Employee Safety Best Practices and

Operating Information for Industrial Staffing Firms

Table of Contents

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_01"  Executive Summary

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_02"  Introduction

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_03"  Employee Safety Best Practices and Operating
Information for Staffing Firms

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_03"  1. Industrial Staffing Firm General
Operations and Management of Workplace Incidents

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_04"  1.1 Corporate Safety Philosophy

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_05"  1.2 Management of Workplace Incidents

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_06"  1.3 Management of Workplace Injury Claims

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_07"  1.4 Utilization of Contracts That Fairly
Apportion Risk

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_08"  1.5 Proper Classification of Workers

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_09"  1.6 Utilization of Written Job Descriptions
and Scope of Work Documents

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_10"  1.7 Utilization of Risk Management-Based
Sales Processes

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_11"  1.8 Continuous Cooperation and Communication
With Clients

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_12"  2. Industrial Staffing Firm Internal and
Temporary Employees

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_13"  2.1 General Screening of Candidates

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_14"  2.2 Skills and Other Testing of Candidates

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_15"  2.3 General Orientation for New Employees

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_16"  2.4 General Safety Training and Ongoing
Communication

 HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_17" 3. Selection of, and Ongoing Interaction With,
Clients, Secondary Suppliers, Vendor Management Systems, and Managed
Service Providers

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_18"  3.1 Risk Assessment and Consultation

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_19"  3.2 On-Site Evaluation of the Work Site

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_20"  3.3 Safety Partnership With the Client

  HYPERLINK  \l "LINK_21"  3.4 Ongoing Communication Between the Parties

Executive Summary

Through the establishment and implementation of employee safety best
practices, industrial staffing firms can improve employee safety and
well-being. Staffing firms and employees can benefit from fewer
workplace hazards and exposures, as well as fewer worker injuries,
illnesses, and fatalities.

Industrial staffing firms have a general duty to take reasonable steps
to determine conditions at the work site, provide employees with generic
safety information, and advise them how to protect themselves from
hazards they are likely to face on the job. These employee safety best
practices will help industrial staffing firms create and sustain healthy
and safe work environments.

Industrial staffing firms should have policies in place that address how
to handle workplace incidents in a prompt, effective, and efficient
manner. Firms should aggressively monitor and manage open claims and
institute measures to minimize future claims.

Industrial staffing firms should actively monitor National Council on
Compensation Insurance workers’ compensation class codes to confirm
their accuracy and avoid excessive premiums. They also should make sure
that if they classify workers as independent contractors, they do so
lawfully under wage and hour, tax, and other laws.

Industrial staffing firms should engage in thorough screening of all
candidates and should apprise candidates of safety policies and
expectations of workers. Firms should consider administering skills and
knowledge assessments. Newly hired employees should undergo general
orientation conducted by the staffing firm. Industrial staffing firms
should regularly provide ongoing training and general safety information
to employees.

Industrial staffing firms should engage in a risk assessment and
analysis to decide whether to do business with potential clients. Their
internal employees should be trained to engage in effective on-site
inspections and evaluations of a potential client’s work site.

Industrial staffing firms should impress upon clients that both the
staffing firm and client are essential to creating a successful
partnership and fostering work site safety and temporary employees’
well-being. All of the parties’ respective responsibilities should be
set forth in the staffing firm’s written agreement with the client.
The staffing firm and client should maintain open and ongoing
communication regarding safety issues.

Introduction

Promoting and ensuring employee safety and well-being is the
responsibility of every industrial staffing firm. Through the
establishment and implementation of employee safety best practices,
industrial staffing firms can foster a workplace culture that increases
employer and worker awareness of, commitment to, and involvement in
employee safety and well-being. Industrial staffing firms and employees
can benefit from fewer workplace hazards and exposures, as well as fewer
worker injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Moreover, worker
satisfaction, productivity, collaboration, recruitment, and retention
all increase dramatically when employers promote and ensure safe and
healthy work environments.

The Employee Safety Best Practices and Operating Information for
Industrial Staffing Firms are designed to assist industrial staffing
firms in doing just that.

Beyond these tangible and well-recognized benefits of employee safety
best practices, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and state
workplace safety laws require all employers, including industrial
staffing firms, to maintain safe and healthy workplaces for their
employees. Industrial staffing firms have workplace safety obligations
to two sets of employees—their temporary employees assigned to clients
and their internal staff. With respect to temporary employees, the issue
of who is primarily responsible for ensuring their safety at the work
site—the staffing firm or the client—has, at times, generated
confusion.

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules provide that
clients are primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of staffing
firm temporary employees because the client controls the work site and
also generally controls the work performed by the employees.

Under OSHA rules for recording and reporting occupational injuries and
illnesses, clients also are required to maintain records of illnesses
and injuries of temporary employees if the temporary workers are subject
to the client’s direction and supervision. If they are not, then the
staffing firms must record the illnesses and injuries on their own OSHA
300 logs. The rules’ purpose is to ensure timely and accurate
record-keeping by the employer in the best position to obtain the
information and to assist OSHA in identifying high-hazard employers.
Clients also are required to cover temporary employees under OSHA’s
1986 Hazard Communication Standard, which requires employers to notify
employees of hazardous substances in the workplace.

Industrial staffing firms have a “general duty” to take reasonable
steps to determine conditions at the work site, provide employees with
generic safety information, and advise them how to obtain more specific
information at the work site to protect themselves from hazards they are
likely to face on the job.

Industrial staffing firms can be penalized for failing to inquire about
conditions at the work site. They also can be penalized for failing to
take adequate steps to ensure that their employees are properly informed
of any hazards and how to protect themselves.

Although federal OSHA rules are followed in most states, some states
have their own rules that differ in significant ways.

Therefore, while the following employee safety best practices and
operating information will help industrial staffing firms create and
sustain healthy and safe work environments, they are not intended as
legal advice, and industrial staffing firms should consult with legal
counsel to ensure compliance with all federal and state laws and
regulations.

The Employee Safety Best Practices and Operating Information
specifically pertain to:

Industrial staffing firms’ general operations and management of
workplace incidents

Industrial staffing firms’ internal and temporary employees

Industrial staffing firms’ selection of, and interaction with,
clients, secondary suppliers, vendor management systems (VMSs), and
managed service providers (MSPs)

These best practices have proven to increase productivity and the
quality of the work force, as well as decrease turnover and reduce
insurance costs. Ultimately, these corporate and field-level policies
and procedures can increase profitability.

Employee Safety Best Practices and Operating Information for Staffing
Firms

Industrial Staffing Firm General Operations and Management of Workplace
Incidents

Corporate Safety Philosophy: The staffing firm should, at all times,
maintain a corporate safety philosophy regarding, among other things,
the firm’s commitment to workplace safety; handling workplace
incidents; open communication with employees, clients and other third
parties; and acceptable risks with respect to potential and current
clients and the parameters for assessing new or potential risks. Such
philosophy should be communicated regularly to all employees and
recommunicated as appropriate and any time substantive changes are made
to such philosophy.

Management of Workplace Incidents: The staffing firm should have
policies and procedures in place that are clearly communicated to all
employees and address how to handle workplace incidents in a prompt,
effective, and efficient manner.

The policy should state that all temporary and internal employees shall
be told to whom they should report incidents and the time frame for
doing so, so that the staffing firm can promptly take action to address
any such incident, including facilitating medical care or treatment of
any workplace injury.

The policy should set forth strict timelines for incident investigation,
for which complete information should be sought (from workers, clients,
and third parties), and addressing such incidents.

The policy should clearly identify who within the staffing firm will
direct postaccident or postinjury treatment, including interacting with
designated medical providers and representatives attending any client
facility visit, and communicate with medical personnel.

The policy should set forth protocols for postincident investigations
and specify which of the staffing firm’s employees or agents shall
engage in the investigation (formal accident investigation training is
recommended).

The policy should specify that a staffing firm representative should
expeditiously engage in a post-incident client work site and equipment
inspection, if possible; the policy should further specify that, if
on-site inspection is not possible, photographic or video technology
should be used promptly to capture information regarding the incident
and site. The policy also should address who is responsible for
capturing such information.

The policy should specify the purposes of all incident investigations:
among other things, to determine whether the incident or claim is
legitimate and determine the root cause(s) so as to prevent recurrence.

The policy should specify how and when the staffing firm’s insurance
carrier(s) and any third-party safety or crisis management consultants
should be contacted and utilized.

The policy should address the circumstances under which safety managers
should be designated; such manager could be a staffing firm’s field
office employee, regional or corporate employee, or an on-site employee
placed with the client.

