facilities. These provisions were
proposed in 1974 and promulgated in 1975 and established
procedures for implementing Section lll(d) of the CAA. Under
40 CFR 60.22(b), the Agency is directed to publish "an
emission guideline that reflects the application of the best
system of emission reduction (considering the cost of such
reduction) that has been adequately demonstrated for
designated facilities." The published guidelines for MWC
emissions fulfill this requirement.
Sections 60.23 and 60.24 describe the State plan and
standards-setting procedures that follows publication of
emission guidelines. Section 60.24(c) states that "emission
standards shall be no less stringent than the corresponding
emission guideline(s)."
However, as described in the previous response,
Section 60.24(f) does provide for case-by-case determinations
that State emission standards for particular sources should be
less stringent than the guidelines provided that the State
demonstrates that this is warranted due to unreasonable costs
or other factors. EPA is still assessing what effect the new
section 129(b)(2) of the CAA of 1990 may have on State
discretion.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.24) said cost was considered
too heavily in the selection of best demonstrated technology.
The commenter said if plants or industries that pollute wish
7-62
-------
to continue operating, they should pay the cost of controls
needed to protect public health.
Response; As noted in other responses, the provisions of
Section 111 of the CAA explicitly state that costs should be
considered in setting emission standards and guidelines.
States can require more stringent controls if they believe it
to be necessary.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.12, IV-F-2.3) expressed
support for the combustion control standards and felt the
emission guidelines are attainable on a sustainable basis from
a technical, engineering, and operating aspect.
Response; The Agency acknowledges these commenters1 support.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.51 and IV-D-227) favored the
guidelines provision requiring a SD/FF for the Detroit MWC
because it contributes to health and environmental impacts not
only in the United States, but also in Canada. The commenter
said that EPA should ensure that emission standards adopted
meet the terms of Annex 15 on Air Toxic Emissions to the 1987
Amendment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Response; Under the guidelines, very large MWC's are required
to meet stringent levels of control for MWC acid gases, MWC
metals, and MWC organics. These are based on use of SO/ESP
control, and could also be met using SD/FF systems. A mercury
guideline is also specified. These controls will
substantially reduce emissions, and lead to environmental
improvement in the Great Lakes and other areas. However,
additional actions to address problems specific to the Great
Lakes or other local areas can be taken under regulatory
authorities other than Section 111 of the CAA. Section 111 is
designed to address nationwide problems.
7.6 IMPACTS OF MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS GUIDELINES
7.6.1 Environmental
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) said emission reduction
impacts of the guidelines were overestimated. He presented a
table showing that baseline emissions from the model plant
used in the BID were higher than emissions measured at his
plant.
7-63
-------
Response; A model plant approach was used to estimate
emission impacts. Baseline emission levels vary among plants.
The model plants were developed to be representative of
existing plants after review of data on characteristics of
MWC's and available emission data. The national emission
estimates are believed to be reasonable, however, any
particular plant may differ from the model.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) said EPA had not considered
the impact of increased ground level pollutant concentrations
caused by requiring decreased stack temperatures.
Response; The control required by the standards and
guidelines may in some cases reduce the outlet flue gas
temperature and, thus, the buoyancy of the outlet gases. If
emissions (kg/sec [lb/sec]) remained constant between the two
scenarios, the MWC with a higher gas outlet temperature would
produce a lower maximum concentration. However, the standards
are reducing the overall emissions by about 90 percent. It is
expected that any potential increase in maximum concentration
caused by decreasing the outlet temperature will be offset by
lowering the emissions level. In any event, the controls will
reduce the total aggregate exposure to MWC emissions. The
aggregate exposure, rather than the maximum concentration, was
the primary consideration in this rulemaking. If in some
circumstance the specific terrain and configuration of a MWC
is such that the application of a specific control technology
increases the maximum concentration, the State may require the
facility to reheat the flue gas or add additional control.
Commenti Some commenters (IV-D-111, IV-D-115, IV-D-152) said
there would be significant impacts on the amount of solid
waste as a result of the proposed guidelines.
Commenters IV-D-111 and IV-D-115 said more waste would be
landfilled during retrofit downtime and because of closures
and decisions not to build new MWC's. Commenter IV-D-111 also
said that add-on controls would increase the amount of fly ash
production. One commenter (IV-F-1.24) said that retrofitting
air pollution controls on existing MWC's would cause a greater
density of heavy metals in the fly ash.
7-64
-------
Furthermore, Commenters IV-D-111, IV-D-115, and IV-D-152
said that because of increased volumes of MSW landfilled,
increased air emissions from landfills would result.
Commenter IV-D-152 said that over a 3-year period while their
regional MWC is retrofitted with a SD/FF, an additional
820,000 Mg (900,000 tons) of waste would be landfilled. He
said this would result in 880 Mg (970 tons) of reactive
hydrocarbon emissions (which are an ozone precursor) and
24,440 Mg (26,940 tons) of methane emissions (which cause
global warming) over the period of 1992 to 2005. Another
commenter (IV-D-154) submitted a paper discussing emissions of
greenhouse gases from MWC's versus landfills, and concluding
that MWC's contribute much less to the greenhouse effect than
landfills on a per Mg (ton) of MSW basis.
Response; The impacts on the amount of solid waste were
considered in establishing the guidelines. The BID for the
guidelines (EPA-450/3-89-27e) includes information on changes
in ash quantity due to air pollution controls. Acid gas/PM
control systems increase the amount of fly ash, but for some
model plants, GCP will decrease the amount of ash. The costs
reported in the BID include costs for disposal of any
increased amount of ash. The increase in the amount of solid
waste landfilled during retrofit downtime was also considered.
The downtime costs include costs for landfill disposal of the
solid waste that would have been combusted had the combustor
been operating (minus the amount of ash that would have been
generated if the combustor were operating).
The economic analyses did not predict substantial closure
of MWC's or substantial substitution of landfills for MWC's.
The costs of control for MWC's are reasonable, and because of
scarcity of land and increased landfill control requirements,
landfill costs are also increasing.
Control of air emissions and leachate from landfills are
being investigated under separate regulatory actions. The
"Agenda for Action," which described the comprehensive Agency
strategy for dealing with solid waste management described a
number of initiatives. Control of air emissions from new and
7-65
-------
existing MWC's was one initiative that is being implemented by
the MWC NSPS and guidelines. The guidelines will result in
significant reductions in MWC emissions which include many
constituents that may impact public health and welfare,
including MWC organics, MWC acid gases, and MWC metals.
Separate initiatives to investigate further control of solid
waste landfills, ash disposal, and other parts of the "Agenda
for Action" strategy are underway.
comment Some commenters (IV-D-111, IV-D-115, IV-D-152,
IV-D-184, IV-D-266) said the guidelines will cause increased
water pollution due to increased use of landfills.
Commenter IV-D-152 said this is particularly a concern in
Florida where water tables are high. Commenter IV-D-266 said
rural counties would not be willing to pay an increase of
$13/Mg ($12/ton) for MSW disposal, and waste would be put in
landfills, ditches, and sloughs. Commenter IV-D-111 added
that mining and processing of limestone for acid gas control
will also cause water pollution.
Response; As stated above, the regulations are not expected
to result in substantial substitution of landfills for MWC's.
Ash disposal is being investigated for regulation in order to
protect water quality. Therefore, water quality impacts are
not expected to result from effects of this guideline on MSW
or ash disposal.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.47, IV-F-2.50) said that the
Detroit MWC accounts for between 10 and 20 percent of the
mercury entering the atmosphere in Michigan from the four top
sources of mercury in the State.
Others (IV-F-2.58, IV-D-234), while not citing emission
estimates, commented that fish in the Great Lakes are
contaminated from mercury and MWC's contribute to this
problem.
Other commenters (IV-D-11, IV-D-105, IV-D-183) presented
information to show that MWC's are a major source of mercury
emissions. One (IV-D-183) referred to a 1975 nationwide mass
balance done for EPA which showed that in 1973 MWC's emitted
40 Mg (44 tons) of mercury, compared to 45 Mg (50 tons) for
7-66
-------
coal-fired power plants, and exceeded emissions from sludge
incinerators, chloralkali plants, and oil- and gas-fired power
plants. He said 1983 studies showing MWC's created lower
mercury emissions 21 Mg/yr (23 tpy) were based on faulty
assumptions. Two commenters (IV-D-11, IV-D-105) noted that
the Swedish government has stated that MWC's contribute
55 percent of total mercury emissions to the environment. All
three said an EPA report states that in 1985 mercury emissions
from MWC's in New York City were 10,000 to 19,000 kg/yr
(22,000 to 42,000 Ib/yr) while mercury from all other sources
were 17,000 kg/yr (37,000 Ib/yr). Commenters IV-D-105,
IV-D-lll, IV-D-136, and IV-D-244 also cited reports indicating
that mercury contamination of Minnesota lakes and Florida
wetlands may be due in large part to airborne emissions from
MWC's. The commenters said stringent mercury control is
needed to reduce environmental risks from MWC's.
Response: The Agency agrees that MWC's are a major source of
mercury emissions. The Agency further agrees that mercury
control is needed at MWC facilities. As required by Section
129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990, mercury standards and
emission guidelines are to be promulgated within 12 months of
enactment of the CAA Amendments. Reducing mercury emissions
would result in a reduction in direct and indirect risks.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) said the governors of eight
States in the Great Lakes region cite persistent toxic
substances as the greatest environmental threat to the Great
Lakes Ecosystem and studies suggest atmospheric deposition is
to blame. She also referred to a 1986 brief by the Pollution
Probe Foundation of Toronto, Canada, saying that combustion
sources produce toxic fallout onto Ontario's orchards,
pastures, and food crops. The commenter was concerned that
dioxins/furans, PCB's, mercury, and lead from MWC's also*cause
contamination of Michigan's crops and fish. She, therefore,
argued for application of MACT to all MWC's. One commenter
(IV-F-2.26) said Ontario and Canadian environmental groups are
concerned that emissions of mercury and other toxics and acid
gases from the Detroit MWC are contaminating the Great Lakes
7-67
-------
and crops grown in Ontario, and therefore, they oppose the
MWC. The commenter said that even if a SD/FF were installed,
mercury would still be an environmental problem.
Response; The MWC emissions encompass a wide range of diverse
pollutants including those mentioned by one of the commenters.
The standards and guidelines being promulgated today address
MWC metals, MWC organics, and MWC acid gases. The control
technologies required by the standards and guidelines have
broad benefits that address most of the concerns raised by the
commenters. For example, an overall reduction in emissions
will reduce pollutant deposition on surrounding areas,
including bodies of water. The second commenter is correct
that SD/FF in some cases will not adequately reduce mercury
emissions. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, mercury emission standards and guidelines for MWC's
will be promulgated within 12 months.
7.6.2 Health and Risk Assessment
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.32, IV-D-257) stated that
they failed to find any basis in the EPA's docket for
establishing HC1 as the basis for health or welfare based
emission guidelines. The 3 pg/Tai3 (1 gr/million ft3) used as a
welfare effects level was a preliminary finding from a study
that has never been completed or documented.
Response; The HCl was not the primary basis for establishing
health or welfare-based emission guidelines for MWC's. The
MWC's emit large quantities of organics and metals that are
carcinogenic as well as other acid gases (e.g., SC>2) .
Emissions of these other substances, in addition to HCl,
warrant control of MWC's under Section 111 of the CAA. The
commenter is correct that the 3 Mg/m3 (1 gr/million ft3) level
was a preliminary finding, but it remains the best data
*
available.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.32) said that the guidelines
for HCl are inequitable because regional MWC's are required to
have more stringent acid gas controls that large MWC's. The
commenter cited modeling data from the Report to Congress
7-68
-------
which showed modeled levels of HC1 and dioxins/furans to be
higher at large MWC's than regional MWC's.
Response: The modeling data for HC1 and dioxins/furans as
reported in the Report to Congress was not a key factor in
determining the level of the Section 111 standards and
guidelines. These data did serve as part of the basis for the
Administrator's decision to regulate MWC's as sources of air
pollution which may contribute to the endangerment of public
health or welfare. The emission guidelines selected for each
of the three size categories of MWC's are not ineguitable
because the guidelines represent best demonstrated technology
considering cost and other factors. In addition, the control
technologies identified as best demonstrated technology have
been demonstrated at MWC's in the United states. Although
cost and economic impacts will vary between facilities, no
severe cost and economic impacts are expected to result from
the guidelines.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-D-112, IV-D-113, IV-D-195) said
baseline health risks from dioxins from MWC's are very low
relative to other sources. They also said that the standards
and guidelines should not be set at levels so stringent as to
cause decreased use of MWC's and an increase in trucking of
MSW long distances to remote landfills. These commenters and
others (IV-D-64, IV-D-184) argued that the increased health
risks from truck transport of MSW (from both exhaust and
traffic accidents) would be greater than the risks of
combusting the MSW.
Response: The selection of best demonstrated control
technology for emissions from MWC's covered by the guidelines
considered cost and economic impacts as well as other factors
as specified in Section 111 of the CAA. As described in the
preamble of the proposed standards and the BID
(EPA-450/3-89-005), no severe adverse cost or economic impacts
were identified for the control technologies selected. In
addition, the regulations are not expected to significantly
affect the proportion of MSW that is combusted versus
landfilled.
7-69
-------
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-2.6, IV-F-2.40, IV-D-2.47,
IV-D-19) were concerned with the health and environmental
risks of mercury emissions that may be deposited in surface
waters and bioaccumulate in fish. The commenters urged EPA to
adopt stringent mercury controls especially given that a
particular MWC was exceeding the permit limit set by the State
which is based on TLV's.
Response: In the absence of Federal standards, many States
have developed their own emission limits for many toxic air
pollutants. One of the effects of the Agency's control
technology-based standards is to standardize control
requirements such that MWC's nationwide are required to use
best demonstrated technology as defined by the standards and
guidelines. The Federal standards supersede State emission
limits that are based on TLV's. In cases where there are air
quality problems of a localized nature, the States are free,
under Section 116 of the CAA, to require more extensive
controls. However, a State standard may not be less stringent
than the Federal standard. As described in other responses, a
mercury guideline is to be promulgated within 12 months of
enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-24) said MWC's in
their communities had been closed because of health hazards.
