Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration

Effluent Guidelines for HWCs

On October 30, 2007, EPA announced their preliminary effluent guidelines program plan that includes plans to investigate possible pesticide discharges from commercial hazardous waste combustors (HWC). This investigation stems from a 2004 Toxic Release Inventory report of a significant discharge of pesticides contained in the wastewater from the Clean Harbors Deer Park, TX facility. Because of the variable nature of wastes treated at commercial units, EPA does not know if this discharge is unique or if pesticides are being discharged from other commercial HWCs. As a result, during 2008 EPA plans to determine the discharge of pesticides from all commercial hazardous waste combustors. Additional information can be found in Chapter 7 of the technical support document for the notice (www.epa.gov/guide, click on Planning and then on Technical Support Document).

Endocrine Disruptors

EPA will hold a one-day workshop on draft administrative policies and procedures for completing the initial screening and testing under the Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program on December 17, 2007, in Arlington, VA. Additional details can be found in the November 23, 2007, Federal Register notice.

ICR Notice

EPA is required to have a current Information Collection Request (ICR) before they can pursue certain activities. While this is typically a rather mundane, bureaucratic process, sometimes it rises to the level where it impacts the ability of the Agency to do its job. In 2005, EPA let the ICR for collecting information on case-by-case MACT (112(g) and (j)) expire. At that point in time, they believed they had met all of the current requirements and the 112(j) requirements would never be needed again. Thus, it seemed reasonable to let authority to request Part 1 applications lapse. Then the courts vacated the industrial boiler rule and 112(j) became an issue again. Since EPA let the ICR for this section of the rule lapse, observers pointed out that EPA no longer had the authority to request either a Part 1 or Part 2 application. On November 2, 2007, EPA published a notice that they planned to submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate the authority to collect information on Part 1 applications and to expand the request to also include Part 2 applications. EPA will take comment on this request until January 2, 2008. Shortly after that, EPA will finalize the request and submit the request to OMB for their consideration. While some could argue that EPA cannot request Part 1 or Part 2 applications until that ICR is granted, others believe that because EPA has asked for the authority and will receive it at some future date, that they can proceed with requesting and processing Part 1 and Part 2 applications. It may take OMB a while to approve this request but they are seldom denied.

States Sue EPA over TRI

In December 2006, EPA raised the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting threshold for certain materials from 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds per year. On November 28, 2007, twelve states filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asking the court to overturn the rule. The complaint alleges that EPA violated several provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. One example is the statue only allows EPA to increase the threshold if such an increase will not substantially decrease the reporting of releases for that chemical. The suit alleges that the current increase will eliminate the reporting for more that half of a dozen different chemicals. At this early stage, it is difficult to predict how EPA or the court will respond to this complaint.

Dioxin Clean-up

On Friday, November 9, 2007, Dow Chemical Company notified EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality of preliminary results of over 1.6 million parts per trillion of dioxin in a sediment sample taken from the Saginaw River. On the following Sunday, EPA provided Dow with legal notice of potential liability and their intent to immediately begin clean-up of the site. Under current Superfund laws, EPA also gave Dow the option of performing the clean-up under EPA supervision. On Monday, representatives from the two agencies and Dow met to discuss clean-up alternatives. On Tuesday, Dow notified EPA that they would perform the needed work under EPA supervision. Field work began immediately and the dredging is expected to be complete by December 15, 2007.

Climate Change

S. 2191 was voted out of the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by a straight party line vote of 4-3. Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has scheduled a markup by the full committee on December 5, 2007. Getting this bill out of full committee may be a lot more difficult that it was anticipated. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has her own climate change plan that is more stringent than what is currently in S. 2191. Her plan requires additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and would require industry to pay for all of the allocations instead of only part. Should she vote in favor of this bill, her Democrat opponents for the Presidency will attack her for being weak on the climate change issue. If she votes against it, they again will attack her voting record. It appears that her strategy is to get the Chairwoman to delay the vote in the committee for long enough to get some of the early primaries behind her before she has to create a voting record on the climate change issue. In addition, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) has indicated that he will not vote in favor of any bill that does not include language to reduce emissions from other pollutants from power plants, especially mercury. With Senator Warner (R-VA) being the only Republican that will vote for the bill, this makes passage out of committee a tricky proposition. In an effort to satisfy some of these concerns, the Chairwoman has already delayed the committee markup until early December and could delay it even further. In addition, she has developed amendments to increase the number of allotment sold (instead of being given away) and to include additional cuts for mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants. The thing to remember is that every step that makes the bill more stringent also strengthens the resolve of the opposition to defeat the legislation. The other factor playing in this is the Chairwoman’s desire to have something passed before attending the next international climate change meetings in Bali, Indonesia to show the world that the Democrats are trying to address the issue.

Meanwhile, a number of stakeholders are trying to get their interests included. One of the more interesting areas will be the development of carbon dioxide credits. Since these can be sold in the future, creating them now could result in a significant financial advantage. The waste recycling industry has taken one of the first steps in doing this. They argue that they should receive credits for the savings from using recycled materials instead of virgin materials. They are currently working with Senator Carper to develop amendments to S. 2191 to allow the calculation of offsets from these activities. Others are likely to follow if this one succeeds.

The debate over whether EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for new power plants has moved to the Science Advisory Board. Environmental groups have argued that carbon dioxide is already a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act because section 821 requires EPA to issue regulations governing monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions. EPA has countered that the requirement to monitor and report is not the same as regulating emissions. Congress has also gotten involved in this debate. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) held a hearing where he questioned EPA Administrator Steven Johnson on why EPA has not set carbon dioxide emission limits for new power plants. As a part of the hearings, Congressman Waxman announced that he intended to introduce a bill that would ban the construction of new power plants until EPA sets carbon dioxide emission limits for stationary sources.

Geoengineering to mitigate the impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions has started to make the news again. A group of 50 climate, economic, and energy researchers met for two days at Harvard University (also sponsored by the University of Calgary) to discuss possible ways to alter the earth’s climate to counter the effects of global warming. Several schemes have been proposed in the past, including fertilizing the oceans with iron to increase the uptake of carbon dioxide, giant space shades to reflect sunlight, creating sea clouds to increase the albedo of the ocean, and injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to increase the amounts of aerosols. The group quickly focused on the unintended consequences of any actions. There was considerable concern that the impact of any attempts could not be easily predicted. However, by the end of the meeting, the scientists agreed that additional research should be done on this topic. Most seemed surprised that the idea was not rejected outright.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the final part of its Climate Change 2007 report. The Synthesis Report was released in Valencia, Spain on November 17, 2007. Earlier this year, the IPCC released reports from three of their working groups. Copies on the entire report can be found at www.ipcc.ch.

On an entirely different note, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), at their November meetings, pledged $750 million for research into climate change technology. They were meeting to consider a request by the consumer nations to increase production to ease the price of oil. In the end, OPEC did not increase output.

Plasma Systems

In early November, the city of Tallahassee signed an agreement with Green Power systems to build and operate a plasma arc system to convert 1,000 tons daily of municipal solid waste into syngas and then electricity. Green Power estimates the unit will produce about 35 MW of power. The project is expected to be completed by 2010. Tallahassee has agreed to buy power from the facility until 2040.

CRWI Meeting

The next CRWI meeting will be held on March 6-7, 2008, in Chantilly, VA. The major topic for discussion will be how to respond to EPA’s final decisions on which standards are to be redone. For more information, contact CRWI.