Clients should be presented with, and consent in writing to, policies
and procedures regarding incidents involving temporary employees. These
policies and procedures should address, among other things

Which party is responsible for transporting an injured worker to obtain
care and for undertaking other postincident corrective actions

Who, at the client site, is responsible for notifying the staffing firm
of the incident and the acceptable timeframe for doing so

Contact information for staffing firm personnel who should be informed
of any incident

The sharing of information yielded from post-incident investigations

Identifying corrective actions to prevent future incidents

The client’s responsibility to record assigned temporary employees’
workplace injuries and illnesses on the client’s OSHA 300 log, to the
extent the client directs and supervises their day-to-day work

Management of Workplace Injury Claims: The staffing firm should
aggressively monitor and manage open claims as well as institute
policies and prophylactic measures to minimize future claims. Such
actions or measures should include

Timely reporting of all injuries and claims to the firm’s insurer,
broker, or third-party administrator

Maintaining ongoing communication with both the claimant and insurance
adjuster

Utilizing a national network of health care providers for post-incident
treatment so as to avoid having injured workers using higher-cost
non-occupational health care providers

Putting the claimant back to work, through a mandatory return to work
program, in a timely manner and taking into account any work limitations
(specified by a medical provider) that the claimant may have. The worker
may be placed

With the same or another client in a different work capacity (this
contingency should be addressed in the parties’ contract)

With a third party such as a nonprofit organization

In a different work capacity as part of the staffing firm’s internal
staff

Regardless of the capacity in which the worker is placed, he or she
should render meaningful services and engage in productive work, and
should be required to abide by all applicable staffing firm policies and
procedures; and while the worker should be treated with the same respect
and dignity as if he or she had not suffered the workplace incident, he
or she also should be subject to the firm’s policies regarding
disciplinary action for workplace misconduct or poor performance.

Such return to work program can substantially mitigate workers’
compensation claims and expenses, and the staffing firm should educate
all branch offices and internal employees about the cost savings and
benefits resulting from a strictly enforced return to work program.

Engaging in medical management of claims, through which nurses or other
medical providers actively advise and communicate with the staffing
firm’s internal staff to resolve claims expeditiously

Implementing a claim chargeback system whereby the profit of a staffing
firm branch or business segment is offset by claims filed; such system
provides incentives for internal employees to screen candidates
thoroughly, fully engage in workplace safety practices, and actively
manage claims

Implementing a rating system for postincident investigations undertaken
by field employees, so as to incent and hold them accountable for proper
investigations of, analyses of, and responses to workplace incidents

Utilizing internal claims staff who can work with adjusters and carriers
to manage worker claims

Utilization of Contracts That Fairly Apportion Risk: Contracts proffered
by clients often apportion risk in an unfair manner, with the staffing
firm agreeing to indemnify the client for almost any and all claims
arising from the staffing relationship. Because staffing firms are not
insurers, each party should be responsible for the risks associated with
its own business, and each such party should have a duty to indemnify
the other only for those risks. To help ASA members and their attorneys
address these issues, ASA has developed model contracts that spell out
the staffing firm’s and the client’s respective responsibilities and
apportion risk fairly. The ASA model contracts, which do not constitute
legal advice and should be reviewed and modified by legal counsel, as
appropriate, are available at
americanstaffing.net/legalandgovernment/contracts.cfm.

Proper Classification of Workers: One of the primary components of
pricing workers’ compensation insurance is classifying a risk or
workplace exposure within the proper National Council on Compensation
Insurance workers’ compensation class code. Incorrect risk
classification by insurance agents or underwriters often results in
premium that is too high or, conversely, lower premium that is
reclassified at the time of audit, thus creating a large audit bill.

The staffing firm therefore should actively monitor such NCCI codes to
confirm their accuracy and avoid excessive premiums (note that some
states use their own codes rather than the NCCI codes). The staffing
firm also should monitor (or utilize third parties to monitor) and
assess the accuracy of the staffing firm’s workers’ compensation
modification factor, and work closely with adjusters and carriers with
respect to the administration of claims.

Also, the staffing firm should make sure that, to the extent it
classifies workers as independent contractors, it is doing so lawfully
under wage and hour, tax, and other laws. While there are benefits to
using independent contractors, including not having to provide
workers’ compensation insurance, new laws and increased enforcement of
existing laws are making it more difficult than ever to properly
determine whether workers should be classified as independent
contractors or as employees.

Utilization of Written Job Descriptions and Scope of Work Documents:
Such documents are essential to establishing and clarifying the job
duties, responsibilities, and proper role of temporary employees, and
therefore they will assist in determining the staffing firm or
client’s liability under the parties’ contract; such documents
should be confirmed and agreed upon in writing by clients, and clients
should not be allowed to modify worker duties absent the staffing
firm’s prior consent.

Utilization of Risk Management-Based Sales Processes: By including
safety and risk management analyses of potential and existing clients in
its services, the staffing firm can provide value-added services in
addition to staffing. Moreover, by engaging in a risk and safety
analysis of policies and work sites, the staffing firm can more
accurately account for risk in its pricing, should it decide to do
business with a potential client.

Continuous Cooperation and Communication With Clients: Throughout the
term of the staffing contract, the staffing firm and client should
continuously communicate, preferably in writing but in all cases
expeditiously, regarding temporary workers’ assignments, workplace
incidents, satisfaction, training, responsibilities, safety equipment,
working conditions, and all other relevant issues pertaining to the
workers’ assignments.

2.	Industrial Staffing Firm Internal and Temporary Employees

2.1 General Screening of Candidates: The staffing firm should engage in
thorough screening of all candidates, with a particular focus on
licensing, continuing education, and background checks and drug tests,
to the extent necessary or advisable, and the dissemination of safety
information during the application process.

The staffing firm’s Web site, application forms, and employee
handbooks (whether in paper, electronic, or other format) should clearly
set forth all safety policies and worker expectations; the candidate
should be provided with a copy of such policies and expectations during
the interview (which should be in person, whenever possible) and sign an
acknowledgement of receipt and agreement to abide by them.

The staffing firm should advise the candidate that drug screens and
background checks may be required for certain assignments, and should
obtain the candidate’s written consent and waiver for same.

Drug or substance abuse tests and criminal background checks should be
conducted per client requests; as required by applicable law; and in
connection with safety-sensitive positions (e.g., positions with schools
or banks, and positions in which workers come into contact with social
security numbers, trade secrets, or other confidential information)

Criminal background checks should be performed in accordance with the
Fair Credit Reporting Act and any applicable state laws

In cases where a criminal background check will be conducted, the
staffing firm should clearly communicate with the client regarding the
scope of the background check—e.g., whether a state or national check
will be conducted (and, if the former, those states that will be
checked); whether county or municipality records will be checked; and
the time period the background check will cover. The client should
acknowledge and agree in writing to the scope of the criminal background
check. The staffing firm should also review its marketing materials to
make sure not to overstate, or give false impressions with respect to,
the background checks it will conduct.

The staffing firm should comply with all applicable federal and state
laws and regulations (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations) that include drug or criminal background screening
requirements.

e.	The staffing firm should verify the candidate’s employment and
education history, confirm that the candidate possesses required
licenses or certifications, check the candidate’s references, and
inquire as to gaps in employment. Licenses should be verified, prior to
assignment and periodically (at least annually) thereafter, with the
relevant state authority so as to ensure that the candidate is and
remains in good standing. The staffing firm also should inform the
candidate that any material omission or falsification on an employment
application is grounds for refusal to hire or termination of employment.

f.	The staffing firm should verify drivers’ licenses, review motor
vehicle records, and comply with DOT requirements for those candidates
who may be driving vehicles on the job.

2.2	Skills and Other Testing of Candidates: The staffing firm should
consider administering the following, in accordance with applicable
disability and other relevant laws as well as client specifications
obtained in writing.

a.	Basic safety knowledge assessments

b.	General and assignment-specific skills and knowledge assessments (for
example, tests pertaining to driving, welding, forklift operation, and
other skills essential to successful performance)

c.	Physicals or medical examinations and physical capability testing of
a general nature or assignment-specific (after an assignment offer is
made, in accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and other
disability laws); assignment-specific testing can pertain to, among
other things, potential or expected environmental or chemical hazards or
conditions at the work site, and can establish a medical baseline that
can later be used to measure the extent of a temporary employee’s
injury or change in physical condition as a result of the assignment
(for example, a blood test can later be used to measure the extent of a
temporary worker’s exposure to radioactive materials; a hearing test
can be used to measure the effects of an assignment on the worker’s
hearing ability; an ergonomic carpal tunnel test can be used to assess
changes to a worker’s ability to engage in repetitive motions).
Assignment-specific testing can also ensure that the workers can fulfill
the physical requirements of the job (i.e., that they are fit for duty).

d.	Drug tests

Drug tests should be conducted per client requests; as required by
applicable law (for example, as mandated by DOT regulations); and in
connection with safety-sensitive positions (for example, press and
elevated work).

The staffing firm should obtain written consent from all applicants.

In addition to preassignment drug tests, the staffing firm should
consider implementing random drug testing and postaccident testing in
accordance with applicable laws.