They wanted the MWC's to remain closed.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenters that
uncontrolled or poorly controlled combustion of MSW releases
potentially harmful pollutants into the air. Due to their
nature and magnitude, emissions from MWC's can pose health
risks to the public if not well controlled. The intent of the
standards and guidelines is to limit air emissions from all
MWC's by requiring application of best demonstrated technology
or the equivalent. If the MWC's referred to by the commenters
were to reopen, they would be subject to the guidelines
proposed by the Agency under Section lll(d) for existing MWC
facilities. Furthermore, under Section 116 of the CAA, States
are free to require more extensive controls in order to
7-70
-------
address concerns which are specific to a localized air quality
situation.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.10 and IV-D-13) said that
because Detroit has a high cancer rate an MWC should not be
allowed in such an area and the existing MWC should be
shutdown.
Response; Background risk levels are not considered in
developing NSPS in accordance with Section 111 of the CAA. In
1987, the Administrator determined that MWC's would be
regulated under Sections lll(b) and lll(d) rather than
Section 112 partly because the development of emissions
guidelines under Section lll(d) would permit a more thorough
evaluation of existing MWC's at the State level than would be
feasible under a Federal rulemaking. The Section 111
standards are technology-based, however, States may adopt more
stringent standards considering local existing pollution
levels or other site-specific factors.
7.6.3 Energy
No comments on energy impacts of the proposed guidelines
were received. Section 3.6.3 presents energy comments related
to the NSPS.
7.6.4 Cost and Economic
Commentt Some commenters believed the cost of control was
underestimated. One commenter (IV-F-1.11 and IV-D-158) who
owns and operates a 540,000 Mg/yr (600,000 tpy) (roughly
1,800 Mg/day [2,000 tpd] capacity) MWC, said that EPA
estimated retrofit costs for an MWC of their size to be $4 to
$15/Mg ($4 to $14/ton) of MSW. However, a detailed
engineering study for their MWC estimated $35.80/Mg
($32.'so/ton) for retrofit of a SD/FF. He said costs could be
$35 to $45 million. This cost included pilot plant trials of
•
the system prior to full scale design and installation. He
thought individual pilot trials at each plant would be
necessary because standard "packaged" control processes may
not be applicable to existing facilities. The commenter said
space constraints will cause high retrofit costs for his plant
and many other existing MWC's. The commenter also said
7-71
-------
downtime costs and lost revenues were a large portion of the
total cost. He estimated these at $65,000 per day per unit.
He also mentioned that prolonged downtime may cause
contractual problems.
One commenter (IV-F-1.7) said retrofitting their
2,800 Mg/day (3,100 tpd) MWC to attempt compliance with the
proposed guidelines for regional MWC's would cost $30 to
$40 million.
Others (IV-D-78, IV-D-132) said retrofit of their
regional plant with a SD/FF would cost $30 to $40 million, and
Commenter IV-D-78 added that the costs to operate the SD/FF
system will be about $1 million per year. The commenter
(IV-D-78) said the 1-month retrofit downtime in the BID'S is
too short, leading to underestimation of costs and economic
impacts. This commenter also said EPA did not include
additional costs of purchased power during retrofit downtime.
He also said costs for loss of landfill life for MWC retrofit
downtime should be included. The other commenter (IV-D-132)
said the remaining landfill life would be decreased from
9 years to about 2 years. The first commenter (IV-D-78) said
the plant already has upgraded ESP efficiency, and the
requirements for SD/FF would place a burden on the city.
Another commenter (IV-D-184) also raised loss of landfill life
as a cost issue.
Another commenter (IV-D-111) said a 1-month downtime was
unrealistically short for his plant, so costs for diversion of
waste to landfills and lost electrical revenues were
underestimated.
Another commenter (IV-F-2.5) said that a retrofit of
their existing regional MWC including replacement of the ESP's
with SD/FF systems would entail a capital cost of $100 million
and a 20-year operational cost of an additional $100 million.
The commenter said this cost burden would force the community
to abandon the MWC. She and another commenter (IV-D-115) said
EPA has not shown that large communities could bear the cost
and economic impacts of SD/FF control any better than smaller
communities.
7-72
-------
One commenter (IV-D-115) said physical space limitations
and the absence of authority to condemn adjacent land may
preclude application of SD/FF or make it prohibitively
expensive.
Some commenters (IV-F-2.15, IV-D-164) said the EPA's
average cost estimate of $ll/Mg ($10/ton) of MSW was extremely
low, and that true costs will be several times that figure.
Another commenter (IV-D-152) said retrofitting their
2,860 Mg/day (3,150 tpd) regional MWC with a SD/FF would cost
$214 million and raise the tipping fee by about $29.60/Mg
($26.85/ton) of MSW, a level which the preamble indicated was
unreasonable. These three commenters and Commenters IV-D-115
and IV-D-184 said retrofit of acid gas control will be costly
in order to solve technical problems including increased
particulate loading and space limitations that could lead to
inefficient configuration of control technologies. Second,
facilities undergoing retrofit will not be able to meet
previous power commitments, and energy revenues will be lost.
Commenters IV-D-115, IV-D-152, IV-D-164, and IV-D-184 also
said municipalities with put-or-pay contracts could end up
owing large amounts of money and that operating contracts may
need to be renegotiated resulting in costs. Third,
Commenters IV-D-115 and IV-D-152 said there would be costs
associated with obtaining or modifying vendor guarantees.
Fourth, Commenters IV-F-2.15, IV-D-164, and IV-D-184 said
retrofit downtime could be 5 to 8 years, so downtime costs
have been underestimated. During this time, landfill fees and
long-distance hauling costs would have to be paid.
Commenter IV-D-152 said retrofit of their MWC would require a
1-year downtime for each of three combustors at the plant, or
a total of 3 years. During this time, 810,000 additional Mg
(900,000 tons) of MSW would have to be landfilled, shortening
landfill life by 5 years. Another said the 2-month downtime
EPA cited for the regional mass burn model MWC is too short,
and downtime could be 6 months to 1 year. Finally,
Commenters IV-D-115, IV-D-164 and IV-D-184 said that depending
on the remaining useful life of an MWC, retrofit costs may be
7-73
-------
amortized over short time periods causing sharp increases in
disposal costs.
Response; The cost estimates developed prior to proposal are
representative for existing plants. The cost estimates for
17 model plants chosen to represent different sizes, types,
and ages of existing facilities are contained in the BID,
"Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for
Proposed Guidelines for Existing Facilities"
(EPA-450/3-89-27e), and the cost procedures are described in
the BID, "Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: Cost Procedures" (EPA-450/3-89-27a).
The capital costs of $30 to $40 million cited by some of
the commenters for GCP and SD/FF retrofit of a regional MWC
plant are consistent with the capital costs estimated by the
Agency for model plants with capacities in the range of
1,800 Mg/day (2,000 tpd) or more. As shown in the BID, total
annualized capital, operating, and maintenance costs for GCP
and SD/FF control of such plants would typically be about
$13/Mg ($12/ton) of MSW, but were $20/Mg ($18/ton) for one of
the 1,800 Mg/day (2,000 tpd) model plants.
Costs for SD/ESP retrofit was estimated after proposal
and found to be about $9/Mg ($8/ton) of MSW for a model plant
larger than 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) and about $12/Mg
($ll/ton) for a 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) model plant. Costs
for DSI/ESP retrofit are lower.
The cost estimates considered most of the factors
mentioned by these commenters. Capital costs of controls were
developed from information provided by vendors for control
equipment designed to be applicable to MWC's. Installation
costs were included. Retrofit factors were used to account
for increased costs due to site access constraints and
congestion. For most models a factor of 1.25 was used,
representing a "medium" difficulty case. For some (e.g.,
retrofit of SD/FF on the existing large RDF model plant) a
factor of 1.42 was used to represent very limited space and
access. "Scope adder" costs for modifying ducts and stacks,
7-74
-------
demolition, and replacement were also included where
appropriate.
Downtime was estimated based on characteristics of each
model plant and the difficulty of retrofitting each control
option. Downtime costs included costs for lost energy
revenues as well as costs for landfill disposal of MSW that
would have been combusted had the combustor been operating.
The performance of control technologies that formed the basis
of the guidelines are demonstrated, as explained in the
responses in Section 7.5. Therefore, increased costs for
obtaining vendor guarantees are not likely to be a major
concern. Most contracts have clauses which would release
parties from "put or pay" and other clauses in the case of an
outside factor such as a new Federal regulation.
As described in Section 7.5.5, the guidelines have been
changed since proposal and are based on SD/ESP rather than
SD/FF control for very large MWC plants (i.e., those larger
than 1,000 Mg/day [1,100 tpd] capacity).
The cost and economic impacts of the guidelines were
considered and determined to be reasonable. Emission
guidelines have been established based on the performance of
the best demonstrated technologies considering costs. The
provisions of 40 CFR 60.24(c) specify that State "emission
standards shall be no less stringent than the corresponding
emission guideline(s)," except as provided in
Section 60.24(f).
Paragraph (f) of 40 CFR 60.24 establishes a procedure for
States to address plants with exceptional site-specific
concerns such as a very short remaining life. It is not
expected that this provision will be used much because
representative retrofit costs of control were considered in
establishing the guidelines. However, the procedure is
available for unusual cases. EPA is still assess what affect
the new section 129(b)(2) of the CAA of 1990 may have on this
rule. The wording of 40 CFR 60.24(f) is as follows:
"on a case-by-case basis for particular designated
facilities, or classes of facilities, States may
7-75
-------
provide for the application of less stringent
emission standards or longer compliance schedules
than those otherwise required by paragraph (c) of
this section, provided that the State demonstrates
with respect to each such facility (or class of
facilities):
(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting
from plant age, location, or basic
process design;
(2) Physical impossibility of installing
necessary control equipment; or
(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or
class of facilities) that make application
of a less stringent standard or final
compliance time significantly more
reasonable."
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-184) said a model plant analysis
cannot adequately predict costs for specific existing MWC's
and should not be used to set emission level guidelines, but
only to establish procedures and acceptable retrofit cost
ranges.
Response; As described in the previous response, the model
plants were developed to be representative of the different
sizes and types of combustors within the existing MWC
population, and costs of control are therefore representative
of costs for existing MWC's. While the models do not
correspond exactly to particular MWC's, the analyses of model
plant costs can be used to determine that costs of the
guidelines are not unreasonable. Since control technology
performance is demonstrated, and cost and other impacts are
not unreasonable, emission guidelines have been established in
accordance with Section lll(d) and the provisions of
40 CFR 60.22.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-164) said even regional
facilities with SD/FF control may have to modify their systems
to achieve the stringent acid gas levels proposed. For
example, they may need to change reagents, modify the reagent
delivery system, increase the stoichiometric ratio, add
bulking agents, modify existing baghouses, and oversize fans.
7-76
-------
The commenter said these modifications could be costly and are
not well demonstrated. Also, increasing stoichiometric ratios
would increase ash disposal costs.
Response: The final guidelines for regional plants are based
on SD/ESP or equivalent control. They specify 70 percent
reduction of SO2 (24-hour geometric mean) and 90 percent
reduction of HC1. These emission levels would be achievable
by most existing SD/FF systems without any modifications, and
can also be met by SD/ESP systems.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-137) submitted a table showing
his estimate of costs for retrofitting a SD/FF on a mass burn
MWC with three 680 Mg/day (750 tpd) units. His annualized
cost estimate was $17 million or $26.80/Mg ($24.30/ton)
compared to the EPA's estimate of about $8 million or
$16.60/Mg ($15.10/ton) for this model. Major differences that
the commenter included were: (1) a new stack; (2) higher
allowances for site-specific contingencies, and a 10-month
downtime for each boiler instead of a 2-month downtime due to
site constraints that preclude retrofit construction alongside
the existing equipment while the boiler remains in operation;
(3) a reverse air type baghouse with an air-to-cloth ratio of
2.5:1 rather than a pulse jet with a ratio of 4:1; and
(4) different lime consumption rates and operating and
maintenance labor costs. Also, the commenter used 1990 rather
than 1987 dollars. The commenter stated that his costs did
not include lost electrical revenues and lost tipping fees
during downtime, which would add to the costs but are highly
site-specific.
The commenter also provided annualized costs for a SD/ESP
designed to achieve 50 percent S02 control and said annualized
costs are $15 million, or $23.60/Mg ($21.40/ton) of MSW, which
is $2 million less than their estimated annual SD/FF costs.
Response; As discussed above, the Agency reevaluated the cost
of installing SD/ESP and SD/FF systems on existing MWC's and
concluded that requiring emission reductions consistent with
those achievable by SD/ESP systems was reasonable. The cost
estimates developed by the Agency were based on data supplied
7-77
-------
by equipment vendors and accepted costing procedures. The
Agency acknowledges that costs for compliance at a specific
MWC may be different due to local site conditions and economic
assumptions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-115) submitted a preliminary
cost estimate for four retrofit options for their ESP-
controlled regional RDF-fired plant. The capital costs for
SD/FF were estimated to range from $69 to 98 million with
annual operating costs of $2.2 to 3 million per year. Capital
costs of SD/ESP were $61 to 79 million with annual costs of
$2.1 million per year. An ESP/wet scrubber alternative was
estimated to have lower capital costs ($46 million) but higher
annual operating costs ($2.2 to 4.2 million per year). The
commenter said costs for the SD/FF retrofit would include
demolishing the current ESP, removing the existing air
preheater, which is downstream of the ESP and replacing it
with a new tubular air preheater, structural changes
(foundations, buildings, etc.), costs for SD/FF purchase,
installation, operation and maintenance, additional duct work,
and fan motors.
The commenter provided a second estimate of costs for
their facility (a regional RDF) by scaling up the EPA's costs
for control of the model large (1,800 Mg/day [2,000 tpd]) RDF.
The commenter said their own estimates of capital costs were
higher than the EPA's, but their estimates of downtime,
operating, and maintenance costs were somewhat lower than the
EPA's. On a cost per Mg (ton) of MSW basis, this facility's
costs would be higher than estimated in the BID for the large
RDF model plants because they would need to retrofit controls
on three combustors (each about 1,000 Mg/day [1,100 tpd]), but
their permit only allows operation of two combustors at one
time, so the volume of MSW burned is below 2,000 Mg/day
(2,200 tpd).
The commenter claimed that their preliminary costs
estimates, and the EPA's estimates (in the BID [EPA-450/3-89-
27e]) did not include estimates for additional landfill
volume, additional water and electrical demand, or lost
7-78
-------
revenue due to inhibited or curtailed operation of the
facility during retrofit activities.
