Air Quality Issues
Notice of Additional Information - Section 129 Contents for Sewage Sludge Incinerators
Background: 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.
On June 3, AMSA sent a letter to Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen
requesting a meeting in Washington, DC, between EPA's Office of
Air & Radiation, Office of Water and the Office of General
Counsel, with AMSA's Incineration Workgroup leadership, the National
Office and AMSA's counsel to discuss technical, legal, and policy
issues. AMSA requested Deputy Administrator Hansen arrange
the meeting because it contains both legal and technical issues
therefore involving the Offices of Air and Water and the Office
of General Counsel. EPA and AMSA met in Washington, DC on July
9, 1997, to review these issues and establish a mechanism to coordinate
efforts over the next several months as EPA evaluates options
to regulate HAP emissions from SSIs. On July 31, 1997, AMSA transmitted
a letter to Mary Nichols, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, as follow-up to the July 9 meeting. In the letter
AMSA discussed the consent agreement, related to Gearhart v. Reilly,
and encouraged EPA to consider a mechanism under Round II of Section
405 regulations as a more appropriate location for promulgation
of new SSI regulations. AMSA also requested future opportunities
to work with EPA as standards and regulations are developed. A
meeting between EPA and AMSA to discuss technical issues has been
tentatively scheduled for September 16 in Research Triangle Park,
NC. Final promulgation is set for November 15, 2000.sed">
CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655, or
Gene Crumpler, EPA 919/541-0881.
EPA Issues Final Rules for Ozone and Particulate Matter
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, 0.08, 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. On July 16, 1997, EPA
Administrator Browner signed final rules for PM and ozone standards.
The ozone standard will tighten the concentration limit from 0.12
ppm to 0.8 ppm. The new PM standard will regulate particles 2.5
microns or less in diameter and will set an annual concentration
of 15 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24-hour standard of 65
micrograms per cubic meter. EPA estimated that, based on 1993-95
data, 280 counties would violate the new ozone standards, compared
to 150 violators under the old standard. EPA also estimated that
150 counties would violate the new PM standards, compared with
41 counties that violate the existing standards. EPA believes
they have devised a flexible implementation plan that will allow
many counties currently meeting the existing rules to also meet
the new rules with little in the way of new controls. 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. EPA has apprised AMSA that it plans to change the November 15, 1995, promulgation date to November 15, 1997 and that the section 112(j) hammer date doesn't trigger until 18 months after that. 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. EPA issued a memorandum to the Regions in May 1997 indicating that the section 112(j) hammer date requirements under the CAA has now been established for May 15, 1999, and not the May 15, 1997 date in the original schedule. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655, or Bob Lucas, EPA 919/541-0884.
AMSA Conducts 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. The National Office distributed the survey forms to
the membership via Regulatory Alert 97-12 and 97-12a and were
due back to the National Office by June 30. The information requested
in the survey will be used by the Air Quality Committee in negotiations
with EPA on development of air emissions standards for combustion
devices. Preliminary survey results were presented to the Air
Quality Committee during AMSA's Summer Conference in Seattle.
The preliminary results indicate that very few AMSA member agencies
have conducted emissions testing for hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) and criteria pollutants and will most likely need to conduct
such source testing in the future if required by EPA. CONTACT:
Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655, or Fred Porter, EPA 919/541-5251.
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: 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. AMSA's Air Quality Committee received Board of Directors approval of up to $10,000, from the Technical Action Fund, to support development of a model RMP for wastewater facilities to comply with the June 1999 compliance deadline to implement the CAA's Section 112(r)(7) requirements. EPA's Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness & Prevention and the National Office have agreed to jointly develop a RMP. EPA has provided funding assistance under an existing work assignment with two of its contractors, ICF Kaiser and SAIC, who will coordinate with AMSA and a steering committee comprised of member agencies that will provide technical assistance to develop the RMP for the wastewater industry. A conference call was held on July 31, with EPA, AMSA, and the contractors to prepare a work plan for the initiative. A draft work plan is anticipated in mid-September; a first draft of the RMP is expected in mid- December and a second draft in February 1998. Following completion of the second draft, the guidance document will be pilot tested at several member agencies across the country and undergo a peer review process by various wastewater agencies. A late-Summer 1998 project completion date is anticipated. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA 202/833-4655.