The staffing firm should maintain a log of drug tests conducted to
insulate itself from liability.

The staffing firm should comply with all applicable privacy laws in
connection with drug testing and handling drug test results.

Integrity testing, which can be used to identify individuals who are
likely to engage in inappropriate, dishonest, unlawful, or antisocial
behavior at work

Such tests can be used to reduce turnover and business costs (for
example, reductions in absenteeism).

Such tests should be considered for all candidates for safety-sensitive
positions or upon client request.

Such tests should be considered for candidates for jobs with high-volume
clients.

2.3	General Orientation for New Employees: Newly hired employees should
undergo general orientation conducted by the staffing firm. Such
orientation should include

Review of the staffing firm’s employee handbook (which should be
updated regularly in accordance with the advice of legal counsel), as
well as the firm’s workplace safety, drug-free workplace, equal
employment opportunity, antiharassment, retaliation, and other policies
and procedures; and review of the staffing firm’s general duty
regarding workplace safety (for temporary employees)

Review of the staffing firm’s mandatory return to work program

Review of any and all processes, policies, risks, business methods and
practices, administrative issues, or other matters that are specific or
unique to the staffing firm’s branch offices or particular lines of
business

Briefing of temporary employees assigned to clients on

General working conditions at the client site and the fact that a major
area of loss is slip and fall injuries; thus the employees should be
particularly cognizant of areas of obstruction

The need for, and types of, personal protective equipment (PPE) for the
assignment and that such equipment will be provided by the client or
staffing firm

To whom the assigned employees will report at the client site

Scheduled hours of work

Job qualifications, including the need for special training or the
ability to work with particular machinery or equipment (e.g., forklifts)

The staffing firm’s policies and protocols for reporting workplace
incidents

Orientation materials, handbooks, safety policies, and other
assignment-specific information provided by the client

The need to refrain from removing any safety devices at the work site or
using any equipment that the worker does not fully understand how to
use, for which the worker has not received safety training, or that is
not part of the worker’s written job description

The existence of a strike or work stoppage at the client site, including
the fact that the worker will not be retaliated against for turning down
the assignment; and any precautionary measures designed to ensure worker
safety during the strike

2.4	General Safety Training and Ongoing Communication: It is critical
that, during the employee’s tenure with the staffing firm, the firm
regularly provide ongoing training and general safety information to the
employee.

Such training and communication should be disseminated through

Electronic newsletters

E-mail

Safety posters at the staffing firm and client sites

Regularly scheduled lunch room or other talks, during which actual work
site incidents are addressed and for which employees are required to
verify their attendance

Internet tutorials and Web-based safety programs

Areas of the staffing firm’s Web site dedicated to workplace safety
issues and information

Paycheck stuffers

Mandatory phone sessions or recordings that focus on workplace safety
and incident prevention

A print or online library of safety and training materials

The staffing firm should share, with assigned temporary workers, the
results of any work site inspections conducted by the staffing firm
(including those conducted prior to the assignment, after a work site
incident or accident, or after a significant change in client staff or
the temporary worker’s duties).

The staffing firm should engage in postincident training so as to review
causes of and responsibility for the incident (client, temporary
employee, staffing firm, or third party), as well as preventative
measures.

The staffing firm should include risk management personnel in internal
staff meetings.

The staffing firm should appoint branch office safety teams to oversee
communications with temporary workers assigned from such branches.

Selection of, and Ongoing Interaction With, Clients, Secondary
Suppliers, Vendor Management Systems, and Managed Service Providers

Risk Assessment and Consultation: Prior to taking on (onboarding) a
client, it is essential for the staffing firm to engage in a risk
assessment and analysis to ascertain the risk of workplace incidents and
ultimately decide whether the firm should do business with the potential
client. To the extent the staffing firm decides to take on the client,
the results of the assessment can and should be shared with the client
as a value added service that can improve work site safety for the
client’s internal staff, as well as assigned temporary employees. Such
assessment should include

A credit check of the potential client

A search of the potential client’s recordable workplace incidents and
safety history. Such information can be obtained from

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data

OSHA (with respect to inspection histories and fines); see
osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.html

A comparison of the potential client’s workplace incident rate to the
rates of peers within client’s industry

A check within the staffing firm’s professional network regarding
others’ experiences with the client

A job hazard analysis of each potential temporary assignment with the
client

A review of information furnished by the potential client, including the
potential client’s safety manuals, policies, and procedures for its
employees; OSHA 300 logs (for purposes of determining, among other
things, the frequency and severity of workplace incidents and whether
incidents involving temporary employees were recorded on the log); and a
client safety practices and procedures form, which should set forth
information regarding the client’s training and safety protocols

On-Site Evaluation of the Work Site: Staffing firm employees (sales
representatives, recruiters, risk managers, etc.) should be trained to
engage in effective on-site inspections and evaluations of the potential
client’s work site. Either a scoring process or qualitative analysis
should be used to evaluate whether to do business with the prospective
client.

For potential clients expected to utilize a high volume of temporary
workers, or for remote placements, the staffing firm should consider
utilizing the resources of its insurance carrier, or those of a
third-party safety consultant, to engage in the on-site evaluation.

The site inspections and evaluations should include

An inspection of equipment to determine its condition and corresponding
safety level (logs and records of equipment maintenance and replacement
should be reviewed; safeguards should be in place)

A review of the client’s training protocols and practices with respect
to its equipment

A review of all relevant written job descriptions

A review of common and parking areas, in addition to the work site

A review of the method(s) the client use(s) to communicate safety issues
to its own employees and the efficacy of same

Ascertaining that clear means of entrance and egress are maintained

A review of the client’s security measures

Ascertaining the extent to which health or safety hazards exist at the
client site, including but not limited to chemical exposure and adverse
ergonomic conditions

Safety Partnership With the Client: The staffing firm should impress
upon the client that both parties, the staffing firm and client, are
essential to creating a successful partnership and fostering work site
safety and temporary employees’ well-being. The client must have a
thorough understanding of, and indicate its written agreement to abide
by, its specific duty under OSHA and state workplace safety laws to
engage in site-specific training for temporary employees and provide
site-specific PPE. To that end, the staffing firm should require the
client to include assigned temporary workers in all orientation, safety,
and training sessions conducted by the client for its internal employees
performing the same job functions.

The staffing firm should insure that the client agrees in writing to
comply, and does in fact comply, with the firm’s illness and injury
prevention program.

The staffing firm should obtain documentation from the client showing
that the client completed site-specific orientation and training (for
example, material safety data sheets) for assigned temporary employees
and provided necessary PPE.

The client should provide a written position description for each
assigned temporary employee.

All of the parties’ respective responsibilities should be set forth in
the staffing firm’s written agreement with the client, which should be
reviewed and thoroughly discussed before execution.

The staffing firm should understand any liabilities it contractually
assumes, and ascertain through its underwriter the extent to which such
liability is covered by the staffing firm’s insurance policy

The indemnity/hold harmless provision should be reviewed by both the
staffing firm’s insurer and its attorney, and subrogation should be
considered in machine, tool, equipment, and training-related workplace
incidents involving assigned temporary workers.

The client should agree to provide PPE and site-specific training for
assigned temporary workers (including but not limited to training about
accident avoidance and reporting, emergency procedures, and ergonomics
and site layout) and also maintain the OSHA 300 log for temporary
workers’ workplace illnesses and injuries to the extent it supervises
and directs such workers.

The parties should indemnify each other only for those duties they are
responsible for under the contract. The staffing firm should refer to
the indemnity provisions of the ASA model agreement for general staffing
arrangements, and review and modify the same upon the advice of the
firm’s legal counsel.

The staffing firm should beware of, understand, and discuss with its
attorney and insurance carrier the ramifications of waivers of
subrogation, alternate employer endorsements, and “additional
insured” clauses in the client contract, all of which can adversely
affect the staffing firm’s ability to recover damages from the client
in the event of an incident.

The parties’ contract should incorporate by reference the staffing
firm’s accident protocols and practices, including timeframes for
reporting workplace incidents, and the client should agree to abide by
same.

The contract should require the client to promptly inform the staffing
firm of any safety violations or incidents at the work site, whether or
not they involve assigned temporary employees.

The contract should address the staffing firm’s right to promptly
engage in postincident on-site investigations.

The staffing firm should create a formal hierarchy for contract
approval, whereby various members of the firm’s staff have an
opportunity to review and sign off on the contract before it is
executed.

Ongoing Communication Between the Parties: During the term of the
contract, the staffing firm and client should maintain open and ongoing
communication regarding safety issues.

The staffing firm should engage in regular performance and safety
evaluations of assigned temporary employees, with input from and
information furnished by the client.

The staffing firm should engage in periodic (quarterly or more frequent)
follow-up safety visits to, and inspections of, the client work site.