The commenter concluded that EPA has underestimated the
cost of SD/FF retrofit for regional MWC's and suggested they
analyze and consider other options including SD/ESP and
ESP/wet scrubber systems.
Response: The costs of waste disposal, electricity, water,
and lost revenues were included in the Agency's analysis. As
discussed above, additional analysis of acid gas control
options (including DSI/ESP, SD/ESP, and SD/FF) was conducted
after proposal. The use of wet scrubbing was considered, but
not costed. However, MWC owners or operators may use any
technology, including ESP/wet scrubber systems, if they can
meet all applicable emission levels and operating parameter
guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-115) said the BID for the
guidelines (EPA-450/3-89-27e) did not list the Detroit or
Honolulu facilities in the list of existing RDF-fired
facilities and thus did not examine retrofit of these two
regional facilities.
Response: Chapter 10.0 of the BID (EPA-450/3-89-27e) notes
that in addition to the 160 plants currently in operation (as
of the end of calendar year 1988 when information gathering
was completed), there are many plants that will start-up or
commence construction in 1989, and will therefore be subject
to the guidelines. The BID says that a list of these plants
and the model plants (in the BID) to which they are assigned
is provided in a separate memo. This memorandum, titled
"Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile - Facilities
Subject to Section lll(d) Guidelines" is in Docket No. A-89-08
(Item No. II-A-065). Both the Detroit and Honolulu plants are
included in this memorandum, and were considered in estimating
impacts of the guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-137) said that DSI systems
require more lime than SD/ESP or SD/FF systems to achieve
50 percent SO2 control. He said the relative ratios of lime
consumption for the three technologies are 7:2:1. He
7-79
-------
commented that the use of DSI will strain existing ESP's
designed for a 180 mg/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf) PM level, and that
an ESP upgrade without flue gas cooling may not be sufficient
to achieve a level of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). He contended
additional ESP fields or retrofit of a new ESP may be
required.
Response: The sorbent injection rate for any acid gas control
technology is dependent on several operating variables,
primary among which are the desired SO2 removal efficiency and
the flue gas temperature. In selecting the required removal
efficiency for SD/FF, SD/ESP, and DSI technologies, the
achievable SC>2 reduction level and the sorbent consumption
rate were both considered. To achieve 80 percent control of
SC>2 emissions with a SD/FF system, the required stoichiometric
sorbent feed rate (moles of calcium per mole of acid gas) is
roughly 2.5. To achieve 50 percent control of SO2 emissions
with a DSI system will require a stoichiometric sorbent feed
rate of roughly 2.0. These two stoichiometric ratios are
essentially equal.
To achieve these SC>2 removal efficiencies at these
sorbent feed rates, flue gas cooling to roughly 150°C to 180°C
(300°F to 350°F) will be needed. Typical operating
temperatures for ESP's located at most existing MWC's are 200
to 320°C (400 to 600°F). Addition of sorbent to the flue gas
to reduce acid gas emissions will increase the particulate
load to the ESP. However, by cooling the flue gas the volume
of flue gas will decrease. Data reviewed by the Agency
indicate that under these conditions (i.e., sorbent addition
and flue gas cooling), many existing ESP's can be maintained
at PM emission rates similar to those they originally had.
For ESP's installed on modular starved-air MWC's with a design
PM emission rate of 180 mg/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf), the Agency
recognizes that achievement of a 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) PM
emission rate may require installation of additional ESP plate
area or a new ESP.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-184) said there are apparent
errors or inconsistencies in the BID on costs. Specifically,
7-80
-------
he said the lime feed rate equation on page 2.3-2 of the "Cost
Procedures" BID would yield a lime feed rate of 77,600 kg/hr
(171,000 Ib/hr) per unit for a large mass burn plant, whereas
the BID (page 5-22) used 400 kg/hr (880 Ib/hr), a more
reasonable rate. He also said some equations in the cost
procedure BID do not have dimensions allowing a dimensional
analysis to verify equations.
The commenter asked why the cost procedures BID said that
the duct sorbent injection system costed is expected to
achieve 40 percent S(>2 and 80 percent HC1 control, whereas the
guidelines specify 50 percent control of SC>2 and HC1.
Another commenter (IV-D-137) said the BID'S do not
present an analysis of the impacts of requiring a 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf) PM level for small MWC's, which is the level
proposed.
Response; The equation on page 2.3-2 of the cost procedures
BID (EPA-450/3-89-27a) was checked using 0.12 percent sulfur
and 0.32 chlorine in the waste (corresponding to 200 ppm SC>2
and 500 ppm HC1 at 100 percent conversion of sulfur and
chlorine in the waste) and found to be accurate.
Compliance test data from both DSI/FF and DSI/ESP systems
were reviewed. The cost procedures BID (EPA-450/3-89-27a)
assumed 40 percent 802 control as the "reference" case.
However, emissions data from actual facilities reported in the
post-combustion technology performance BID (EPA-450/3-89-27C)
demonstrates that over 50 percent S(>2 and HC1 control is
consistently achievable with commercial DSI systems (using
either furnace or duct sorbent injection systems).
In response to commenter IV-D-137, the guidelines
currently being promulgated apply only to MWC units with
capacities greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Under
Section 129 of the CAA, guidelines for small MWC's, including
PM emission levels, are to be developed and promulgated within
2 years.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-130) said one regional plant in
their State has already upgraded their ESP at a cost of
$2 million and to have to replace it with a SD/FF would be
7-81
-------
very burdensome. They also said it would require longer
downtime (compared to DSI retrofit) causing more waste to be
landfilled and increasing costs.
Response; The guidelines have been changed since proposal,
and the final emission guidelines are achievable with SD/ESP
control systems. This allows facilities with efficient ESP's
to retrofit a SD and make use of the existing ESP rather than
replacing it.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-184) said the cost and economic
analysis does not justify the regional size category
distinction because only one model plant above that size was
included in the model plant study and because costs depend
more on the size and number of individual combustors at a
plant than on total plant size. He said a more detailed
analysis is needed.
Response: As described in Section 7.5.5, an analysis of
control performance and cost of SD/ESP systems was done after
proposal to determine what level of control was appropriate
for very large (regional) MWC's, and what the size category
breakpoint should be. It included model plants from 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd) to 2,050 Mg/day (2,250 tpd). Costs and emission
reductions for SD/FF and DSI/ESP were examined over the same
range. The models had two or three combustors per plant,
which is typical.
The analysis showed that control cost per Mg (ton) of MSW
combusted and incremental cost effectiveness per Mg (ton) of
acid gas control are similar for plants with capacities above
about 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd), but costs increased more
rapidly for plants below that size. For example, cost of
SD/ESP control for model plants of 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) to
2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) were in the range of $9 to $12/Mg ($8
to $ll/ton) of MSW, but for model plants from 180 to
800 Mg/day (200 to 900 tpd), costs were $19 to $30/Mg ($17 to
$27/ton) of MSW. The same trend occurs for the other acid gas
control technologies. The final guidelines define very large
MWC plants as those with capacities above 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd), and the emission levels for very large plants are
7-82
-------
achievable with SD/ESP control systems. The emission levels
included in the final guidelines are summarized in responses
in Section 7.5.5.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-143) who operates a large
existing MWC said they had recently spent over $5 million in
pollution control equipment, but the guidelines may require
them to replace this equipment. They said the cost of
scrapping nearly new control equipment should be considered as
part of the cost of the guidelines and flexibility should be
allowed in such cases.
Response; The guidelines for large plants are achievable
using DSI/ESP or DSI/FF (or any other technology that can meet
the emission guidelines). It is expected that most large
plants can make use of some of their existing equipment (e.g.,
the ESP) although in some cases it would need to be upgraded.
The cost of adding acid gas control and also of modifying
existing control equipment were estimated in the BID for the
guidelines (EPA-450/3-89-27e), and costs of the guidelines are
reasonable. However, as mentioned in the first response in
the section, the provisions of 40 CFR 60.24(f) establish
procedures for States to consider unique factors on a
case-by-case basis in developing State standards based on
these guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-193) said the proposed
guidelines will increase tipping fees in their communities by
$20 to $22/Mg ($18 to $20/ton). He argued against more
stringent standards (based on SD/FF) because this would cause
much greater fee increases of about $44/Mg ($40/ton) of MSW.
Response: The final guidelines increase costs for disposal of
wastes by an average of $12/Mg ($ll/ton) of MSW, although this
will vary for individual communities depending on
site-specific circumstances. The final emission guidelines
are based on levels of control achievable DSI/ESP systems for
large plants and SD/ESP systems for very large plants. They
would not require installation of more expensive SD/FF
systems.
7-83
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-132) said his city would not be
able to raise financing required to retrofit its regional MWC
with a SD/FF within the compliance time required by the
regulation. He said that, unlike private industry, local
governments are not able to raise fees. Also, a recent State
law created a regional solid waste authority with
responsibility to regulate operation of the city's MWC.
Therefore, future rate increases or financing would involve a
region-wide plan adopted by this separate administrative
entity and would not be at the discretion of the city.
Another commenter (IV-D-70) said his community's MWC
plant has a steam contract which expires in 1994. In
addition, the community will have paid off its bonds by 1994.
He said it would be financially disastrous if the guidelines
require the community to retrofit prior to 1994, and suggested
greater flexibility in compliance times.
Response; Under certain conditions, States may provide for
the application of a less stringent standard or longer
compliance schedules for existing MWC's, as indicated in
40 CFR 60.24(f). The basis for this allowance must be
demonstrated case-by-case for particular facilities or classes
of facilities. The state must demonstrate at least one of the
three following conditions:
(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting from
plant age, location, or basic process design.
(2) Physical impossibility of installing necessary
control equipment.
(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or
class of facilities) that make application
of a less stringent standard or final
compliance time significantly more
reasonable.
Owners or operators of MWC facilities that can demonstrate
difficulty in meeting compliance schedules due to
institutional factors may be eligible for special
consideration under this section of the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA is still assessing the affect the new
section 129(b)(2) of the CAA of 1990 may have on this rule.
7-84
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-60) said the cost analyses for
the proposed guidelines do not adequately address MWC's with
capacities below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) . The commenter said her
solid waste planning district includes two 5 Mg/day (5 tpd)
MWC's and one 3 Mg/day (3 tpd) MWC, but EPA did not estimate
control costs for this size MWC. The MWC's currently have no
controls and no heat recovery. The commenter believes the
cost for control of these very small MWC's would be
unreasonable, and that because of their small size there would
be little gain in emission reductions.
Another commenter (IV-D-22), who operates two small MWC's
with a capacity of 6 Mg/day (7 tpd) said the requirements for
flue gas cooling, lower PM emissions, testing, and continuous
monitoring would probably be costly enough to put them out of
business.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's of the
size discussed by the commenters will not be subject to these
guidelines. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, guidelines applicable to MWC units smaller than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. The
inclusion of a lower size cutoff will be considered as part of
that rulemaking.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-93) said the costs for retrofit
of PM control, CEM equipment, testing, and reporting could
cause their 11 Mg/day (12 tpd) facility to close. If it
closed, the commenter said that since the village is located
on a strip of barrier beach, they would have to transport
waste by ship or by driving on the strip of beach to a
landfill on the mainland; either alternative would have
negative environmental impacts as well as cost and economic
impacts.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's of the
size discussed by the commenters will not be subject to these
7-85
-------
guidelines. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, guidelines applicable to MWC units smaller than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. The
inclusion of a lower size cutoff will be considered as part of
that rulemaking.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-60, IV-D-242) thought the
exclusion of government units with less than 10,000 population
was a deficiency in the economic analysis. Commenter IV-D-60
said there are 15 small MWC's in New Hampshire serving
31 small towns. She said costs to these small governments
could be severe. As a rough example, she said EPA estimated
capital costs for one of the smaller model plants to be
$1.1 million. She said if this capital cost was incurred by
one of the small towns in New Hampshire with a population of
only 1,300 people, the cost per household could be $846.
Another commenter (IV-D-196) said the guidelines would likely
force these 15 small MWC's to close and the towns would resort
to landfilling. Commenter IV-D-242 said that while there are
many very small MWC's in Alaska, there are only 4 cities with
populations over 10,000, so the lack of analysis for smaller
cities is a serious concern.
Response; As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's of the
size discussed by the commenters will not be subject to these
guidelines. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, guidelines applicable to MWC units smaller than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. The
inclusion of a lower size cutoff will be considered as part of
that rulemaking.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-2.3) said the increased costs of
control will put a significant economic burden on small
communities. He said that while EPA claims the increased cost
of $14/Mg ($13/ton) of MSW is a 20-percent increase on a
national basis, for his community it would be a 50-percent
increase over current operating costs. Another (IV-D-113)
7-86
-------
said it would represent a 50-percent increase for many
communities.
Response; The percentage increase in costs is a function of
the plant's estimated baseline cost per Mg (ton). For a given
compliance cost, MWC's with relatively low baseline costs will
experience a greater percent increase due to the regulation
than MWC's with relatively high baseline costs. For example,
for the -MWC plant with baseline costs of about $65/Mg
($59/ton), an additional $13/Mg ($12/ton) compliance cost
represents a 20-percent increase in costs. Likewise, for the
plant with baseline costs of $26/Mg ($24/ton), the $13/Mg
($12/ton) compliance cost represents a 50-percent increase in
costs. Communities incurring a high percentage increase over
the baseline to meet the requirements of the regulation will
not necessarily suffer more severe absolute impacts than those
incurring lower percent increases. A higher percentage
increase may merely indicate lower baseline costs for these
communities.
In addition, the baseline costs incurred directly by a
MWC facility may not fully reflect the cost of waste disposal
in a community that subsidizes its MWC facility. Where this
is the case, the percentage increase over the baseline should
be calculated using the real cost of waste disposal. In such
instances, the percentage increase in cost due to the
regulation would be lower.
To estimate economic impacts on communities, a
distributional analysis was performed on a sample of
communities with MWC facilities. Impact measures were used in
the BID, "Economic Impact of Air Pollutant Emission Guidelines
for Existing Municipal Waste Combustors" (EPA-450/3-89-005) to
measure a particular government entity's ability to meet the
additional financial obligations incurred due to the
regulation. One of these measures uses sewer and sanitation
expenditures to approximate a municipality's baseline waste
disposal costs. The sum of average baseline cost per
household and compliance cost per household as a percent of
median household income was calculated for individual
7-87
-------
communities with MWC facilities. No severe impacts were
indicated using this impact measure.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-256 and IV-D-285) said the
guideline BID (EPA-450/3-89-27e) lists costs for a 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd) plant to comply with the best level of control
(SD/FF) as over $3 million. He said this would result in a
doubling of their waste disposal costs and cause closure of
their city's 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) plant.
