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. In effect, Agency intent seems to delist sewage sludge incinerators from coverage under Section 112 and include them under Section 129. 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. Final promulgation is set for November 15, 2000.
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. Members of AMSA's Air Quality Committee will likely meet with EPA Air & Radiation Office staff within the next couple of months to review the proposal and discuss the Association's concerns. 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, and under a court-ordered schedule (American Lung Association v. Browner, CIV-93-643-TUC-ACM [D.Ariz., Oct.6,1994]), EPA has completed review of the air quality criteria and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) and for ozone (O3). Under the court schedule, EPA is required to publish proposed and final decisions on the review of the NAAQS for particulate matter by November 29, 1996 and June 28, 1997, respectively. EPA has concluded that the effects and control of both PM and O3 are in many instances linked and will be affected by the other. For this reason, EPA intends to review both PM and O3 on a similar schedule. EPA formally initiated the current review of air quality criteria for PM in April 1994 by announcing its intention to develop a revised Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter, and subsequently soliciting input on the draft criteria document through meetings of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) from December 1994 through February 1996. An EPA staff assessment of scientific and technical information concerning PM standards was also reviewed by the CASAC in May 1996. Based upon these updated documents, 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 formally initiated the current review of the O3 standard in August 1992 with the development of a revised Air Quality Criteria Document for O3 and Other Photochemical Oxidants, and subsequently soliciting input on the draft criteria document through public meetings, and meetings of the CASAC from July 1994 to September 1995. An EPA staff assessment of scientific and technical information concerning ozone was also reviewed by the CASAC in March 1996. Based upon these updated documents, EPA 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 0.9 ppm, 0.8 ppm, or 0.7 ppm.
Status: On March 12, AMSA submitted comments to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation on the proposed Dec.13 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. As of March 11, EPA had received over 25,000 comments on the proposed rule. 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 (NESHAPS) 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. The ICCR Coordinating Committee and workgroups are composed of various stakeholders which will develop necessary technical information, identify regulatory alternatives and impacts and make recommendations to EPA. 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. Contractor selection will be made shortly following review of project proposals. Survey forms to the members are expected by late Spring. The ICCR Committee continued its discussions on March 18-21 in Chicago, IL. 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. EPA is considering AMSA as a national organization to assist with the development of a model RMP for the wastewater industry. The Air Quality Committee is considering options for AMSA involvement. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.