The staffing firm and client should promptly counsel assigned temporary
employees in connection with any accidents or near misses so as to
prevent same in the future.

The staffing firm should, wherever feasible, participate in the
client’s safety committees so as to have meaningful input into the
safety of assigned temporary workers.

The staffing firm should consider providing safety incentives to clients
for conducting business without incident for certain periods of time.

Both the client and assigned temporary workers should affirm, in
writing, any time training is conducted by the client, and such training
should be regularly updated as a result of, among other things, changes
in equipment, job duties, supervisors, or other changed terms and
conditions of the temporary worker’s assignment.

The information in this document should not be relied on as, and is not
intended to be, legal advice. Staffing firms requiring legal or other
advice regarding the matters discussed herein should consult with
experienced legal counsel.

 The ASA employee safety best practices and operating information for
industrial staffing firms do not address employee safety practices in
the direct hire context since the job candidate is not hired or employed
by the staffing firm; instead, employee safety is the responsibility of
the client that hires the candidate. Nevertheless, staffing firms
engaging in direct hire placements should undertake background checks
upon client request, and the scope of such checks should be clearly set
forth by the client in writing; if no such request is made, this fact
should be reflected in writing also.

 For purposes of these best practices, references to “client” should
be construed to also refer to VMSs, MSPs, and secondary suppliers.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 20701]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07845]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4484-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4484-DR), dated March 24,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES:  The declaration was issued March 24, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 24, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
Louisiana resulting from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing, are of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Louisiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance limited to
the Crisis Counseling Program and assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program throughout the
State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, George A. Robinson, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
in all areas in the State of Louisiana.
    Emergency protective measures (Category B) not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding for all
areas in the State of Louisiana.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-07845 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 41067-41069]
[DOCID:fr26jy07-42]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 18, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC07-70-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States, Inc.; Calcasieu Power, LLC.
    Description: Calcasieu Power, LLC and Entergy Gulf States, Inc
submit their responses to FERC Staff's letter dated 6/7/07.
    Filed Date: 06/28/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070628-4005; 20070703-0121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-113-000.
    Applicants: AES Mid-West Wind, L.L.C.; AES Mid-West Holdings,
L.L.C.; Lake Benton Power Partners LLC; Lake Benton Power Partners II,
LLC.
    Description: AES Mid-West Wind, LLC, et al, submit an application
for authorization for disposition of jurisdictional facilities, request
for confidential treatment and request for expedited action.
    Filed Date: 07/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070716-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 02, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-114-000.
    Applicants: Pinnacle West Marketing & Trading Co, LLC; Morgan
Stanley Capitol Group Inc.
    Description: Pinnacle West Marketing & Trading Co, LLC and Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc. submit their application for authorization
to transfer jurisdictional facilities.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070716-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-116-000.
    Applicants: KGen Acquisition I LLC; LSP Energy Limited Partnership;
La Paloma Generating Company, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for KGen Acquisition I LLC et al for
disposition of jurisdictional facilities.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.

    Accession Number: 20070717-0186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG07-67-000.
    Applicants: Mansfield 2007 Trust A.
    Description: Mansfield 2007 Trust A submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Sections
366.1 and 366.7(a) of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-68-000.
    Applicants: Mansfield 2007 Trust B.
    Description: Mansfield 2007 Trust B submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Sections
366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-69-000.
    Applicants: Mansfield 2007 Trust C.
    Description: Mansfield 2007 Trust C submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Sections
366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-70-000.
    Applicants: Mansfield 2007 Trust D.
    Description: Mansfield 2007 Trust D submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-71-000.
    Applicants: Mansfield 2007 Trust E.
    Description: Mansfield 2007 Trust E submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Sections
366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-72-000.
    Applicants: Mansfield 2007 Trust F.
    Description: Mansfield 2007 Trust F submits its Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to Sections
366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2284-007; ER99-1773-007; ER99-1761-003; ER00-
1026-014; ER01-1315-003; ER01-2401-009; ER98-2184-012; ER98-2186-013;
ER00-33-009; ER03-1207-004; ER05-442-001; ER98-2185-012; ER99-1228-005;
ER98-4222-009.
    Applicants: AEE 2 LLC; AES Creative Resources, LP; AES Eastern
Energy, LP; Indianapolis Power & Light Company; AES Ironwood, LLC; AES
Red Oak, LLC; AES Huntington Beach, LLC; AES Redondo Beach, LLC; AES
Placertia, Inc.; AES Delano, Inc.; Storm Lake Power Partners II LLC;
Lake Benton Power Partners LLC.
    Description: The AES Corporation et al. submit a notice of change
in status in connection with the indirect acquisition by a subsidiary
of AES of two windpower electric generation projects etc.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2541-008; ER05-731-002; ER97-3556-016; ER99-
221-011; ER99-220-013; ER97-3553-004; ER01-1764-005; ER04-582-006.
    Applicants: Carthage Energy, LLC; Central Maine Power Company;
Energetix, Inc.; New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; NYSEG
Solutions, Inc.; Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; PEI Power II,
LLC, Hartford Steam Company.
    Description: Carthage Energy LLC et al. submit a notification
related to each of the Energy East Companies authority to sell electric
energy and capacity at market based rates.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-878-001.
    Applicants: Equus Power I, L.P.
    Description: Equus Power I, LP submits its triennial updated market
power analysis.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-529-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an errata to a compliance filing to revise Module D of the Open
Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 07/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070716-0162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 01, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1141-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company; Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC; Midwest Independent Transmission System,
LLC.
    Description: International Transmission Co dba ITC Transmission and
Michigan Electric Transmission Co, LLC et al. submit a request to
modify the Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff to
include Attachment FF etc.
    Filed Date: 07/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070711-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1143-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits revised
rate sheets to the Expedited Service and Interconnection Agreement with
Wintec Energy LTD designated as Service Agreement 28.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070716-0186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1145-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc agent for Entergy Arkansas, Inc
et al. submits revisions to the Interconnection and Operating Agreement
with Mississippi Delta Energy Agency.
    Filed Date: 07/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070713-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 01, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1147-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corporation agent for
Indiana Michigan Power Company submits an executed Letter Agreement 2
w/Michigan Electric Transmission Company dated 7/2/07.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070716-0185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1148-000.
    Applicants: PurEnergy Caledonia, LLC.
    Description: PurEnergy Caledonia LLC submits a notice of
cancellation of its Rate Schedule 1 effective 9/11/07.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2007.

    Accession Number: 20070717-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 03, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14413 Filed 7-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Standards Final Rule Briefing for OMB August 22, 2005 Scope   Background/ General Status Update   Summary of Floor Methodologies Used to Develop the Final Standards   Comparison of Alternative MACT Floor Methodologies Options to Final Rule Floor Option   Why are the Final Rule Methodologies Preferred Relative to the Alternative Floor Options?

  Summary of Beyond the Floor Options That Were Under Consideration   Summary of Final Rule Cost and Benefits   Summary of Other Key Issues

Site Specific Risk Assessment

CAA 112( D)( 4) Health Based Limits For Hydrogen Chloride And Chlorine Gas

Use of Data From Sources That Have Upgraded to Comply With MACT Emission Standards That Have Already Been Promulgated

Standards Can be No Less Stringent Than the Interim MACT Standards

Summary of Stakeholder Positions 2 Background/ General Status Update   This final rule will subject 5 industry sectors that combust hazardous waste to standards reflecting Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT), pursuant to Section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act o Incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces o Regulates emissions of hazardous air pollutants: metals ( e. g., mercury and lead), particulate matter ( in part as a surrogate for other metals not directly controlled with an emission limitation), hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, dioxin and furans, and other organic hazardous air pollutants   We were previously subject to two separate judicially enforceable consent decrees ( one from the District Court and one from the Court of Appeals) that stipulated we must promulgate this rulemaking no later than June 14, 2005 o We filed motions with both courts to extend the completion date to September 14, 2005. Both courts have granted the motions.