Response; The capital cost shown in the BID for the 45 Mg/day
(50 tpd) model plant with this control level is about
$1 million (rather than over $3 million), with annualized
costs of about $300,000. However, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Guidelines for small units
consistent with Section 129 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 are
being developed over the next 2 years.
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-2.3, IV-F-2.5, IV-D-60,
IV-D-184) said that retrofit costs will result in closure of
existing MWC's.
Response; Cost and economic analyses contained in the BID'S
indicate that the costs of control are reasonable, and
closures are not likely to result from the guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-111) said the impact of the
guidelines on the increased cost of financing has not been
adequately addressed. He said that requiring costly and
unpredictable retrofitting of existing MWC's will have impacts
on the cost of financing and community willingness to
construct or continue operating facilities, and suggested that
existing sources should be required to upgrade to the NSPS
level after 20 years.
Response; The regulation may increase cost of financing if
compliance with the regulation increases the debt of a
community or firm enough to reduce its bond rating. The
affect of the regulation on the bond rating depends on current
levels of debt as well as other factors specific to each MWC
facility. Further analysis would be needed to determine the
7-88
-------
regulation's impact on bond ratings for specific communities
and firms that own MWC's.
The affect of regulatory uncertainty on the cost of
financing and/or community willingness to construct or
continue operating MWC facilities has not been quantified for
this analysis. It is recognized, however, that a risk premium
may be required by financial institutions in the presence of
regulatory uncertainty. The two major factors contributing to
regulatory uncertainty for any industry are: (1) uncertainty
regarding the specific provisions of future regulation and
(2) uncertainty regarding the promulgation date of future
regulation.
In the past several years much uncertainty regarding
Federal and State environmental regulations has existed in the
MWC industry. When the guidelines for existing MWC's were
proposed on December 20, 1989, the level of uncertainty
stemming from both factors listed above was reduced. That is,
uncertainty regarding the scope and stringency of the
regulation as well as the time schedule for promulgation was
reduced. The Federal standard will provide uniformity and the
risk premium associated with regulatory uncertainty will be
further reduced, thereby reducing the cost of financing. The
response to Commenter IV-D-220 in Section 3.6.4 addresses the
commenter's point on the possible effects of uncertainty on
construction of new MWC's.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1.7) believed that the proposed
emission levels are not well demonstrated and will not be
guaranteed by vendors. He commented that it will be difficult
to obtain financing for the retrofit without good assurance
that the emission levels will be met.
Two commenters (IV-D-164, IV-D-184) said vendors will not
•
guarantee the acid gas levels proposed for regional existing
MWC's. He said this would result in increased costs due to
built-in risk premiums or in public assumption of financial
liability without a vendor guarantee.
Response: The emission levels included in the final
guidelines have been demonstrated. As explained in
7-89
-------
Section 7.5.5, the S02 reduction for existing very large MWC's
was changed from 85 percent to 70 percent (block 24-hour
geometric mean), and the HC1 reduction was changed from
95 percent to 90 percent. The SC>2 level has been demonstrated
based on statistical analysis of long-term CEM data from a
SD/ESP controlled MWC, and the HC1 level is demonstrated based
on tests at three MWC's with SD/ESP systems. Since the acid
gas levels in the final guidelines are well demonstrated,
vendors should not include high risk premiums in the costs of
the control technologies. Communities and vendors are free to
negotiate vendor guarantees.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-238) said that the alternative
of requiring SD/FF control on existing plants smaller than
2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) was not analyzed in the final
economic analysis and was prematurely dismissed by EPA.
Response; Regulatory Alternative IV, as described in the
proposal preamble, considered application of SD/FF to all
plants larger than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). The national cost,
emission reduction and economic impacts on households and
governments associated with this alternative are included in
the BID volume on economic impacts (EPA-450/3-89-005).
Furthermore, after proposal costs of SD/ESP control were
estimated for model plants between 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) and
2,050 Mg/day (2,250 tpd) and compared to costs of DSI/ESP and
SD/FF. As described in Section 7.5.5, based on this analysis,
it was determined that SD/ESP control represents the best
demonstrated technology, considering costs, for MWC plants
larger than 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). The additional cost of
SD/FF is unwarranted considering the relatively small
additional emission reduction it would achieve compared to
SD/ESP control. For plants in the 225 to 1,000 Mg/day (250 to
•
1,100 tpd) size range, the best demonstrated technology,
considering costs and other factors, is DSI/ESP as concluded
at proposal.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-115) said that the "negative
externalities" argument in support of emission regulations
does not apply to most MWC's. The commenter states that MWC's
7-90
-------
are generally located within the community that they serve,
and that each community internalizes the costs associated with
pollution from its MWC but, in turn, pays lower prices for
waste disposal. The commenter also said that communities
using nearby incinerators to dispose of their waste come
closer to internalizing their waste disposal costs than do
communities exporting their waste to distant landfills.
Response: The phenomenon of "negative externalities" exists
when compensatory markets fail to arise when the actions of
one party damage another party. The commenter argues that the
absence of such markets in the case of MWC emissions is not
such a market failure but a reflection of the internalization
by the community of the benefits and costs of current emission
levels.
There are many instances, particularly in the case of
merchant MWC plants, in which the MWC facility serves
communities other than the one in which it is located.
Furthermore, the cost and benefits of higher MWC emissions are
ultimately borne by individuals, not communities. Individuals
living in the immediate vicinity of an MWC are likely to have
higher levels of exposure to emissions than those living in
more remote areas of the same community, yet the Agency knows
of no instance where greater exposure is "internalized" by
lower waste disposal prices at the individual or household
level. It is the Agency's opinion that the absence of
compensatory markets for MWC emissions is a reflection of one
or more sources of "market failure." Under these
circumstances, it is appropriate for the Agency to use the
"negative externality" argument as part of its justification
for regulation of MWC's. Without commenting on the merits of
the commenter's assertions regarding the relative "negative
externalities" of landfills and MWC's, the Agency has already
proposed more stringent emissions regulations for sanitary
landfills under Subtitle D of RCRA.
7.6.5 Benefits Analysis
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-60) said the cost-benefit
analysis does not adequately consider MWC's with capacities
7-91
-------
below 45 Mg/day (50 tpd). She said the analysis indicated
potential threats to health and the environment from direct
inhalation, but presented no information on the emission rates
of very small MWC's (e.g., 5 Mg/day [5 tpd] capacity) or their
relative contribution to ambient air pollution.
Response: As explained in Chapter 1, the guidelines currently
being promulgated apply only to MWC units with capacities
greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). Therefore, MWC's of the
size discussed by the commenters will not be subject to these
guidelines. However, under Section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1990, guidelines applicable to MWC units smaller than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd) will be promulgated within 2 years. The
inclusion of a lower size cutoff will be considered as part of
that rulemaking.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-152, IV-D-184) requested
further documentation on the benefits analysis methods.
Response; More complete documentation on the methods employed
in the benefits analysis is provided in the RIA. The benefits
analysis valued PM and SO2 emission reductions only.
Insufficient effects or valuation information was available to
value reductions in other pollutants.
The valuation factor used to estimate PM benefits was
based on a site-specific analysis of 44 MWC's. Air quality
changes around these sites were modeled and mortality,
morbidity, and household soiling effects were predicted. The
valuation factor was then calculated as the average dollar
value per Mg (ton) of PM reduced based on valuations of
reduced mortality risks, reduced medical expenditures,
increased wages earned, and reduced cleaning expenditures.
The $l,250/Mg ($l,130/ton) valuation factor used to
estimate SC>2 benefits in the BID was based on a policy-derived
guideline value and thus does not truly reflect economic
benefits. This estimate, however, is not inconsistent with
results from the partial benefits analysis presented in the
Industrial Boilers S02 RIA (Docket No. A-89-08, Item
No. II-A-058). Instead of employing the policy-derived
$l,250/Mg ($l,130/ton) valuation factor, the MWC RIA derived a
7-92
-------
valuation factor based on the industrial boilers analysis.
The best estimate valuation factor was calculated to equal
$l,038/Mg ($942/ton). This number, however, was computed
based on a partial benefits analysis and thus may be
considered a low-end estimate.
cenrnngnt-i one commenter (IV-D-115) believed that the approach
used to develop exposure estimates for the PM benefits
analysis was too simplistic. This commenter questioned
several of the assumptions employed in the exposure assessment
and said the model used to predict concentrations for the
44 sites studies was a data base model that simulates the ISC
dispersion model and is therefore of questionable accuracy.
This commenter also believed that: (1) the estimated
dose-response relationship used to predict acute morbidity
effects was inaccurate; (2) that estimated benefits from
reduced household soiling should be removed (since the
assumption that cleaning expenditures would be reallocated to
other priorities after an air quality improvement is not
justifiable) and; (3) that a shutdown control measure was used
to estimate benefits, but that the benefits of smaller control
measures will be lower.
Response: The Model City Program was used to predict PM
concentration changes after control around the 44 sites
analyzed. The program considers source characteristics and
climatological conditions in making concentration predictions.
The program does simulate ISC dispersion modeling and is
therefore a less accurate predictor than true ISC modeling.
However, the Model City Program has been shown to perform
nearly as well as full-scale ISC modeling (see, Versar, Inc.,
Assessment of the Performance of the Model City Program,
January 1988). Since the Model City Program is much less time
and resource intensive than ISC modeling, it was selected for
this analysis.
Acute morbidity effects were predicted using a published
analysis by Ostro (Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 14(1), 1987). This analysis employed predictions
of fine particulate concentrations that were based on airport
7-93
-------
visibility data. To the extent that these predictions of fine
particle concentrations are inaccurate, the prediction of
acute morbidity effects could be inaccurate. Nevertheless, it
was judged that the Ostro analysis provided the most reliable
source of exposure response functions to predict acute
morbidity effects available at the time. Uncertainty in the
benefit estimates is recognized.
The Agency disagrees with the commenter's contention that
the assumption that cleaning expenditures would be allocated
to other priorities after an air quality improvement is
unjustifiable. This assumption follows from straightforward
economic theory. In any case, the household soiling model was
based on empirically estimated demand equation changes caused
by changes in PM concentrations.
The shutdown control scenario was used to obtain an
estimate of the average benefit per Mg (ton) removed. This
estimate was then multiplied by the emission reduction
estimates based on the actual regulatory alternatives
analyzed. This procedure assumes that the relationship
between emission reductions and benefits is linear. Unlike
with costs (where costs may be expected to increase at an
increasing rate with emission reductions), there is no clear
expectation that benefits should be nonlinear with emission
reductions over the range of PM changes under consideration.
Thus, linearity was assumed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that the valuation
factor employed for SO2 appears to be low when compared with
valuation factors used in some previous regulatory packages
and that no attempt was made to calculate benefits resulting
from HC1 emission reductions. This commenter suggested that a
more complete benefits analysis might support a guideline for
acid gas control on small MWC's.
Response; The S02 valuation factors employed in the BID and
RIA were representative of the valuation analysis performed in
the Industrial Boilers RIA. The industrial boilers analysis
was judged to be the best source to derive a valuation factor
for S<>2 reductions from MWC's. Nevertheless, it is recognized
7-94
-------
that much uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate size of
this factor.
Given the magnitude of HC1 emission reductions from the
proposed regulations, the feasibility of performing an HC1
benefits analysis has been explored. Unfortunately,
sufficient effects and valuation information was not available
to perform such an analysis at this time.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-60, IV-D-158, IV-D-184)
suggested that the benefits analysis should be site-specific
and employ concentration modeling and exposure assessments.
Response; The PM benefits analysis was based on 44 existing
MWC sites and it did not employ concentration modeling and an
assessment of population exposure. It was not possible given
data, time, and resource constraints to perform such a
detailed analysis for emission reductions of other pollutants.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-184) questioned the size of the
PM valuation factor employed, stating that it was high
relative to previous EPA estimates.
Response; There are two main reasons why the PM valuation
factor employed was higher than that used in previous Agency
analyses. First, recent estimates of the value of a
statistical life saved have increased. Second, and most
importantly, many MWC's are located in heavily populated
areas. Hence, the estimated average exposure reduction per Mg
(ton) of PM reduced from the proposed MWC regulations was
substantially greater than that anticipated or found in
previous analyses of regulations reducing PM emissions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-158) believed that the benefits
of the regulation are substantially lower than the cos'ts.
Response; Total estimated costs exceeded quantified benefits.
However, despite quantifying substantial benefits from the
regulation, the benefits analysis is very much incomplete. In
particular, potentially substantial benefits from acid gas
control could not be quantified at this time. Hence, the
Agency cannot conclude anything about the size of the net
benefits from the regulation.
7-95
-------
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-158, IV-D-232) noted that a
complete benefits analysis of the materials separation
requirement was not performed.
Response; No attempt was made to compute dollar benefits
resulting from the proposed materials separation requirement.
Data availability prevents such a benefits assessment at this
time.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-148) asked if credits were taken
for removal of MWC emissions that would not come from other
solid fuel fired combustors or for removal of MWC emissions
that would not occur because of the 25-percent materials
separation requirement.
Response; Emission reduction estimates do not include
emissions that would not come from other solid fuel fired
combustors and they do not account for the projected impact of
the 25-percent materials separation requirement proposed by
the Agency but withdrawn from the final rules. Steam and
electricity generated at MWC's displace steam and electricity
that would be generated by coal or other fuel. Theoretically,
a benefit from MWC's derives from a reduction in emissions
from these other sources. However, the change in the amount
of energy displaced as a result of the standards and
guidelines is not known.
7.7 SELECTION OF FORMAT OF PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-143) said regulation of
dioxins/furans as total emissions is not supported by current
toxicity data and is inconsistent with recent EPA guidance
documents and State regulations. He said if EPA enacts
inconsistent regulations, consideration should be given to
existing facilities which designed their control strategies
based on the guidance documents.
Response; The reasons for selection of a total dioxin/furan
format rather than a TEF format are explained in the response
in Section 3.7. The total dioxin/furan limit is appropriate
to assure control technology performance. The same control
technologies would be used, and operation of these controls
7-96
-------
would be the same, to control total dioxins/furans versus TEF.
