Air Quality Issues
Notice of Additional Information - Section 129 Contents for Sewage Sludge IncineratorsBackground: EPA published in the January 14, 1997 Federal Register a notice of additional information (NAI) under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act establishing new source performance standards and emission guidelines for new and existing solid waste incineration units including units that incinerate municipal sewage sludge. When EPA published an ANPRM for the Section 129 rulemaking on Dec. 28, 1994, sewage sludge incinerators were not included among the listed categories of solid waste incinerators. Section 129 requires the Agency to promulgate standards and guidelines, for new and existing sources, which include numerical emission limitations for the following substances: particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. In addition, the standards and guidelines are to include requirements for emissions and parameter monitoring and provisions for operator training and certification. The deadline for submittal of public comments was March 17, 1997.
Status: On March 17, AMSA submitted comments in opposition to EPA's Office of Air & Radiation proposal to subject sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs) to the same regulations as solid waste incinerators. In its technical and legal analysis, AMSA pointed out that the proposal could result in the elimination of incineration of sewage sludge, "even though the agency has declared that incineration is a safe and acceptable" disposal method. AMSA notes that the practice could be eliminated because operators of publicly owned treatment works may "find it either cost prohibitive or technically infeasible to simultaneously meet the proposed standards for carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. In its March 17 comments, AMSA offers support for the agency's intent to delist SSIs from Section 112, because "there is substantial evidence that SSIs do not qualify as 'major sources' as defined under Section 112." However, AMSA presents strong opposition to regulation of SSIs under Section 129 of the CAA for several reasons: (1) regulation of SSIs under Section 129 is beyond the agency's statutory authority, (2) the agency's contemplated method for establishing maximum achievable control technology standards for SSIs under Section 129 would lead to the elimination of sewage sludge incineration as a "safe, viable and cost-effective" management practice, (3) the properties of sewage sludge are quite different than those of the hazardous, medical and municipal wastes currently regulated under Section 129, (4) SSI emissions, that comply with 40 CFR Part 503 limits and management practices do not adversely affect human health and the environment, and (5) the "expensive and/or infeasible" control measures that Section 129 will impose will not yield any environmental benefits, and may create a "net loss" of environmental benefits. A meeting is being scheduled for May in Washington, DC, between EPA, including the Office of Water and the Office of General Counsel, AMSA's Incineration Workgroup leadership and AMSA counsel to discuss this issue. Final promulgation is set for November 15, 2000. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.
AMSA Comments on NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate Matter - Proposed Rules
Background: In accordance with section 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act, EPA published proposed revisions to the PM standards in the December 13, 1996 Federal Register. EPA has proposed revising the primary PM10 standards by adding two primary PM2.5 standards: a 15 micrograms per cubic meter annual mean, and a 50 micrograms per cubic meter 24-hour average. EPA also has proposed revisions to the primary ozone standard by changing the averaging period from 1-hour to 8-hours, and lowering the standard from 0.12 parts per million to 0.09 ppm, 0.08 ppm, or 0.07 ppm.
Status: On March 12, 1997, AMSA submitted comments to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation on the proposed December 1996 revisions to the PM and O3 standards. AMSA opposes the need for stricter PM and ozone standards based on several reasons: (1) stricter standards are unnecessary due to improving air quality, (2) stricter standards are unjustified due to lack of scientific certainty, and (3) standards should not be promulgated unless U.S. EPA completes a full cost-benefit analysis. AMSA cites that court-deadline, accelerated CASAC reviews did not leave time for the resolution of numerous outstanding issues on PM, and that only a minority of the CASAC panel members supported a PM standard in the range that includes the current EPA proposals. For ozone, AMSA cites findings of the CASAC panel which found no indications that any of the proposed ozone standards would provide any further protection to human health than the standards in the current rule. AMSA also states that EPA's cost-benefit analyses for both standards were inadequate and flawed, citing indications from the Office of Management and Budget that U.S. EPA may have overestimated the health benefits and underestimated the costs of the proposed standards. AMSA believes that the scientific evidence for the new standards is too equivocal to provide the basis for the proposed changes, which will place tremendous financial burdens upon state and local governments, industry, and consuming public, and has requested that EPA withdraw its proposals for stricter PM and ozone standards, unless it can show that such revisions are necessary and will provide commensurate benefits.