  We are currently on track to have final rule signed no later than September 14, 2005   Attachment A includes a summary of the emission standards included in the final rule package o For comparative purposes, the table also includes the emission standards that we proposed, and the interim emission standards to which incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns are currently subject to o The standards that are in bold reflect beyond the floor standards 3 Summary of the MACT Floor Methodologies Used to Develop Final Standards   Key issue relative to standard setting procedures o MACT standards must reflect a minimum level of stringency, known as the " Floor"

o For several regulated pollutants ( metals and chlorine), emissions are controlled by: 1) limiting the amount of pollutant that is fed in the hazardous waste into the combustion unit ( we call this hazardous waste feed control); and 2) controlling the percent of the pollutant that is removed from the combustion unit prior to being emitted to the atmosphere ( we call this system removal efficiency, or more generally back end control)

Note that feed control is a feasible means of controlling pollutants in the hazardous waste input, but is not a feasible means of controlling input of other materials like raw materials and fossil fuels;

back end control applies to control of pollutants from all feeds to the combustion unit

This is somewhat unique, in that most MACT rules for combustion units assess only back end control o For cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and liquid fuel boilers, we normalize metal emission standards based on the energy content of the hazardous waste

These so called ` thermal emission standards' are expressed as allowable mass emissions of pollutants attributable to the hazardous waste per million BTUs hazardous waste fired to the combustion unit   Thus, a cement kiln's allowable mass emission rate ( e. g., pounds per hour) would be contingent on how much hazardous waste is fired to displace fossil fuel on a " per million BTU hazardous waste basis"

It is standard practice for EPA to normalize HAP emissions per unit of raw material processed. This allows performance to be assessed equally across sources on a percent control efficiency basis,

irrespective of the size of the production unit or amount of raw material the unit processes 4   The thermal emissions normalization approach does this by linking each source's allowable emissions to the amount of raw material it processes   the raw material being the energy that is recovered from processing the hazardous waste   Summary of Final Rule Methodologies: We generally use the same methodologies to calculate the floor levels that were proposed ( exceptions are discussed later in this section)

o For metals and chlorine, we define best performing sources as those with the best combination of hazardous waste feed control and back end control as defined by a ranking procedure. We call this methodology the " SRE/ Feed Approach"

Hazardous waste feed control levels are ranked from best to worst, and each source is assigned a ranking score ( e. g., the lowest feeder gets a ranking of 1)

Back end control efficiencies are ranked from best to worst and each source is assigned a ranking score

Each source's feed control and back end control ranking score are added together, yielding an aggregated score

Best performers are those sources with the best aggregate score ( or those representing the top 12%

of the aggregated scores in instances where there are 30 or more sources)

The floor standards are equivalent to the average of the emission levels of these sources with a variability factor added. The lowest emitters may ( in some cases) not be considered a ` best performing' source because their aggregated score may not be among the best.

o For particulate matter, we define best performing sources as those with the best back end air pollution control units solely ( e. g., those sources equipped with baghouses). We call this methodology the " APCD Approach"

Identical to methodology used in Industrial Boiler MACT rule 5

Feed control is not assessed as a MACT control technique for PM, primarily because ash feed control does not always assure metal HAP emissions are reduced to levels consistent with MACT,

whereas back end control always assures sources remove a given percentage of metal HAP that is processed in the combustor

Floor standards are equivalent to the average emission levels from a group of sources that are representative of 12 percent of the source category that are equipped with the best type of air pollution control devices ( with a variability factor added)

o For the total chlorine standard for hydrochloric acid production furnaces, we define best performing sources as those with the best demonstrated back end control efficiency, as determined by each source's total chlorine system removal efficiency, which is a measure of the amount of chlorine that is emitted relative to the amount that is processed in the combustor.

Feed control is not assessed as a MACT control technique because chlorine feed control would improperly limit these sources feedstock, which is chlorine o For Dioxin/ Furans, we define best performing sources as those with the lowest emissions

Dioxin/ Furans are not feed controlled pollutants  they are predominately formed post combustion in, for instance, dry air pollution devices or waste heat boilers

For subcategories equipped solely with wet air pollution control systems ( or no air pollution control system), we do not establish a numerical dioxin/ furan emission limitation, but rather establish a surrogate standard of ` good combustion practices' via compliance with the carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon standard, as well as the destruction and removal efficiency standard   A numerical MACT floor for these sources would not be replicable by the best performing sources or duplicable by other sources 6 Substantive Changes That Have Been Made Relative to Proposed Rule Approaches   Revised methodology that better accounts for emissions variability when calculating the floor levels from data that includes non detect measurements o See preamble section titled " Statistical Imputation to Address Variability of Nondetect Values"

  Revised methodology to calculate the Hg standard for lightweight aggregate kilns that better accounts for mercury fluctuations in their waste feeds   Revised methodology to account for method 26 bias for total chlorine measurements less than 20 ppmv o Approach adjusts sources emissions to 20 ppmv in instances where they have measured emissions lower than 20 ppmv   Subcategorization of liquid fuel boilers based on the energy content of the hazardous waste o We proposed emission standards that are normalized in the thermal emissions format for all liquid fuel boilers o American Chemistry Council ( ACC) commented that thermal emissions unfairly penalize sources that burn low BTU hazardous wastes, primarily because of their inability to blend hazardous waste to a specified BTU content ( as is done at cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns). ACC requested that we allow sources to comply with emission standards that are normalized either on a mass emission concentration format or a thermal emissions format

We are finalizing emission standards that are normalized on a mass emission concentration based format for sources that combust hazardous waste with less than 10,000 BTU/ lb; and,

We are finalizing emission standards that are normalized on a thermal emissions basis for sources that combust hazardous waste with greater than 10,000 BTU/ lb 7

We believe this approach is responsive to ACC concerns, and is appropriate because sources burning hazardous waste with energy content greater than 10,000 BTU/ lb are primarily processing hazardous waste for energy recovery purposes Comparison of Alternative MACT Floor Methodologies Options to Final Rule Floor Option   We evaluated two other MACT floor options that use different methodologies to calculate the MACT floor standards   Attachment B summarizes the differences in these methodologies, and compares the social costs and emission reductions, relative to final rule floor   Note that a more detailed discussion of the final rule cost and benefits ( that account for beyond the floor standards)

is presented later Why Are We Promulgating the Final Rule Floor Option?

  The final rule floor option identifies best performers by identifying and assessing how pollutant emissions are controlled  hazardous waste feed control and back end control   The final rule floor option best deals with the issue of deriving standards which must be achieved continuously ( either in stack tests or by parametric monitoring), given our data is comprised of emissions tests that are " snapshots" in time o Industry has commented that even though we apply a statistical variability factor to the compliance test emissions when calculating the floor levels, we still have not adequately accounted for emissions variability, claiming the MACT floors are not achievable by the best performing sources 8 o We believe ( and have empirical support) that there is further variability which is not fully reflected by our various statistical protocols for assessing variability, nor is it fully captured by use of compliance test data.

The SRE/ Feed methodology is a surrogate for this known but not directly quantifiable variability.

Summary of Beyond the Floor Options That Were Under Consideration   EPA must also determine if standards more stringent than the floor are achievable, and must consider costs, energy use, and non air health and environmental impacts in making this determination o We call these beyond the floor ( BTF) standards   We considered three beyond the floor options for new and existing sources o Beyond the Floor Option A ( Selected Beyond the Floor Option)

Would establish more stringent dioxin/ furan standards for liquid fuel boilers with dry air pollution control devices ( APCDs), and more stringent particulate matter standards for solid fuel boilers o Beyond the Floor Option B: Includes the same beyond the floor standards included in Option A above,

but adds the following:

More stringent dioxin/ furan standards for lightweight aggregate kilns, hydrochloric acid production furnaces, and liquid fuel boilers with wet/ no air pollution control systems o Beyond the Floor Option C: Includes the same beyond the floor standards included in Option B above,

but adds the following:

More stringent total chlorine standards for lightweight aggregate kilns and solid fuel boilers 9   See Attachment C for a summary of the beyond the floor levels, incremental costs, cost effectiveness, and emission reductions associated with the above assessed beyond the floor options   Why did we select Beyond the Floor Option A?

o Costs are Reasonable

For existing sources, $ 630K per gram of additional dioxin emission reduction and $ 2,600 per ton of additional particulate matter reduction o We proposed these standards for existing sources; no commenters opposed these standards

Although we did not propose a beyond the floor standard for new liquid fuel boilers, we requested comment on going beyond the floor and received no adverse comment o Will reduce high floor emission levels consistent with other similar source categories

Liquid fuel boiler dioxin/ furan existing source floor of 3.3 ng TEQ/ dscm will be reduced to 0.40

Helps avoid need to use RCRA omnibus authority to lower dioxin/ furan emissions

Low annualized cost   adds only an additional $ 1 million to the cost of the floor   Why Did We Not Select Beyond the floor Option B?

o Not as cost effective as Option A

Cost effectiveness for lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces are $ 2.5, $ 4, and $ 4.9 million per gram of additional dioxin emission reduction,

respectively o Although we proposed beyond the floor standards for lightweight aggregate kilns and hydrochloric acid production furnaces, the cost effectiveness was much better at proposal 10

$ 0.95 and $ 0.8 million per gram of additional dioxin reduction for lightweight aggregate kilns and hydrochloric acid production furnaces, respectively   Why Did We Not Select Beyond the Floor Option C?

o Cost effectiveness numbers are in the " gray area" of what EPA has considered to be cost effective for hydrogen chloride/ chlorine gas o $ 9,700 and $ 5,200 per ton of additional hydrogen chloride/ chlorine gas emission reduction for lightweight aggregate kilns and solid fuel boilers, respectively o There are little health benefits associated with the chlorine reductions