Emission test data on total dioxin/furan emissions were
evaluated to determine what levels are achievable with
demonstrated control technologies for existing MWC's. The
costs of retrofitting existing facilities to achieve these
levels were estimated in the BID for the guidelines
(EPA-450/3-89-27e), and the Agency determined the costs were
reasonable.
The test method to determine total dioxin/furan emissions
(Method 23) may also be used to determine TEF by performing
different calculations. Therefore, double testing is not
required if State agencies of designated facilities find it
necessary to determine emission levels in units of TEF.
7.8 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS AND MONITORING PROVISIONS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
7.8.1 Periodic Testing
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-115) thought there should be
equitable and similar stack testing requirements for all
pollutants at all existing facilities.
Response; Section 111 of the Clean Air Act allows for the
Agency to distinguish among classes, types and sizes within
categories of affected sources for the purposes of
establishing emission guidelines. The best demonstrated
technology considering retrofit costs and other impacts of
controls was selected for the various types and size classes
of existing MWC's. Guideline emission limits were then set to
reflect performance of these technologies. The Agency
considers the guidelines equitable.
7.8.2 Continuous Monitoring
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-115) thought there should be
similar CEM requirements for all pollutants at all existing
facilities.
Response; All existing MWC units larger than 225 Mg/day
(250 tpd) are subject to the same continuous emission
monitoring requirements for SO2, CO, opacity, load, and
temperature.
7-97
-------
7.8.3 Comments on Proposed Test Methods
comment; Some commenters (IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-155,
IV-D-164, IV-D-184) said the issue of how to measure percent
S(>2 reduction in systems where sorbent is injected into the
furnace or fuel should be addressed if a percent reduction is
required. One of the commenters (IV-D-101) said his company
has developed a measurement method and has used it to test the
DSI system at one MWC and the ammonia injection NOX control
system at another MWC. A description of the methodology was
included in Comments IV-D-101 and IV-D-155. Another
(IV-D-184) said stack testing with the control system on and
off could bias the uncontrolled value on the low side due to
residual sorbent in the system. Stack test results compared
to potential emissions based on the sulfur/chlorine content of
the waste or historic stack test data would also be unreliable
due to waste stream variability. The commenter (IV-D-184)
felt EPA should develop a standardized testing technique for
the measurement of the percent reduction for in-furnace DSI,
or an alternate emissions limit for this special case.
Response; The Agency agrees that where furnace sorbent is
used, simultaneous acid gas control device inlet and outlet
SO2 levels cannot be obtained and used to calculate permit
reduction. However, alternative procedures to demonstrate
compliance can be used in these cases. Under the General NSPS
Provisions, "After receipt and consideration of written
application, the Administrator may approve alternatives to any
monitoring procedures or requirements of this part..." [see
40 CFR 60.13(i)]. The procedure submitted by the commenter
may be applicable as an alternative method of monitoring
compliance. However, details on the use of this or other
alternative monitoring methods would need to be developed and
submitted for approval on a case-by-case basis under the
provisions of 40 CFR 60.13(i).
In order to aid owners or operators of facilities using
FSI who may wish to refine this method for use at their
facilities, the commenter's letter and an EPA memorandum
describing the procedure have been included in the docket (see
7-98
-------
Docket A-89-08, Item No. IV-B-22). In general, the procedure
described in the memorandum involves measuring emission levels
for a period of time without sorbent addition to establish the
uncontrolled emission level. The sorbent injection system
would then be turned on at predetermined system operating
conditions and the resulting SO2 level would be recorded. The
key operating conditions (e.g sorbent feed rate and flue gas
temperature) during the test would also be recorded. By
repeating this procedure several times at different system
operating conditions (e.g., different sorbent feed rates), a
relationship between measured outlet S02 concentration and the
key operating variables versus the uncontrolled SO2
concentration would be established.
Future compliance with the SO2 percent reduction
requirements would be based on the measured outlet SO level
and measured values of key control system parameters. These
data would then be compared to the data collected during the
compliance test to estimate the uncontrolled SO2
concentration. The measured outlet SO2 concentration and
estimated uncontrolled SO2 concentration would then be used to
calculated SO2 percent reduction and compliance with the
percent reduction requirement.
Not operating the control device while testing in order
to demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction standard
could conflict with the NSR provisions governing modifications
to major stationary sources. To avoid such a conflict, in the
final standards and guidelines, not operating the control
device for such purposes are exempted from being considered
"physical change or' change in the method of operation" for NSR
purposes.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-124, IV-D-137) said that if
Method 23 is used as the compliance method, then the
125 ng/dscm (50 gr/billion dscf) emission guideline will have
to be evaluated with respect to any differences between the
ASME protocol used for guidelines development and the proposed
Method 23.
7-99
-------
Response; The promulgated Method 23 test procedure is
identical to the method used to gather the emission data used
to support the standards and guidelines, and no additional
evaluation is needed.
7.9 ENFORCEMENT, REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) questioned how EPA would
enforce emissions guidelines at the Federal level in the event
that states failed to issue regulations.
Response; In the event that a State fails to do so,
Section lll(d)(2) of the CAA provides that the Administrator
has the authority to prescribe a plan for a State and to
develop, promulgate, and enforce regulations under such a
plan.
7.10 MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS
Comments on the malfunction provisions apply to both the
NSPS and guidelines and are presented in Section 3.10.
7.11 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-169, IV-D-190) stated EPA does
not have the authority to issue standards for PM and SO2 for
existing sources. They said that under Section lll(d) of the
CAA, EPA can only regulate pollutants from existing sources
that are not already regulated or are not listed under
Section 108(a), NAAQS, or Section 112(b), NESHAP.
Response; The pollutant "MWC emissions" has been designated
under Section 111 of the CAA. Section lll(d) provides for
development of State plans and "standards of performance for
any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air
quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included
on a list published under Section 108(a) or 112(b)(l)(A) but
(ii) to which a standard of performance under subsection (b)
would apply if such existing source were a new source."
Regulation of existing MWC's for the pollutant MWC emissions
fits these criteria.
The standards of performance are established for this
pollutant. Nothing in the CAA prohibits the regulation of a
composite pollutant. Indeed, Section 302(g) defines air
7-100
-------
pollutants an "any air pollutant agent or combination of such
agents . . ..» The pollutant MWC emissions is a composite
mixture of multiple compounds that affect public health.
Municipal waste combustor emissions contain 100 or more
components. These compounds generally fall into three
subcategories: MWC organics, MWC metals, and MWC acid gases.
The category MWC organics includes dioxins/furans, PIC's, and
other organic compounds; MWC metals include lead, mercury,
cadmium, nickel, chromium, arsenic, beryllium, and other
metals; and MWC acid gases include S02, HC1, and hydrogen
fluoride. It is the broad range of constituents of each of
these subcategories that led to the determination that MWC's
should be regulated under Section 111.
Conceivably, the Agency could require a source to measure
all of the individual components of MWC emissions and
establish standards of performance for each one of them. Such
an undertaking would, however, impose extremely burdensome and
expensive requirements on a source. Rather, the Agency
determined that it would be far more practical to establish
compliance limits for a certain number of pollutants that
would serve as surrogates for the entire range of MWC
emissions. Measurement of a limited number of the specific
components of the composite pollutant should not be construed
to suggest that it is only those components of the mass of MWC
emissions that the Agency seeks to regulate. The guidelines
the Agency is issuing provide a high level of control of total
MWC emissions in a manner that avoids the administrative
burden and expense associated with monitoring and measuring
all components of MWC emissions.
In order to ensure that the components of MWC emissions
(MWC acid gases, MWC metals, and MWC organics) are controlled,
emission levels and monitoring provisions in the guidelines
include some criteria pollutants regulated under Sections 108
to 110, specifically there are S02, CO, and PM levels. These
pollutants are used as surrogates because they can be readily
measured and indicate control of the other pollutants that are
part of MWC emissions. In particular, S(>2 emissions limits
7-101
-------
(along with HC1 limits) ensure MWC acid gas control.
Particulate matter emission limits ensure MWC metals control
without testing for each and every metal. And CO is one of
several emissions parameters monitored to assure MWC organics
control. This is a much more practical approach than setting
limits for the dozens, if not hundreds, of individual
compounds in MWC emissions.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.6, IV-F-1.7, IV-F-2.5,
IV-F-2.32, IV-F-3.2, IV-D-78, IV-D-101, IV-D-111, IV-D-115,
IV-D-137, IV-D-139, IV-D-145, IV-D-152, IV-D-155, IV-D-164,
IV-D-231) said the 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) capacity
distinction between large and regional MWC plants was not
justified. Some (IV-F-2.5, IV-D-115, IV-D-145, IV-D-231) said
that the EPA's decision to require existing "regional"
facilities to meet more stringent guidelines is arbitrary and
capricious. Another (IV-D-152) said the decision is unlawful
and ignores the requirements of Section 111. He said the
EPA's model plant approach fails to address either site-
specific costs or environmental benefits of imposing the more
stringent standards on these facilities. Some commenters said
the BID'S and the regulatory alternatives did not present an
analysis of regional MWC's as a distinct category. (See
additional comments and responses on the regional size
classification which do not address legal issues in
Section 7.5.5.1.)
Response; The guidelines for very large (regional) plants are
not arbitrary and capricious, and the distinction between
large and very large plants is justified. The final
guidelines for very large MWC's reflect several changes since
proposal. First, the final guidelines define very large MWC
plants as those with capacities larger than 1,000 Mg/day
(1,100 tpd) rather than 2,000 Mg/day (2,200 tpd) as proposed.
Second, emission levels for these plants are based on SD/ESP
rather than SD/FF as best demonstrated control technology
considering cost and other factors. Consistent with this
decision on best demonstrated technology, the MWC acid gas and
dioxin/furan limits are slightly less stringent than those
7-102
-------
proposed for regional plants. Control costs for SD/ESP
systems are considerably less than the costs for SD/FF
retrofit, because at many plants the SD/ESP option will allow
use of existing ESP's, whereas, the SD/FF option would require
removal of ESP's and complete replacement with a FF system.
These changes were made based on a new analysis of
control performance and costs of SD/ESP systems that was done
after proposal in order to respond to comments and to
determine what level of control was appropriate for very large
MWC's and what the size category breakpoint should be. The
analysis included model plants from 45 Mg/day (50 tpd) to
2,050 Mg/day (2,250 tpd). Costs and emission reductions for
DSI/ESP, SD/ESP, and SD/FF controls were examined over the
same range.
The analysis showed that control cost per Mg (ton) of MSW
combusted and incremental cost effectiveness per Mg (ton) of
acid gas control is similar for plants with capacities above
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd), but costs increased more rapidly for
plants below this size. For example, costs of SD/ESP control
for model plants of 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd) to 2,050 Mg/day
(2,250 tpd) were in the range of $9 to $12/Mg ($8 to $ll/ton)
of MSW combusted, but for model plants from 180 to 800 Mg/day
(200 to 900 tpd), costs were $19 to $30/Mg ($17 to $27/ton) of
MSW. Further information on the results of the analysis is
presented in Section 7.5.5.1, but these results support
defining very large plants as those with capacities above
1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd).
For very large plants, the costs of SD/ESP control
systems are reasonable. However, as described in
Section 8.5.5.1, it was determined that the additional cost of
SD/FF control was unreasonable given the relatively small
additional emission reductions that would be achieved.
There are about 45 very large existing MWC plants with
capacities above 1,000 Mg/day (1,100 tpd). About 27 are
already controlled with SD/ESP or equivalent controls, while
the other 18 are controlled with ESP's and would be expected
to retrofit acid gas controls under the guidelines. Economic
7-103
-------
analyses concluded that no severe economic impacts are
expected to result from these guidelines.
Some of the commenters suggested that site-specific
situations be considered. The model plants were developed to
be representative of the various sizes and types of existing
facilities, and retrofit costs due to space constraints and
downtime were included in the analysis. The results of the
analysis, and the guidelines, are therefore appropriate for
the vast majority of existing plants. The provisions of
40 CFR 60.24(c) specify that State standards must generally be
at least as stringent as the guidelines. However,
Section 60.24(f) allows States to consider site-specific
factors that may justify a less stringent standard on a
case-by-case basis. Such specific analyses are better left to
State and local agencies.
7.12 WORDING OF GUIDELINES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-93) said Section 60.38a should
be explicit in exempting small facilities from HC1 and SO2
testing and monitoring requirements since there are no
corresponding guideline emission levels.
Response; The guidelines currently being promulgated do not
cover small facilities.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-257) said the term "significant
liability" which is used to define the phrase "contractual
obligation" under modification and reconstruction of existing
MWC's should itself be defined in terms of a specified
percentage of the cost of a designated facility.
Response: As provided in the General Provisions in
40 CFR 60.2, if an owner or operator has undertaken or entered
into a contractual obligation to undertake a continuous
program of construction or modification prior to proposal of
the MWC NSPS, the MWC is considered an existing source and is
subject to the emission guidelines. If such a contractual
obligation did not exist prior to proposal, the source would
be considered a new source subject to the NSPS. A contractual
obligation is one that cannot be canceled without incurring
significant liability (Potomac Electric Power Co. v. EPAf
7-104
-------
650 F.2d 509, 513-515 [4th Cir. 1981]). The Agency has long
used this threshold standard of "significant liability" for
determining when a source has commenced construction for
purposes of Section 111. TO the extent that the commenter is
challenging the General Provisions of 40 CFR 60.2, that is
outside the scope of this rulemaking. The same principle
would apply to any contractual obligation entered into for
purposes of modification or reconstruction. It should be
noted, however, that as to "reconstruction," a specific
economic test is applied to determine whether the existing
source will be subject to the new source standards. The
provisions of 40 CFR 60.15 specify that if the fixed capital
costs of the new components exceed 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost of a new unit, then the new source would be
considered a reconstructed source.
Comment! One commenter (IV-D-258) pointed out that in
• Subpart Cb, Section 60.30b, the emission guideline for
sulfuric acid must have been improperly converted from
0.25 g/kg sulfuric acid produced to 0.05 Ib/ton. The correct
conversion is 0.5 Ib/ton.
Response: Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 60 is being amended to
include the new MWC regulations. Subpart Ca is being
designated for MWC's while Subpart Cb is being designated for
sulfuric acid production plants. The Agency agrees with the
commenter that the actual conversion of 0.25 g/kg is
0.5 Ib/ton. The incorrect number was due to a typographical
error and will be corrected.