The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) recently expressed their concerns on EPA's proposal to Congress on April 10. CASAC does not recommend revising the PM level to that proposed by EPA and expressed concerns that the PM data is inadequate to scientifically establish a causal link between PM and human health effects. The Committee recommended that EPA keep the current levels and implement a $50 million per year research effort to gather adequate data on health effects and PM. CASAC supported EPA's decision to change the averaging period for O3 from 1-hour to 8-hours, however, they disagreed with the level, claiming the proposed level is a "policy judgement" and not based on scientific evidence. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.
POTW MACT Standards Development - Anticipated Proposed Rule
Background: Under the Clean Air Amendments of 1990, EPA is required to regulate large or "major" industrial facilities that emit one or more of 189 hazardous air pollutants (air toxics). On July 16, 1992, EPA published a list of industrial source categories that emit one or more of these hazardous air pollutants. For listed industrial categories of "major" sources (those that have the potential to emit 10 tons/year or more of a listed pollutant or 25 tons/year or more of a combination of pollutants), EPA is required to develop standards for these sources that will require the application of stringent controls, known as maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
Status: In October 1996, EPA signaled plans to exclude POTWs as a source category under Clean Air Act maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard development. The proposed rule addressing POTW coverage for MACT standards development is scheduled to appear in the Federal Register in Spring 1997. In a related issue, EPA published a proposal in the January 14 Federal Register which would move sewage sludge incinerators from coverage under the Clean Air Act's Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants) to Section 129 (Solid Waste Combustion). AMSA members should be aware that it remains possible that POTWs may still face regulation as area sources under an urban area air emission control mechanism. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.
AMSA to Conduct Survey to Support EPA ICCR Process
Background: EPA is developing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for certain combustion sources under the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) process. The ICCR process includes several types of combustion devices operated by AMSA members which utilize digester gas including boilers, Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICES), Combustion Turbines (CTs), and very likely waste gas flares (under the heading of incineration). EPA will develop the regulations for these and other combustion devices under the ICCR using an advisory committee consisting of a Coordinating Committee and various workgroups. Members of AMSA's Air Quality Committee are represented on the Coordinating Committee and work groups for boilers, RICES, CTs, incinerators and the source testing workgroup.
Status: EPA recently indicated to AMSA that they will conduct a limited data gathering survey, and will use existing data as the basis for crafting regulations for the combustion devices. The basis for control of combustion devices will be the average of the top performing 12% of the sources withing the category. AMSA's Air Quality Committee is concerned that the combustion devices operating at POTWs will be considered with all similar combustion categories, ignoring the unique nature of the fuel that is burned at a treatment plant. If this happens, the combustion control devices applicable for burning of natural gas may get applied to the combustion of digester gas, which past experience at several POTWs has shown to be either technically infeasible or not cost-effective. AMSA's Board of Directors approved funding support of the Air Quality Committee's request to conduct a survey of the membership to collect both data inventory and emission data for combustion devices. Following a competitive bidding process for contractual support, the Committee leadership selected the firm of Malcolm Pirnie to support AMSA's data collection and evaluation needs . Survey forms to the members are expected by late Spring. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.
Model Risk Management Plan Development
Background: Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, required EPA to promulgate by November 15, 1993, reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for prevention and detection of accidental releases of chemicals and for response to such releases. The regulations require the owner or operator of stationary sources at which a regulated substance is present to prepare and implement a risk management plan (RMP) that must include a hazard assessment that evaluates the potential effects of an accidental release of any regulated substance and must also include a five-year accident release history. EPA promulgated a final RMP rule on June 20, 1996. The final rule outlines EPA's tiering approach for imposing requirements based upon: (1) the potential for offsite consequences associated with a worst-case accidental release; (2) accident history; and (3) applicable compliance with prevention requirements under OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard. Regulated sources have three years (June 21, 1999) to comply with the RMP requirements.
Status: EPA has suggested that funding may be available to develop a model RMP for wastewater utilities through an existing grant for a drinking water RMP. EPA is looking for a national organization, such as AMSA, in conjunction with other interested regional and state organizations, to take the lead in developing a model Risk Management Plan for wastewater utilities. The American Water Works Association Research Foundation has developed a model RMP for drinking water utilities which is scheduled for completion in late summer of 1997 and may have elements that are applicable to wastewater facilities. EPA plans to discuss several options with the AMSA National Office by the end of April. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.