There would be ecological benefits with the chlorine reductions and significant health benefits associated with collateral particulate sulfate reductions Summary of Final Rule Cost and Benefits   Attachment D includes a summary of the number of affected sources subject to this final rule, which includes estimated quantities of hazardous waste processed for each source category   Numbers in ( ) reflect a net revenue, numbers in [ ] reflect impacts assuming all sources incur total chlorine retrofit costs to comply with floor standards because they elect to not implement alternative risk based 112( d)( 4) emission limitations   Total Social Costs: $ 22.6 [ 28.6 ] million per year   Total engineering costs: $ 40.2 [ 46.7 ] million per year   Estimated Total Market Adjusted Cost Impacts by Sector ( million dollars).

o Cement Kilns ($ 0.1) [( 0.5)]

o LWAKs ($ 0.2) [( 0.2)]

o Commercial Incinerators ($ 14.5) [( 14.2)] 11 o On Site Incinerators $ 1.5 [ 2.7]

o Liquid Boilers $ 29.3 [ 33.1]

o Solid Boilers $ 2.0 [ 2.3]

o HCl Production Furnaces $ 0.6 [ 0.6]

o Generators $ 3.6 [ 4.2]

  Estimated Economic Impacts:

o Market Exits ( systems)

Cement Kilns 0 [ 0]

Commercial Incinerators 3 [ 3]

LWAKs 0 [ 0]

On Site Incinerators 26 [ 26]

Liquid Boilers 8 [ 8]

Coal Boilers 2 [ 2]

HCl Production Furnaces 0 [ 0]

  Quantity of Waste Reallocated ( U. S. tons) 58,900 [ 58,900]

  Employment Impacts o Annual Gains 323 [ 375] FTEs o Annual Dislocations 310 [ 310] FTEs   Expected Combustion Price Change + 0.3% [+ 0.4% ]

  Monetized Benefits ( million dollars per year):

o Non Discounted Values:

PM Related Benefits $ 6.29

Dioxin related cancer deaths $ 0.02 12   Sub total Human Health: $ 6.31

Visibility Benefits $ 0.18  $ 6.63

Total Monetized Benefits: $ 6.48  $ 12.93 o Discounted Values ( 3 percent):

PM Related Benefits $ 5.95

Dioxin related cancer deaths $ 0.01   Sub total Human Health: $ 5.96

Visibility Benefits $ 0.18  $ 6.63

Total Monetized Benefits: $ 6.13  $ 12.58 o Discounted Values ( 7 percent):

PM Related Benefits $ 5.61

Dioxin related cancer deaths $ 0.00   Sub total Human Health: $ 5.61

Visibility Benefits $ 0.18  $ 6.63

Total Monetized Benefits: $ 5.79  $ 12.24   Non Monetized Benefits:

o Reduction in lead exposure to below 10 ug/ dL possible for fewer than seven children per year.

o Ecological benefits possible   Small Entity Impacts:

o None of the eight small businesses impacted by this final rule are expected to incur significant economic impacts 13 Summary of Other Key Issues Site Specific Risk Assessment Approach   The final rule will codify the authority to require site specific risk assessments ( SSRAs) on a case by case basis and add conditions to RCRA permits based on SSRA results under the authority of RCRA § § 3004( a) and ( q) and 3005( c).

  We believe that SSRAs are likely to continue to be necessary at some facilities ( i. e., mainly those that have not previously conducted an SSRA) and therefore, we are finalizing the proposed language in § § 270.10( l) and 270.32( b)( 3). However, modifications have been made to § 270.10( l) to provide further clarification of the Agency's intent in response to commenters' major concerns.

o Section 270.10( l) has been revised to provide more detail, both with respect to the basis for the determination that an SSRA is necessary, and with respect to the type of information the permit authority might need:

  Language has been added to remind permit authorities that the determination that the MACT standards may not be sufficiently protective is to be based only on factors relevant to the potential risk from the hazardous waste combustion unit at the site; and   Language has been added to identify guiding factors for permitting authorities to consult in determining whether the MACT will be sufficiently protective at an individual site.

o We believe that the new provisions are beneficial in two ways: 1) they provide notice to the regulated community and public that an SSRA may be necessary to support a source's permit; and 2) they remind the permitting agencies of the importance of evaluating whether an SSRA would be necessary on a site specific basis.

CAA 112( d)( 4) Health Based Limits for Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas   We are finalizing alternative risk based chlorine standards pursuant to the CAA 112( d)( 4)

o 112( d)( 4) standards are risk based standards for threshold pollutants which assure that there will not be exposure to the threshold level 14   Major principles used to implement these risk based standards are identical to those used in the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule   The minor differences between the procedures used in this final rule relative to the Industrial Boiler Final Rule are presented in Attachment E Use of Data From Sources That Have Upgraded to Comply With MACT Emission Standards That Have Already Been Promulgated   Even though we are promulgating what we call " replacement MACT standards" for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns based on litigation of the 1999 final rule, these sources had to comply with the negotiated interim MACT standards no later than September, 2003.

  For this final rulemaking effort, we have updated the emissions database that was used to support the 1999 final NESHAPs rule for hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns   Some of this updated data is from sources that have upgraded their facilities to achieve the emission standards promulgated in 1999 ( and subsequently revised in the February 2002 Interim Standards Final Rule)

  Industry stakeholders oppose this, and refer to this as " MACT on MACT," i. e., establishing MACT floors based on sources that already upgraded to meet promulgated MACT standards.

  We are compelled to use all available emissions data to calculate MACT floors because:

o The motivation for a source's performance is legally irrelevant in developing the floors o The Statute indicates that EPA is to base MACT floor levels on performance of sources " for which the Administrator has emissions information" 15 Standards Can be No Less Stringent Than the Interim MACT Standards for Incinerators, Cement Kilns, and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns   In instances where the calculated final rule floor levels are higher than the interim standards, we " cap" the floor at the interim standard level because these sources are currently achieving these levels.

o As a result, these final rule standards ensure that sources will emit HAP at levels no higher than levels achieved under current regulations   Industry stakeholders oppose this, stating the interim standards are simply placeholders without the necessary statutory basis to qualify as emission limitations for purposes of establishing MACT floors o We are compelled to use the binding regulatory limit as the floor in these instances because it is the best means available to us to estimate performance   Cement kiln and lightweight aggregate kiln emission standards that are expressed in units of thermal emissions ( pounds of allowable pollutant emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per million BTU hazardous waste fired) may be either more or less stringent than the interim emission standards, which are expressed as mass of allowable emissions from all feed inputs per volume of combustion gas.

o For this final rule, these sources' allowable mass emission concentrations will be dependent on the amount,

and energy content, of the hazardous waste they process o The final rule specifies that these sources must achieve both emission limitations 16   CKRC opposes this because it may require some sources to simultaneously comply with two different sets of emission standards and operating limits o Thermal emissions only requires the monitoring of HAP inputs from the hazardous wastes, whereas the interim standard mass emission concentration standards require the monitoring of HAP inputs from all feedstreams ( including raw material and coal)

o We do not consider such an outcome to be overly burdensome in the instances where this may result because kilns are currently required to monitor the inputs from all feedstreams Summary of Stakeholder Positions   Sierra Club: Represented by Earth Justice ( previous winning litigant)

o Opposes any floor methodology other than a straight emissions approach that does not use statistics to account for emissions variability; contends HAP feed control in nonhazardous process streams must be accounted for in MACT floor analysis; opposes thermal emission standard format   Environmental Technology Council: Represents subset of commercial incinerators o Opposes thermal emission standards; comments focused on concerns relating to achievability of existing source incinerator SVM emission standard   Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition: Represents cement kilns that combust hazardous waste o Opposes SSRA approach, supports thermal emissions format, believes mercury standard should be based on long term hazardous waste feed concentration data ( final rule does this), opposes concept that standards can be no less stringent than the interim MACT standards; oppose use of data from sources that have upgraded to comply with MACT emission standards that have already been promulgated 17 o Will oppose new source particulate matter standard

New source standard is based on a source that was designed to achieve the new source particulate matter interim standard   Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration: Represents subset of incinerators, boilers, cement kilns and hydrochloric acid production furnaces; overlapping membership with other stakeholders o Believes standards for existing sources should be simultaneously achievable by 6% of the sources; believes new source standards should be simultaneously achieved by at least one existing source

We believe that MACT standards have to be simultaneously achievable for a group of HAPs in situations where the emission controls are technically interdependent, i. e., when implementation of one emission control technology prevents the source from implementing another control technology   This is not the case for the group of HAPs regulated in this final rule o Raised several data quality issues in comments including:

Claiming several best performing sources were not representative of other sources within the source category   We carefully evaluated these comments and revised the database as appropriate

Handling of nondetect emission measurements when calculating floor levels in manner that does not dampen the emission variability assessment ( we have accounted for this through use of the statistical imputation procedures)