7.13 COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-1.11 and IV-D-158,
IV-F-2.5, IV-D-115, IV-D-132, IV-D-134, IV-D-137, IV-D-158,
IV-D-219, IV-D-257) argued that a 3-year compliance time is
inadequate for most existing MWC's. One of the commenters
(IV-D-134) said the 3-year compliance period provides no
opportunity for phasing of individual units. One commenter
(IV-D-257) stated the analysis provided in the NPRM failed to
include time for obtaining approval of state permits to
construct new air pollution control equipment. Another
7-105
-------
(IV-D-115) felt the compliance time did not include time
required for land acquisition for additional equipment,
engineering activities, or contractual negotiations and
financing. Another commenter (IV-F-1.11 and IV-D-158)
suggested that due to site-specific factors, each plant would
have to go through a lengthy design process, and test control
systems on a pilot scale to ensure they would achieve the
desired results before shutting down the MWC and performing
the full-scale retrofit. He said a 6-year compliance time
would be more reasonable. He suggested that the longer
compliance time be included in the guidelines rather than
expecting States to analyze each case and determine when
compliance times longer than the proposed 3 years are
reasonable. Other commenters (IV-F-2.5, IV-D-115, IV-D-132)
agreed but suggested a 5-year or 10-year compliance time.
One commenter (IV-D-137) discussed a case study of a MWC
acid gas cleaning system retrofit. Even with diligent
planning, engineering and permitting activities, the
installation and demonstration of compliance took 42 months.
The commenter said EPA should keep in mind that during the
same period of time that existing MWC's will be expected to
install acid gas controls and FF's or upgrade their ESP's,
over 250 fossil fuel fired electric utility units potentially
will be undergoing S02 scrubber retrofits under acid rain
legislation. This could lead to delays due to shortages in
qualified manpower to install the devices. The commenter also
pointed out that State requirements could be more stringent
than the Federal standards and thus industry will not be able
to begin planning engineering and permitting before the actual
promulgation of the State standards. The commenter suggested
the compliance time be extended to 6 years.
One commenter (IV-D-219) stated the-New York City
Department of Sanitation has a complex program planned,
designed and funded to upgrade three operating incinerators,
which will allow the facilities to comply with the emissions
requirements of the proposed guidelines. The incinerators are
being retrofitted in accordance with a 200-million dollar,
7-106
-------
5-year capital plan, that began in calendar year 1990 and
anticipates completion by December 1995. The City will be
unable to comply with an EPA retrofit deadline that becomes
effective any time before December 1995. The commenter said
if a municipality like New York City which already has a
planned, designed, and funded upgrade program cannot comply
with the proposed time frames, then those time frames would
not be realistic for those municipalities which do not already
have upgrade programs in place. Therefore, he proposed that
EPA amend its existing incinerator guidelines to authorize
States to extend the compliance deadline for municipalities
that have an established retrofitting program.
In addition, two commenters (IV-D-78, IV-D-70) pointed
out that for publicly owned MWC's more time would be needed
for voter education and tax approval. One of these (IV-D-70)
suggested greater flexibility in compliance times. The other
commenter (IV-D-78) said the EPA's suggestion of raising
tipping fees to offset the cost of the regulation is an overly
simplified approach. The commenter recommended that EPA add
specific contingencies to the time frame for compliance to
allow for individual problems within municipalities. The
commenter also pointed out that major utilities were given a
10-year compliance period yet emissions from coal utilities
are much higher than those from MWC's.
Several commenters (IV-F-3.13, IV-D-56, IV-D-104,
IV-D-105, IV-D-117) thought the compliance time is too long.
Two commenters (IV-F-3.13, IV-D-56) said the compliance time
should be shortened to 1 year after promulgation of the
standards. Others (IV-D-105, IV-D-117, IV-D-186) contended if
the EPA's own assessment indicates compliance could be
reasonably achieved in 19 to 25 months, then there is no
reason to allow any more time. Two commenters (IV-D-104,
IV-D-199) thought compliance would require 18 to 24 months.
The commenters suggested a two-tiered approach. Facilities
that could achieve emission standards through process changes,
operating training, and so forth without requiring
retrofitting should be allowed 18 months for compliance, while
7-107
-------
facilities requiring retrofit of controls would be allowed
around 23 months.
Response; The 3-year retrofit compliance time for existing
facilities is being retained in the final guidelines. During
the development of the proposed guidelines, the Agency
analyzed available information in order to determine what
length of time would be reasonable for most designated
facilities to achieve compliance with the guidelines. The
amount of time required for an existing MWC plant to retrofit
its current control system to comply with the proposed
emission guidelines will depend on the individual
characteristics of the plant. Some important plant
characteristics are the MWC design type, the MWC size, the
controls currently in place, and the amount of available space
near the MWC. These characteristics will influence such
considerations as the time needed to design the retrofit
system, the time delay anticipated when ordering necessary
equipment, and time needed to construct, install, and start-up
the retrofitted system.
While some facilities will require little or no
modification to meet the guidelines, many will require
significant retrofitting. It is estimated that typical time
to retrofit sorbent injection and upgrade an existing ESP
(including front-end engineering, vendor selection,
fabrication, on-site construction, and downtime) would be 15
to 24 months. However, if there are significant space
limitations impacting construction, an additional 6 months may
be required. The time needed for a SD retrofit and ESP
upgrade would be up to 25 months in a typical case, although
again, an extra 6 months could be required if there are severe
space constraints. Since these technologies are commercially
available and demonstrated, and important design factors are
known, pilot scale testing would not be needed at every MWC
prior to full scale retrofit (in contrast to the suggestions
of one of the commenters). As a result of these analyses, the
Agency concluded that 3 years would be a sufficient interval
for typical facilities to achieve compliance.
7-108
-------
The Agency's established policies and regulations for
implementing revisions to state plans resulting from
implementation of Section lll(d) guidelines provide allowances
for case-by-case consideration of unique concerns that may
justify longer compliance times for individual designated
facilities (see 40 CFR 60.24(f)). In this instance, however,
the Agency anticipates few variances in compliance times. The
lead time between proposal of the guidelines and the Agency's
promulgation of actual approvals of State plan revisions will
provide additional time for planning and design of additional
emission control retrofits for designated facilities.
Further, the flexibility inherent to the process of State plan
development provides for shorter compliance times when
appropriate. The Agency does note that certain designated
facilities are already capable of meeting the control levels
specified in the guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-93) stated he operated a small
11 Mg/day (12 tpd) capacity MWC that began reconstruction and
rehabilitation prior to publication of the proposed
guidelines. Noting that the incinerator will have a finite
life and that the cost of retrofitting new controls might
force the facility to shutdown, the commenter asked to be
exempted from the guidelines until the end of the useful life
of the MWC when restored.
Another commenter (IV-D-70) thought existing incinerators
that are currently meeting the EPA standards should be given
maximum latitude in meeting the new standards. He felt the
publicly owned modular incinerator in his area should be
allowed to complete its short life expectancy before
significant modifications are required in order to avoid
placing significant financial burdens on the community.
Response: The -facility identified by the first commenter is
not subject to the guidelines currently being promulgated
since these guidelines apply only to MWC units larger than
225 Mg/day (250 tpd). In regard to the age of the combustion
units, under 40 CFR 60.24(f) States are allowed to consider
site-specific factors including plant age or life expectancy
7-109
-------
when developing regulations pursuant to the guidelines. State
standards may be developed for a particular source that are
less stringent than the guidelines, however, the reasons for
doing so would have to be clearly justified.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-152, IV-D-184) requested
guidance from EPA on establishing priorities for retrofit
compliance time frames. The commenters stated that since all
retrofit applications cannot be processed by State agencies at
the same time, a priority time frame based on current impact
or level of technology is warranted. Commenter IV-D-184
wanted guidance on evaluation criteria for site-specific
cost-benefit analyses to determine priorities. The coromenter
suggested the schedule could be established as part of the
implementation plan required under Section lll(d). In
addition, one commenter (IV-D-184) thought an expedited permit
and review process should be established. While noting that
individual States are best equipped to establish the
procedures, he thought that guidance from EPA would be helpful
to provide consistency.
Response; The guidelines contain a compliance time of
3 years. The bases for this compliance time are described in
the first response in this section. State plans are expected
to require that MWC's comply within this time period. States
must follow the procedures in 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.24 for
adopting plans and developing specific compliance schedules
within this 3-year retrofit period that include increments of
progress. As described in previous responses, there are
provisions to allow States to establish shorter or longer
compliance times on a case-by-case basis if the need is
demonstrated.
7-110
-------
8.0 EMISSION GUIDELINES - MATERIALS SEPARATION
Chapter 8.0 includes comments which pertain specifically
to materials separation issues for existing facilities. Where
a comment applied to both new and existing facilities, it is
presented in Chapter 4.0 and has not been duplicated in this
chapter.
8.1 SELECTION OF MATERIALS SEPARATION PROVISIONS
8.1.1 Percent Separation
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-109) opposed a specific
separation level for existing facilities. The commenter said
that installation of separation equipment to existing
facilities may be impractical or cost prohibitive, and the MWC
would then have to rely on off-site separation which would not
be in the control of the MWC operator. The commenter felt
that the requirements should not be imposed where an operating
MWC is a part of the established waste disposal infrastructure
in that area.
Response; While the Agency has determined that the materials
separation requirements are technically achievable for
existing facilities, for reasons described in the preamble to
the NSPS, the Agency has decided not to require 25 percent
materials separation as a national presumption for existing
sources at this time.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-109) said that their State had
one existing MWC and that the materials separation guidelines
would conflict with the State's recycling goals and ongoing
recycling efforts.
\
One commenter (IV-D-196) from a small town with an
existing MWC supported the 25-percent requirement, but said
that few small communities could achieve more than this level.
8-1
-------
Response; The Agency analyzed the feasibility and cost of
materials separation and determined that the 25-percent
requirement is technically achievable. However, for reasons
described in the NSPS preamble, the Agency has decided not to
require materials separation as a national presumption for
existing sources at this time.
8.1.2 Lead-acid Vehicle Battery Prohibition
Comments on the proposed lead-acid vehicle battery
prohibition apply to both the NSPS and guidelines and are
presented in Section 4.1.2.
8.1.3 Household Battery Separation
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-78, IV-D-126) said that
removing batteries would be prohibitively expensive for their
respective towns. Commenter IV-D-126 was also unsure about
what should be done with the batteries once they are
separated.
Response; The proposed requirement for household battery and
lead acid battery separation have not been included in the
final standards, and communities will not incur associated
costs.
8.2 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED MATERIALS SEPARATION GUIDELINES
8.2.1 Environmental
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-2.8) opposed the materials
separation requirements and said that their MWC was undersized
by design and only burns a portion of the community's waste.
If they have to separate 25 percent, they will bring in other
waste and burn the same amount of waste that they are
presently burning. Therefore, air emissions and ash will not
be reduced. The commenter added that even if inputs to MWC's
are reduced, air emissions and ash generation from coal-fired
power plants will increase since these plants will have to
compensate for the energy not produced by MWC's. Other
commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.35, IV-D-138, IV-D-139, IV-D-232)
also said the provisions would also not reduce air emissions
unless existing facilities were de-rated. Any reduction in
the amount of combustibles resulting from these provisions
locally would immediately be filled by surrounding
8-2
-------
communities' wastes, because of the demands for combustor
capacity.
Another commenter (IV-D-184) said that the reduction in
materials could cause an MWC to have to operate below
capacity, and this could cause increased emissions if the MWC
has to operate outside of design conditions.
Response; Separation programs generally would not tend to
cause existing MWC's to de-rate. Since a shortage of
landfills already exists and is expected to increase over
time, the capacity needed at MWC's is expected to quickly
expand. As source separation and recycling increases in
communities served by MWC's, EPA anticipates that most
existing MWC's would expand their service areas and still
combust a similar amount of waste. Separation programs may
reduce the overall capacity of new MWC's needed to meet this
demand. However, mandatory separation program requirements
are not included in the final guidelines.
8.2.2 Health and Risk Assessment
Comments on health impacts of materials separation apply
to both the NSPS and guidelines and are presented in Section
4.2.2.
8.2.3 Energy
Comments on the energy impacts of materials separation
apply to both the NSPS and guidelines and are presented in
Section 4.2.3.
8.2.4 Cost. Economic, and Market
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-29, IV-D-70) opposed the
materials separation requirements saying they would cause
their community's existing MWC to be under-utilized'and
operationally inefficient, lower steam production and
associated revenues, cause financial and administrative
burdens associated with administering new programs, and
denigrate their commitment to a particular waste management
strategy. One (IV-D-70) added that their steam customer would
have to make up the lost energy by using scarce natural
resources such as gas and oil. Another commenter (IV-F-2.5)
said the materials separation requirements amount to a
8-3
-------
capacity downsizing with potentially great economic impact on
existing MWC's.
However, one commenter (IV-D-73) recommended that
incinerators should help bear the burden of reducing pollution
from both the incineration of recyclable goods and the
refining and manufacture of goods replacing those that have
been unnecessarily burned.
Response: Separation programs would not tend to cause
existing MWC's to operate at reduced capacity. Existing MWC's
could receive additional waste from outside their original
service area and still combust the same amount. Therefore,
there would not be a loss of steam production revenues.
However, for reasons described in the preamble, the Agency has
decided not to require materials separation as a national
presumption for existing sources at this time.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-06) said that the costs of
implementing materials separation programs at existing
facilities would be passed on to municipalities and that these
monies could be better spent on developing overall recycling
programs that are not attached to combustion facilities.
Another commenter (IV-D-49) said that their community, which
uses an MWC, is implementing a materials separation program
without government mandate, and the materials separation
requirements will only burden the community with unnecessary
regulations and costs. Commenter IV-D-164 said that costs
associated with implementation of separation plans, changes in
contractual commitments, demonstrating compliance, assessment
of markets, and siting additional landfill space or storage
(for unmarketed materials), and loss of energy revenues and
tipping fees will be devastating for existing facilities.
One commenter (IV-D-116) said that merchant MWC's would
be adversely impacted economically if their waste stream is
reduced by 25 percent since these plants have been built based
on projections of available waste streams.
One commenter (IV-D-78) said that his community invested
in an MWC as a practical way to dispose of MSW, and that while
they continue to look for innovative and environmentally sound
8-4
-------
ways to manage waste, the materials separation requirement
unreasonably penalizes those who have already chosen MWC's as
an option.
Response; The Agency remains convinced that material
separation programs can be beneficial for MWC's and the
communities they serve. The Agency does not consider
separation programs to result in a penalty against communities
which have already invested in MWC's. These programs actually
would allow the community to expand for a longer period of
time before additional MWC capacity is necessary, or an
alternative waste management strategy undertaken. However,
materials separation is not required in the final guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-60) supported the goal of
25 percent separation, but said that the weighing requirements
would be costly and would require modifications to their
recycling drop-off units.
Response; The specific reference to weighing requirements is
moot since the Agency has withdrawn the specific proposed
program which included them. However, the costs associated
with weighing separated materials are typically considered
reasonable. Recyclable materials are usually weighed at the
market where they are bought and sold. Also, programs, such
as New Jersey's often contain sample forms which provide
volume-to-weight conversion factors for a variety of common
recycled materials. These conversion factors reduce the
difficulty of documenting off-site separation for those
communities that do conduct separation activities.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-36, IV-F-2.3), from small
communities with MWC's, said that markets for recyclable
materials are a considerable distance from .their respective
communities, and the financial burden for acquiring storage
facilities and transportation equipment for the separated
materials is cost prohibitive and will far exceed the EPA's
estimated costs for materials separation.
Response; The Agency determined that most communities with
MWC's will not incur severe economic impacts as a result of
the guidelines for materials separation programs. However,
8-5
-------
for reasons described in more detail in the NSPS preamble, the
Agency has not included materials separation as part of BDT.
8.3 COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR MATERIALS SEPARATION
8.3.1 Calculation of Percent Separation
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-194) said there was no
reasonable rationale for the 10-percent cap on creditable yard
waste, and that it would disallow one of the most successful
components of the county's existing waste reduction program.
Response; This comment is moot since the 10-percent cap was a
component of the proposed EPA program which has been dropped
from the final rules. However, the Agency is aware that in
some areas, and during some seasons, yard wastes may exceed
30 percent of the waste stream. "The 10-percent cap on credit
for yard waste in other programs could provide a balance
between the goals of encouraging the separation and composting
of yard waste and encouraging the separation of other
materials.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-163) said that the proposed
emission guidelines should stipulate that materials separated
for credit toward the 25-percent requirement cannot be
processed into RDF and burned in another boiler. The
commenter did stipulate that tires burned for fuel should be
creditable.
Response; See Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3.1 for responses to
similar comments.
8.3.2 Contractual Arrangements
Comment: Some commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-158) suggested that
the materials separation provisions are in conflict with RCRA
provisions prohibiting State and local law from inhibiting or
impairing contract negotiations for the supply of wastes to
resource recovery facilities.
Response; The commenters refer to RCRA Section 4003(a)(5)
which states that State Subtitle D plans "shall provide that
\no State or local government ... shall be prohibited under
State or local law from negotiating and entering into
long-term contracts for the supply of solid waste to resource
recovery facilities... ." Separation programs would not tend
8-6
-------
to impede long-term contracts for the supply of solid waste to
MWC's. Separation programs merely result in diversion of
recoverable materials from the material to be combusted. The
Agency believes that such programs not would impede entering
into long-term contracts to supply waste to MWC's.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-137) noted that making the
necessary arrangements to perform front-end separation will be
much more difficult for existing MWC's, which were built
without such separation in mind, and may require retrofit.
The commenters said the municipalities served by such MWC's
already have contracts, and will not easily share the
responsibility for separation, leading to lengthy and
acrimonious negotiations over financing the retrofit and
establishing the separation program. Another commenter
(IV-D-115) noted that existing MWC's would encounter space
constraints on the storage of separated materials. However,
one commenter (IV-D-263) said that because of the contracts
that do exist, separation and recycling will never happen
except by mandates such as the proposal.
Response; The final guidelines do not include a materials
separation requirement.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-F-1.35, IV-F-2.5, IV-D-137,
IV-D-139, IV-D-155, IV-D-158, IV-D-164, IV-D-166, IV-D-194)
said that if existing MWC's were effectively down-sized by
25 percent to meet the 25-percent reduction requirements, such
actions would interfere with existing contracts. The
commenters said the materials separation requirements might
result in some communities being unable to fulfill their
contractual obligations to the MWC. One commenter (IV-D-115)
suggested that MWC's would then be unable to fulfill their
contractual obligations to deliver an agreed-upon amount of
steam or electricity. Two commenters (IV-D-155, IV-D-158)
suggested some municipalities would have to pay for this
shortfall in delivered waste. Two of these commenters
(IV-F-2.5, IV-D-155) said downsizing may be necessary, perhaps
the only way an existing facility may be able to comply with
the provisions for materials separation.
8-7
-------
Response: The Agency does not expect that MWC's would
typically reduce the amount of refuse that is combusted in
response to addition of a separation program in a given
community. Rather, it expects they would expand their service
area such that net combustion after separation would not
change. Any MWC project is necessarily a cooperative effort
from the onset. Negotiations between the community and the
developer/operator are the norm, and financing is often
affected by the commitments made. In some cases, the
financing is arranged through a bond, again demonstrating
community commitment to the project. It is often common for
these contractual arrangements to have provisions for the
costs associated with meeting new regulations, as well as
other "new" costs. Moreover, communities would be expected to
realize long-term savings from reduced regular disposal costs,
revenues from waste importation to maintain MWC throughout,
and revenues from recovered materials sales.
8.3.3 Combustion Permit
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-194) said the combustion permit
program is administratively too burdensome. Another commenter
(IV-D-163) said that the proposed emission guidelines would
promote storage of unrecyclables, which would be
environmentally unsound. The commenter noted that the 120-day
storage required was logistically unworkable. Some commenters
(IV-D-78, IV-D-83, IV-D-107, IV-D-194) said that typical
existing facilities lacked the storage capacity to hold
materials that could not be recycled for 120 days prior to
getting a combustion permit. One commenter (IV-F-1.32) said
that to hold 25 percent of 120 days waste receipts at a
typical facility receiving 1,360 Mg/day (1,500 tpd), an area
about the length of a football field squared and 6 m (18 ft)
deep would be required. Other commenters (IV-D-107, IV-D-184)
said that these stored materials would present a health threat
if stored for an extended period of time.
Response; These comments are moot since they refer to
specific implementation processes which were unique to the
proposed materials separation requirements which were not
8-8
-------
included in the final guidelines.
8-3.4 Enforcement Guidance/General Enforcement Comments
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-11) suggested that a list be
prepared of each existing facility that would be required to
preprocess waste prior to incineration.
Response: These final guidelines do not require any existing
MWC to burn "processed waste" as defined in the proposal
because the 25 percent materials separations provisions are
not included in the final guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-93) said it would be difficult
to demonstrate the 25-percent requirement since they have no
scale at their existing MWC. Another commenter (IV-D-279)
from an existing 450 Mg/day (500 tpd) MWC, noted that the
existing scalehouse was already near capacity. The commenter
was also concerned about the potential for the increased
traffic to the scalehouse to result in a negative response on
the part of the host community.
Response; The comments are moot since they refer to specific
implementations process which were unique to the materials
separation requirements proposed by the Agency but not
included in the final guidelines.
8.3.5 Battery Separation Compliance
Comment; Commenter IV-D-137 said that the prohibition on
lead-acid batteries is even more infeasible for existing
facilities than new facilities because existing facilities may
not have enough space to retrofit an inspection system. The
commenter was also concerned about how compliance would be
measured.
Response; The proposed prohibition on the combustion of
lead-acid vehicle batteries has not been included in the final
guidelines.
8.4 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS FOR MATERIALS
SEPARATION
nmrnnent; Four commenters (IV-F-3.6, IV-D-155, IV-D-158,
IV-D-279) said that private MWC operations lacked the
authority to require households or recyclers to report on
their separation activities.
8-9
-------
Response; This comment is moot since the potential direct
relationship between private MWCs and community recycling was
an issue unique to the materials separation requirements
proposed by the Agency but not included in the final
guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) said many MWC's in smaller
communities lack scale capacity to keep the records necessary
to verify the amount of material separated.
Response; This comment is moot since it refers to an
implementation process which was unique to the materials
separation requirements proposed by the Agency but not
included in the final guidelines.
8.5 LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MATERIALS SEPARATION GUIDELINES
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-129) was concerned that it had
taken too long to develop this proposal, and that many MWC's
had been permitted that would not be subject to the NSPS. The
commenter wanted assurance that these MWC's also be required
to meet the same materials separation requirements as new
MWC's.
Response; Neither the NSPS or final guidelines include
materials separation requirements.
8.6 OVERALL AGENCY STRATEGY TO PROMOTE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
8.6.1 Separation for Landfills
Comment; As with new MWC's, some commenters said to
accomplish the source reduction goals, the materials
separation requirements must be applied to existing landfills
rather than only to existing and new MWC's. (See additional
comments in Section 4.6.1.)
Response; This comment is moot since the Agency has not
included the materials separation requirements for combustors.
8.6.2 Overall Strategies
Comment; Several commenters (IV-F-1.3, IV-F-1.13, IV-F-1.14,
IV-F-2.4) expressed frustration at these regulations because
the communities they represented had closed most landfills
years ago and built expensive MWC's. One commenter (IV-F-2.4)
stated that their communities were already involved in
8-10
-------
recycling and that the added burden of the materials
separation provisions, as well as the necessity to retrofit
their existing MWC's, was unreasonable. Another commenter
(IV-F-1.3) stated that the materials separation provisions
would only increase the paperwork burden for these communities
with active programs in place, without increasing separation
or recycling at all. Some commenters (IV-D-150, IV-D-163)
said the materials separation provisions of the emission
guidelines can only be effectively implemented under an
integrated solid waste program, such as RCRA. In particular,
one commenter (IV-D-150) said close scrutiny must be given to
avoid conflicts that would threaten the effectiveness of
existing programs, or with imminent Federal legislation. The
commenter noted that most programs today are an integration of
source reduction, recycling, combustion and landfilling,
consistent with the "Agenda for Action," with many States and
communities already having comprehensive recycling measures in
place. The commenter said the proposal would disrupt
implementation of approved integrated solid waste management
plans.
Response; No mandatory materials separation requirments, are
included in the final guidelines. The Agency acknowledges and
applauds the efforts of many States and communities which are
already involved in source reduction and separation. The
Agency believes that efforts by cities such as Seattle
demonstrate the technical feasibility and substantial benefits
of separation for recycling programs. However, for reasons
described in the NSPS preamble, the Agency has not included
the proposed national separation requirement for communities
with combustors in these guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-163) faulted the proposal as
being too narrow, by focusing on just the MWC as a solid waste
disposer. The commenter said that the bills currently under
consideration to enhance recycling through RCRA and the
majority of State efforts are aimed at increasing recycling
through incentives and enhanced markets rather than a
percentage requirement as presented in the proposal. The
8-11
-------
commenter said the narrow view of the proposal would make a
compliance demonstration virtually impossible, because
compliance would require more knowledge about the incoming
waste than is practicable. The commenter argued that the MWC
lacked authority to demand much of the information it would
need from other sources to demonstrate compliance.
Response; This comment is moot since it relates to
implementation procedures unique to the materials separation
program proposed by the Agency but not included in the final
guidelines.
8.7 WORDING OF REGULATION
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-78) recommended that EPA
enumerate the site-specific difficulties it will allow states
to consider when they establish regulations based on the
proposed guidelines for materials separation.
Response; This comment is moot since the Agency has not
included the materials separation requirements for combustors
in the final guidelines.
8.8 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MATERIALS SEPARATION
Comment: Many commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-28, IV-D-29, IV-D-30,
IV-D-31, IV-D-32, IV-D-33, IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-36, IV-D-37,
IV-D-38, IV-D-39, IV-D-41, IV-D-43, IV-D-45, IV-D-46, IV-D-48,
IV-D-49, IV-D-52, IV-D-53, IV-D-54, IV-D-58, IV-D-60, IV-D-77,
IV-D-78, IV-D-99, IV-D-111, IV-D-179, IV-D-180), especially
small communities with local MWC's or MWC equipment vendors
and contractors, saw these provisions, and the resultant
uncertainty about permit violations, as threatening the
viability of existing MWC's as a solid waste treatment
strategy. These commenters recommended that the materials
separation requirements be deleted from the MWC regulation and
guidelines. One commenter (IV-D-179) agreed with the
separation of materials which result in problem emissions, but
did not agree with separating typical combustible materials.
One of these commenters (IV-D-32) suggested that requiring
States to develop a plan for reducing waste volume by
25 percent might be a workable alternative to the materials
separation requirements. Another commenter (IV-D-109) said
8-12
-------
the materials separation guidelines would conflict with
immediate State plans, even though the plans would require the
same 25 percent reduction in the near future.
Response; The Agency supports separation for recycling
programs. To the extent that more source reduction and
recycling is achieved and there is less waste to be disposed
of, overall air emissions will decrease.
The Agency does not believe that new separation programs
would threaten the viability of MWC's as a responsible solid
waste management tool, an important part of a responsible
solid waste management program, because not all materials can
be technically recycled, or the market for a particular
recyclable material may be currently unavailable. Some
examples of materials which cannot be recycled are tissues and
contaminated papers. Since there is inadequate and shrinking
capacity in landfills, incineration is a means to reduce the
volume of materials that would otherwise be disposed of in
landfills. Additionally, energy can be produced through the
combustion of MSW, which offsets the need for increased fossil
fuel combustion. However, for reasons described in the
preamble, the national separation program for combustor areas
proposed by the Agency has been not been included in the final
guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-163) said that the proposed
emission guidelines would promote centralized processing
rather than source separation because of the difficulty of
claiming credit for source separation. One commenter
(IV-D-163) said the proposed emission guidelines would delay
approval of proposed capacity.
Response; The Agency believes that many States and
communities have considerable experience both in crafting
separation and recycling programs and in tabulating the
quantities separated or recycled in these programs.
Coordinated efforts involving separation are underway
presently, and many on-site systems and programs are available
as well.
The Agency expects that separation for recycling programs
8-13
-------
may actually facilitate approval of proposed MWC capacity by
reducing the uncertainty about the requirements such new
capacity would have to meet, and by easing public concern over
emissions. However, for reasons described in the NSPS
preamble, the national material separation requirements are
not included in the final guidelines.