Method 26 bias resulting from chlorine measurements below 20 ppmv ( as previously discussed, we have accounted for this), and raised other concerns regarding data quality relative to test method issues   American Chemistry Council: Represents subset of on site incinerators, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces at chemical and petroleum plants 18 o Believes we lack sufficient data to establish several emission standards o Supports thermal emissions format; however opposes the proposed requirement for all liquid fuel boilers to comply with thermal emission standards ( they believe sources should have the option to comply with emission standards that are expressed either in thermal or mass emission concentration format because several boilers process hazardous waste with relatively lower heating values)

o Opposes proposed dioxin/ furan standards for incinerators because it does not allow sources to comply with the standard through use of temperature control only

The proposed existing source emission standard was 0.28 ng TEQ/ dscm for sources equipped with dry air pollution control systems

Sources that use temperature control to comply with the floor standard may have difficulty achieving the floor

The proposed standard did not account for this achievability concern because several best performing sources used activated carbon to control emissions

This is no longer an issue because database changes have resulted in a dioxin/ furan floor level equivalent to the interim standards for existing sources   Solite Corporation: Represents two of the three lightweight aggregate kiln facilities o Opposes concept that standards can be no less stringent than the interim MACT standards; believes their mercury standard should be based on long term hazardous waste concentration data ( the final rule uses this data); opposes any beyond the floor standard for dioxin/ furans ( as previously discussed, we are no longer going beyond the floor for dioxin/ furans for this source category); believes MACT floors should only be based on current regulatory limits irrespective of the levels that were demonstrated in sources' emission tests   Federal facilities o 5 DOD facilities ( 10 sources) and 1 DOE facility 19 o Primarily responsible for destroying chemical weapon wastes o Primary comment was sources that feed de minimis levels of metals or chlorine should be screened out from the MACT analysis prior to identifying best performers o Although we did not screen sources that had de minimis levels of metals and chlorine from the MACT analyses, we believe that the SRE/ Feed methodology accommodates this concern because it applies equal ranking factors to front end feed control and back end air pollution control 20 incinerator ( final) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 130 0.013 230 92 32 incinerator ( prop) For dry APCD or WHB: 0.28; For others : 0.2 or 0.4 and temp control at inlet of APCD < 400F 130 0.015 59 84 1.5 incinerator ( interim std) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet

all sources ( beyond the floor for waste heat boilers) 130 0.015 240 97 77 Cement Kiln ( final) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 3.0 ppmw ( HW feed) AND either 120 ug/ dscm ( HW MTEC feed restriction) or 120 ug/ dscm ( total emissions) 0.028 330 and 7.6E 04 [ 700] 2.1 E 5 [ 20] 120 Cement Kiln ( prop) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 64 N ( total emissions) 0.028 4.00E 04 1.4E 05 110 Cement Kiln ( interim std) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 120 total emissions or 120 HW MTEC feed restriction 0.03  0.05 330 56 130 LWAK ( final) 0.20 or RQ< 400F 120 HW MTEC feed restriction or 120 total emissions 0.025 250 and 3.0E 4 [ 340] 110 and 9.5E 5 [ 110] 600 LWAK ( prop) 0.40 67N ( total emissions) 0.025 250 and 3.1E 4 110 and 9.5E 5 600 LWAK ( interim std) 0.20 or RQ< 400F 120 total emissions or 120 HW MTEC feed restriction 0.025 250 110 600 SFB ( final) Carbon Monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) 11 0.030 180 380 440 SFB ( prop) Carbon Monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) 10 0.030 170 210 440 LFB ( final) 0.4 for dry apcds; Carbon Monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) for others 1.2E 6 lb/ MMBtu or 6.8 ug/ dscm;

depending on BTU content of hazardous waste 0.035 6.2 E 6 lb/ MMBtu or 78 ug/ dscm;

depending on BTU content of HW 1.41E 5lb/ MMBtu or 12 ug/ dscm;

depending on BTU content of HW 5.08E 2 lb/ MMBtu or 31 ppmv;

depending on HW BTU level LFB ( prop) 0.4 for dry apcds; Carbon Monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) for others 3.7E 6N 0.032 1.1E 5 N 1.1E 4 ( chrome only) 2.5 E 2 HCl PF ( final) Carbon Monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) 150 or 99.92SRE HCl PF ( prop) 0.4 14 or 99.9927 E 5 N [ XX] LWAK stands for lightweight aggregate kiln, LFB for liquid fuel boiler, SFB for solif fuel boiler, and HCL PF for hydrochloric acid production furnace SRE = system removal efficiency, a measure of control device operating efficiency APCD stands for air pollution control device HW MTEC stands for hazardous waste maximum theoretical emission concentration, which is a feed restriction normalized by combustor size Attachment A: Comparison of Final Rule, Proposed, and Interim Standards: Existing Sources Total chlorine as surrogate Source Category For final satandards, a number in brackets is the mass concentration equivalent ( ug/ dscm) of a thermal emission Floor assuming the source fulfills 100% of its energy demand from the hazardous waste.

Notes Standards in bold reflect beyond the floor standards Dioxin/ Furans ( ng TEQ/ dscm) Mercury ( ug/ dscm, or lb/ MMBtu) Particulate Matter ( gr/ dscf)

Total chlorine as surrogate N refers to a metal hazardous air pollutant Floor calculated using Normal data. Compliance with Normal based Floors will be implemented by a long term average ( e. g., month or year) limit on feedrate.

Scientific Notation. Thermal emissions are presented in scientific notation and expressed as lb/ MM Btu ( lb of hazardous air pollutant attributable to hazardous waste per million Btu of heat input from hazardous waste) Semi Volatile Metals ( ug/ dscm,

or lb/ MMBtu) Low Volatile Metal ( ug/ dscm, or lb/ MMBtu) Total Chlorine ( ppmv or lb/ MMBtu) 21 incinerator ( final) 0.11 for dry APCD and/ or WHB; 0.20 for others 8.1 0.0015 10 23 21 incinerator ( prop) 0.11 for dry APCD and/ or WHB; 0.20 for others 8.0 0.0007 6.5 8.9 0.18 inc ( interim std) 0.2  all sources ( was beyond the floor standard for waste heat boilers) 45 0.0150 120 97 21 Cement Kiln ( final) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 1.9 ppmw ( HW feed) AND either 120 ug/ dscm ( HW MTEC feed restriction) or 120 ug/ dscm ( total emissions) 0.0023 6.2 E 5 [ 57] 1.5E 5 [ 14] 86 Cement Kiln ( prop) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 35 N ( total emissions) 0.0058 6.2 E 05 and 180 1.5E 5 and 54 78 CK ( interim std) 0.2 or 0.40 and temp control < 400 ° F at APCD inlet 120 total emissions or 120 HW MTEC feed restriction 0.03  0.05 180 54 86 LWAK ( final) 0.20 or rapid quench< 400F 120 total emissions or 120 HW MTEC feed restriction 0.0098 43 and 3.7E 5 [ 42] 3.2 E 5 [ 36] and 110 600 LWAK ( prop) 0.40 67N ( total emissions) 0.0099 43 and 2.4 E 05 3.2E 05 and 110 600 LWAK ( interim std) 0.20 or rapid quench< 400F 120 total emissions or 120 HW MTEC feed restriction 0.0250 43 110 600 SFB ( final) Carbon monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) 11 0.015 180 190 73 SFB ( prop) Carbon monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) 10 0.015 170 190 73 LFB ( final) 0.4 for dry apcds; Carbon monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) for others 1.2E 6 lb/ MMBtu or 6.8 ug/ dscm;

depending on BTU content of hazardous waste 0.0087 6.2 E 6 lb/ MMBtu or 78 ug/ dscm;

depending on HW BTU content 1.41E 5lb/ MMBtu or 12 ug/ dscm;

depending on BTU content 5.08E 2 lb/ MMBtu or 31 ppmv; depending on BTU content of hazardous waste LFB ( prop) 0.015 or temp control < 400F for dry apcds; Carbon monoxide/ total hydrocarbon for others 3.80E 07 0.0076 4.3 E 6 N 3.6 E 5 ( chrome only) 7.20E 04 HCl PF ( final) Carbon monoxide/ total hydrocarbon ( surrogate) 25 or 99.987 SRE HCL PF ( prop) 0.4 1.2 or 99.9994 SRE E 5 N [ XX] SRE = system removal efficiency, a measure of control device operating efficiency APCD stands for air pollution control device Attachment A Continued: Comparison of Final Standards, Proposed Standards, and Interim Standards: New Sources For the Final Standards, a number in brackets is the mass concentration equivalent ( ug/ dscm) of a thermal emission Floor assuming the source fulfills 100% of its energy demand from the hazardous waste.

Source Category Dioxin/ Furans ( ng TEQ/ dscm) Total Chlorine ( ppmv or lb/ MMBtu)

Standards in Bold Represent Beyond the Floor Standards Mecury ( ug/ dscm, or lb/ MMBtu)

HW MTEC stands for hazardous waste maximum theoretical emission concentration, which is a feed restriction normalized by combustor size Notes Particulate Matter ( gr/ dscf) Semi Volatile Metals ( ug/ dscm,

or lb/ MMBtu) Low Volatile Metals ( ug/ dscm,

or lb/ MMBtu)

N refers to a metal hazardous air pollutant Floor calculated using Normal data. Compliance with Normal based Floors will be implemented by a long term average ( e. g.,

month or year) limit on feedrate. Total Chlorine as surrogate Scientific Notation. Thermal emissions are presented in scientific notation and expressed as lb/ MM Btu ( lb of hazardous air pollutant attributable to hazardous waste per million Btu of heat input from hazardous waste) Total Chlorine as surrogate LWAK stands for lightweight aggregate kiln, LFB for liquid fuel boiler, SFB for solif fuel boiler, and HCL PF for hydrochloric acid production furnace 22 Attachment B  Comparison of the Alternative MACT Floor Options to the Final Rule Floor Approaches Floor Option Features Total Social Costs ($ MM/ yr) Metal HAP Reductions ( tons/ year) PM Reductions ( tons/ year) HCl/ Cl2 Reductions ( tons/ year)

Alternative Floor Option 1 ( aka Option C) For metals and HCl/ Cl2, defines best performers as those with the lowest emissions rather than using the SRE/ Feed approach Closer to how Sierra Club ( the previous winning litigant) believes we should calculate floors ( relative to the final rule floor methodologies) 31.4 [ 33.8] 1 11 1,670 106 [ 900] 1 Alternative Floor Option 2 ( aka Option D) Defines best performers as those with the lowest emissions for all standards Main difference from Alternative Option 1 is HCl/ Cl2 floor for HCl production furnaces, and PM floors for all source categories are calculated using the straight emissions methodology, and emissions for energy recovery sources are normalized using mass emission concentrations ( ug/ dscm) rather than thermal emissions ( lb/ MM Btu)

Closer to how Sierra Club believes we should define best performers relative to Option 1, but they would still oppose this option b/ c we statistically adjust the floor levels to account for run to run emissions variability. 50.2 [ 66.5] 1 16 3,000 126 [ 3,600] 1 Final Rule Floor For metals and HCl/ Cl2, defines best performers using SRE/ Feed approach For PM, defines best performers using the APCD approach ( OAQPS approach)

For HCl production furnaces, defines best performers as those w/ the best system removal efficiency ( SRE)

Uses thermal emission concentrations ( lb/ MM Btu) rather than mass emission concentrations ( ug/ dscm) for energy recovery source categories Statistically adjusts floors to account for run to run emissions variability 21.9 [ 27.8] 1 8.8 1,670 106 [ 1220] 1 1 Numbers in [ ] reflect impacts assuming all sources incur total chlorine retrofit costs to comply with floor standards because they elect not to implement alternative health based 112( d)( 4)

emission limitations 23 Attachment C   Summary of Beyond the Floor Options BTF Options for Existing Sources: Option A Selected ( 8 18)

BTF A BTF B BTF C LFB SFB LWAK LFB HCl PF LWAK SFB D/ F for Dry APCD PM D/ F D/ F for Wet/ No APCD D/ F TCl TCl Floor Level 3.3 ng TEQ/ dscm or 400T [ 2.4] 0.074 gr/ dscf [ 6.1 ng TEQ/ dscm] [ 1.4 ng TEQ/ dscm] [ 0.52 ng TEQ/ dscm] 600 ppmv 440 ppmv BTF Level 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm 0.03 gr/ dscf 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm 150 ppmv 110 ppmv BTF Technology AC ( activated carbon) Moderate DOM 1 AC/ FF AC/ FF AC Dry Scrubber Dry Scrubber Cost Effectiveness,

before Closures $ 630,000/ gram $ 2,600/ ton $ 2,500,000/ gram $ 4,000,000/ gram $ 4,900,000/ gram $ 9,700 $ 5,200

 Emission Reductions 0.06 470 tpy 0.9 g/ yr 0.3 g/ yr 0.1 g/ yr 270 tpy 800 tpy

 Annualized Cost,

before Closures ($ MM) 0.038 1.2 2.2 1.2 0.58 2.6 4.4 BTF Standards Selected for New Sources LFB SFB D/ F for Dry APCD PM Floor Level 0.024 ng TEQ/ dscm or 400T [ 2.4] 0.061 gr/ dscf BTF Level 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm 0.015 BTF Technology AC ( activated carbon) FF Cost Effectiveness for Average Source $ 150,000/ gram TEQ $ 3,700/ ton

 Emission Reductions for Average Source 1.0 gram TEQ 82 tpy

 Annualized Cost for Average Source ($ MM) $ 150,000 $ 300,000 1 Moderate modification to design, operation, or maintenance of existing ESP or FF [ ] Emission level allowed at the floor. There is no numerical floor limit. 24 Attachment D  Summary of Affected Sources Subject To This Final Rule Hazardous Waste Burning Universe Affected y the Final Rule:

A total of 265 total systems operated at 145 different facilities.

Number of Systems, by Source Category:

Commercial Incinerators: 15 ( 5.7%)

Cement Kilns: 25 ( 9.4%)

LWAKs 7 ( 2.6%)

OnSite Incinerators 92 ( 34.7%)

Liquid Boilers 104 ( 39.3%)

Solid Fuel Boilers: 12 ( 4.5%)

HCl Production Furnaces: 10 ( 3.8%)

Waste Quantity Estimates:

Total 2003 Hazardous Waste Quantity Burned ( U. S. tons): 3,317,095 Total 2003 Waste Quantity Burned by Source Category ( U. S. tons):

Commercial Incinerators: 447,524 ( 13.5 %)

Cement Kilns: 924,237 ( 27.9%)

LWAKs 74,839 ( 2.3%)

OnSite Incinerators 925,828 ( 28.0%)

Liquid Boilers 727,198 ( 22.0%)

Solid Fuel Boilers: 137,882 ( 4.2%)

HCl Production Furnaces: 79,587 ( 2.4%) 25 Attachment D ( continued)

Total 2003 Waste Quantity Burned by Waste Form ( U. S. tons):

Organic Liquids 2,162,238 ( 65%)

Solids 453,877 ( 14%)

Inorganic Liquids 350,891 ( 11%)

Sludges 335,356 ( 10%)

Lab Packs 12,119 ( 0.37%)

Gases 2,614 ( 0.08%)

Total 2003 Waste Quantity Burned by Industry Sector ( U. S. tons):

Chemical Manufacturing 1,928,148 ( 58%)

Waste Management Services 688,190 ( 21%)

Petroleum and Coal Manufacturers 171,523 ( 5%)

Mining 165,914 ( 5%) 26 Attachment E: Implementation Of Health Based Limits For Hcl And Cl2 Under The Hwc Mact Rule Vs The Industrial Boiler Mact Rule1 Major principles are identical. There are minor differences in some features.

Feature HWC MACT Industrial Boiler MACT Comment Exposure Standard: Hazard Index not greater than 1.0 Yes Yes Consider emissions from collocated sources w/ in the regulated source category Yes Yes 2 tiered approach to establish limits: look up tables or site specific risk assessment Yes Yes Emissions testing to document emission rates Yes Yes Revise eligibility demonstration if changes to facility may increase emissions Yes Yes Eligibility demonstration based on chronic exposure ( RfCs) Yes Yes Assess acute exposure to determine if hourly rolling average chlorine feedrate limit needed Yes No HWC chlorine feedrates can be high and can vary substantially over the averaging period for the long term chlorine feedrate limit Acute exposure threshold acute Reference Emission Levels ( aRELs) 1 acute exposure guideline levels ( AEGL 1) 2 AEGL 1 values are protective for a single exposure while aRELs are protective for multiple exposures over a lifetime. Multiple exposures at the threshold may occur at HWCs due to high Cl feedrates and APCD or other malfunctions and peak meteorological conditions.

Cap on emission rates Yes No Cap at current Interim Standards prevents backsliding and minimizes potential for adverse eco impacts Approval of eligibility demonstration Yes No Warranted b/ c HWCs can have much higher HCl/ Cl2 emissions that may approach a Hazard Index of 1.0 Chlorine feedrate limit Yes No HWCs can have high and variable Cl feedrates while industrial boilers generally have low and relatively constant Cl feedrates.

1 The aRELs for HCl and Cl2 are 2.1 mg/ m3 and 0.21 mg/ m3, respectively.

2 The AEGL 1 values for HCl and Cl2 are 2.7 mg/ m3 and 1.4 mg/ m3, respectively.

1 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boiler and Process Heater MACT. See 69 FR 55218, Sept. 13, 2004, and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD, App. A.