Comment; Another commenter (IV-D-68) was opposed to the
materials separation requirements because the owner or
operator of an existing MWC had no legal authority to force a
municipality to recycle. The commenter suggested that the
rules should be rewritten to place the responsibility on the
municipalities directly, and also upon waste management
district using landfills. Similar comments were made for new
MWC's (see Chapter 4.0).
Response; This comment is moot since the Agency has not
included the materials separation requirements in the final
guidelines.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-279) from a 450 Mg/day (500 tpd)
MWC said that the scale-house at their facility was near
capacity, and the increased traffic associated with weighing
separated material would cause problems.
Response; Most materials are weighed when they are taken to
market, and weight receipts from such transactions are often
used to determine weights of separated materials.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-3.6) said that his company's MWC
was responsible for combusting waste from foreign cruise ships
when they come to dock in the community. He said that
according to Department of Agriculture regulations, all of the
waste must be incinerated. The commenter also said that his
company's MWC was responsible for destroying confidential
documents, computer printouts, and computer disks under
contract with local, State, and Federal agencies. Therefore,
an exclusion from the materials separation requirements should
be granted in such situations.
Response; This comment is moot since the Agency has not
included the separation requirements in the final guidelines.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-56) recommended that compliance
8-14
-------
should be required within 1 year, and testing for compliance
would begin within 2 years, others (IV-D-105) agreed that the
compliance time proposed was too long.
However, some commenters (IV-D-78, IV-D-164, IV-D-184)
said the compliance times for existing MWC's to achieve
25 percent separation is unreasonably short. One commenter
(IV-D-184) said the materials separation requirements for
existing MWC's should allow for a phased-in compliance
schedule because of the difficulties over preexisting
contracts that may result. The commenter noted that this is
much more of a problem for existing MWC's than for new MWC's.
One commenter (IV-D-194) noted that to develop a comprehensive
recycling program and construct an adequate resource recovery
facility to process waste would take longer than allowed. One
commenter (IV-D-122) asked that the guideline for existing
MWC's be revised to link compliance for materials separation
to the effective date of the State emission standards. The
commenter felt that the proposed provisions would leave some
sources no time to put required programs into place.
Response; The final guidelines do not include materials
separation provisions.
8-15
-------
9.0 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR
EMISSION GUIDELINES
9.1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-78) expressed concern that the
emission guidelines rulemaking is mandating actual performance
standards for existing sources. The commenter said
42 U.S.C. 7411(d) provides for EPA to develop only procedural
guidelines by which the States shall then establish
performance standards.
Response: The CAA provides a general framework from which
regulatory activities are developed. In response to the CAA,
rules were proposed and promulgated in 1975 which describe
implementation of Section lll(d). These rules (40 CFR 60.20-
29) are now law. Under these rules, the Agency develops and
publishes emission guidelines which establish emission levels.
States then develop their plans from these guidelines.
9.2 COFIRING
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-174, IV-D-212) thought EPA
failed to adequately examine the environmental impacts
associated with combustion of individual MSW components in
industrial boilers and the implementation issues associated
with applying the rules to industrial solid fuel units. One
commenter (IV-D-122) stated the preamble gives no indication
that the Agency has examined the extent to which small amounts
of nonprocess waste materials are burned in industrial boilers
and no information is cited concerning the differences in
emissions when such units are combusting only fossil fuels
versus when fossil fuels are cofired with waste materials. He
said without such emissions test data, there is no basis to
conclude that emissions from industrial boilers burning small
amounts of waste materials are similar to MWC's in any way.
9-1
-------
Furthermore, control technologies suitable for MWC's may not
perform similarly on a unit designed to fire fossil fuels or
wood residues.
He mentioned that the National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement is in the midst of
conducting a survey of industry waste disposal practices, and
the results of that survey will provide information on how
many mills use MSW-type mixtures or individual, nonrecyclable
MSW components as auxiliary or supplementary fuel in existing
boilers. Unfortunately, the survey results will not be
available until late spring. Similarly, the American Paper
Institute/National Forest Products Association is examining
the feasibility of combusting nonrecyclable paper in existing
industrial boilers, and hopes to have some information to
submit to the docket several weeks after the close of the
comment period. He hoped EPA would be willing to consider the
results of both studies.
Response; The CAA Amendments of 1990 specify that combustors
which fire fuel feed streams comprised of 30 percent MSW or
less, by weight, are not subject to the MWC standards and
guidelines. The NSPS only covers those MWC's with unit
capacities above 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) that combust a fuel
containing more than 30 percent MSW or RDF. Therefore,
existing industrial units firing fuel streams containing small
amounts of MSW not be subject to the NSPS.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-74) thought existing industrial
boilers should be allowed to cofire clean, combustible,
source-separated materials until adequate markets for the
recycled materials are established.
Response; As described above, the final guidelines would
exclude units firing or cofiring small amounts of MSW. If
combustible source-separated materials such as paper are
discarded by residences, or commercial or institutional
facilities, the materials are considered MSW as defined in the
final standards and guidelines.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-F-2.54, IV-D-162), whose power
company operates an FBC facility, said the opacity guidelines
9-2
-------
are overly restrictive for their FBC. The combustor fires a
mixture of 50 percent RDF and 50 percent wood. Limestone is
injected into the fluid bed boilers for acid gas control and
an electrified filter gravel bed is used for PM control. He
said the unit can meet the levels for dioxins/furans, PM, SO2,
and HC1. However, the opacity level of 10 percent could not
be met on a continuous basis due to varying fuel
characteristics, particularly the moisture contents of the
wood and RDF. Their permit opacity level is 20 percent. They
urged EPA to allow States to develop alternate opacity limits
on a case-by-case basis, or to amend the guidelines to allow a
waiver in cases where PM emission levels are met, but opacity
levels are not. These commenters also commented on the CO
guidelines for their cofired FBC (see Section 7.5.4).
Response: As explained in responses in Sections 3.5.2 and
7.5.2, there are procedures in the General Provisions of
40 CFR 60 for establishing site-specific opacity limits in
cases where PM limits and other standards are met but the
opacity limit is not met.
9.3 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION CONSIDERATIONS
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-115, IV-D-122, IV-D-137,
IV-D-138, IV-D-150, IV-D-155, IV-D-190) urged EPA to specify
in the guidelines and NSPS that facilities retrofitting to
comply with the guidelines will not be required to undergo PSD
review.
Response; In commenting on a permit issued to Northern
Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) , the Agency has
clarified its interpretation of the definition of a physical
or operational change as it applies to new source requirements
for sources adding or improving APCD's. Essentially, this
clarification recognizes that a source solely adding or
enhancing systems or devices whose primary functions are the
Letters from David Kee, EPA Region V, to Timothy Method,
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, commenting on
proposed construction permit for a clean coal technology
demonstration project at NIPSCO's Bailly Generating Station,
January 30, 1990, and March 8, 1990.
9-3
-------
reduction of air pollution would not constitute a physical or
operational change triggering new source requirements. To
receive this consideration, such a change at a source would
have to be determined to be not less environmentally
beneficial than any emission control system or device it
replaces, if any. Consequently, NSPS and PSD and
nonattainment new source review would not apply to these types
of activities.
Under the clarification, the authorized permitting
authority would make a presumption that the installation or
improvement of pollution control systems at an existing source
would not cause an increase in capacity utilization. Under
that presumption, retrofits would not trigger review of such a
source for either nonattainment or PSD purposes as long as
hourly emissions would not increase. This approach is
consistent with the proposed NSPS, which exempts pollution
control equipment from the definition of a modification.
Obviously, on an hourly basis, emissions of the pollutant
that is the target of the control technology will not increase
due to the installation and operation of control equipment.
For the other pollutants (those not directly the target of
control), the source must ensure that the hourly emissions do
not increase.
The complete exemption from PSD review requested by the
commenters is unworkable in that some limited PSD
applicability review will still be necessary. This review is
to ensure that pollution control retrofit projects cannot be
used as a shield to exclude life extension projects or other
source modifications that might otherwise trigger new source
review. -Under the clarification, owners or operators making
permanent emissions control system or device changes would
provide a description of the proposed activity and a rationale
for why they should qualify for an exclusion from the
definitions of a "physical change" or a "change in the method
of operation" of a source. The owner or operator would
demonstrate that an emissions control system or device
installation would consist of the replacement of an existing
9-4
-------
emissions control system or device with an improved or
upgraded emissions control system or device, or the
installation of a new emissions control system or device at an
existing uncontrolled source. Physical or operational changes
which would be made to restore original capacity, or be made
to improve the operation or efficiency of the source, would
not be considered an emissions control system installation or
improvement, even if conducted in conjunction with the
installation or improvement of an emissions control system.
The owner or operator would also demonstrate that an emissions
control system or device installation would not cause or
contribute to a violation of a SIP, a condition in a permit
issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated under
the CAA, or any applicable NAAQS or PSD increment. Further,
the owner or operator would also need to demonstrate that the
replacement or addition of the emissions control system would
not result in an environmental harm. The authorized
permitting authority would thus review each proposed project
on a case-by-case basis to ensure whether additional physical
changes made at the source at the same time should be
considered non-routine.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-137, IV-D-138, IV-D-155)
requested that the emission guidelines specify that any
emissions increase resulting from compliance with the
materials separation requirements should not trigger PSD
review.
Response; After considering the revised significance levels
(see comment on significance levels in Section 6.3), the
Agency concluded that any changes in emissions that could be
directly attributable to materials separation requirements are
unlikely to exceed the significance levels. Therefore, any
emissions changes directly attributable to materials
separation are not expected to result in new source review.
However, for reasons discussed in the preamble, materials
separation requirements are not included in the final
guidelines.
9-5
-------
9.4 NITROGEN OXIDES CONTROL FOR EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS
Comment; Four commenters (IV-F-1.27, IV-F-2.39, IV-F-2.40,
IV-D-117) said that the guidelines for existing MWC plants
should include NOX emission levels. One commenter (IV-F-2.39)
pointed out that NOX impairs breathing especially for people
with lung diseases, and NOX is an ozone precursor. This
commenter stated that the adverse health effects of NOX
support requiring add-on NOX controls for new MWC's, and
likewise should be used to support NOX control for existing
MWC's. Another commenter (IV-D-164) noted the EPA's
inconsistency in considering NOX a pollutant from new but hot
existing sources.
One commenter (IV-D-117) stated that for existing MWC's,
a NOX level of 200 ppm should be achievable using yard waste
separation and prudent operating practices, with lower levels
achievable using retrofit technology.
Response; Emission guidelines are not prescribed for NOX
because NOX is a criteria pollutant regulated under
Sections 108 to 110 of the CAA. Under Section lll(b), NSPS
for new sources can be developed for criteria pollutants
including NOX. It is also possible to "designate" noncriteria
pollutants for regulation under Section 111 if these
pollutants are not regulated under another section of the CAA
and may endanger public health and welfare. As explained in
Section 3.2, the pollutant MWC emissions, composed of MWC
organics, MWC metals, and MWC acid gases was designated under
Section 111. When a pollutant is designated, emission
guidelines are developed for existing sources of the pollutant
under Section lll(d). However, Section lll(d) allows
guidelines to be developed only for designated pollutants and
not for criteria pollutants such as NOX.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-184) acknowledged that the
proposal for no additional control of NOX for existing MWC's
is appropriate due to the relatively high cost of control, the
limited environmental benefits which would result, and the
need to store and handle a hazardous material (ammonia).
9-6
-------
Response; As explained in the previous response, the
provisions of the 1977 CAA were the reason that guidelines
were not developed for NOX emissions from existing sources.
The decision was based on the existing structure of
Section lll(d) of the 1977 CAA rather than on technical
considerations. The CAA of 1990 requires that the Agency
develop NOX standards for both new and existing combustors.
9.5 OTHER
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-109) requested guidance for
case-by-case planning by individual States, particularly with
respect to the use of reasonable levels of expenditure in $/Mg
($/ton) contaminant and $/Mg ($/ton) MSW disposal since these
costs show a great variation nationwide* The commenter also
asked for guidance on prioritizing control efforts for the
different pollutants.
Response; The pollutant MWC emissions was designated because
it may cause or contribute to endangerment of public health.
In accordance with 40 CFR 60.24(c) unless there is compelling
site-specific rationale, State regulations must be at least as
stringent as the guidelines and must include all the
pollutants and parameters specified in the guidelines. The
provisions of 40 CFR 60.24(f) describe the procedures for
States to develop less stringent emission standards or longer
compliance times for particular sources on a case-by-case
basis. There are no bright lines to determine whether or not
a particular site merits an exception, however, unreasonable
cost of control is one reason specified in 40 CFR 60.24(f).
In considering whether costs of controls are unreasonable,
factors such as plant age, location, and basic process design
may be taken into account.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-159) said he submitted to EPA
corrections for errors in Chapter 6.0 of the BID, "Municipal
Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed
Guidelines for Existing Facilities," which were related to
inaccuracies concerning his facility and the model plant. The
commenter said with few exceptions the changes were not made
and thus the document is still significantly flawed.
9-7
-------
Response; The Agency reviewed this submittal and corrections
were made to the BID where deemed necessary. The BID to which
the commenter is referring (EPA-450/3-89-27e) is a model plant
report. Model plants are analytical tools and do not
represent any one particular existing plant. The Agency
determined that their model plant analysis was appropriate.
Individual facilities will have site-specific differences.
9-8
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{fleas* read Inttructions on the reverie before completing}
I. REPORT NO.
EPA-4BO/3/91-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Municipal Wast* Combustion: Background Information
for Promulgated Standard* and Guidelines -
Summary of Public Comments and Responses
December 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Emissions Standards Division
OAQPS, OAR, U.S. EPA
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
3200 East Chapel Hill Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1A1153C003
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA Contract
68—02—4378
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
53C
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Additional discussion of public comments can be found in the Federal Resigter
promulgation notices.
16. ABSTRACT
EPA is preparing for promulgation under Clean Air Act §111 (b) emission standards
for new MVC's and, under §111(d), emission guidelines for existing MtfC's. The
standards and guidelines will apply to MVC units with a capacity to combust 2SO
or more tons of municipal solid waste per day. The standards and guidelines
were proposed in the Federal Resister on December 20, 1989 (54 FR 52251 and 54
FR 52209). Public hearings were held in January 1990 in Boston MA, Detroit Ml,
and Seattle WA. These meetings were open to the public and the public was given
an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Additionally, EPA received over 300
written comment letters. The report summarizes all comments and presents the
Agency's responses.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
t>.IOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
kGES
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) PH«VIOU» BDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |