 Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration
CRWI Update
November 30, 2009
HWC MACT
HWC MACT
Staff for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW) had initial discussions
with middle management in mid-November on what needs to be done for the
next rule. It appears that staff has concluded that additional data for
certain HAPs (e.g., carbon monoxide (CO) and/or total hydrocarbon
(THC)) will be needed before the Agency can proceed. They are closely
watching what the Air Office has recently done with the boiler 114
requests and what data requests are planned for the electric utility
boilers. Staff has looked at the ICR (Information Collection Request)
for both rulemakings. For boilers, EPA asked for CO, THC, formaldehyde,
and dioxins/furans during the test and 30 days of CO and THC continuous
emissions monitors (CEMs) data. The data request for the electric
utility industry is a little less clear (ICR not final) but it seems to
include CO, THC, formaldehyde, dioxins/furans, polychlorinated
biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, and poly aromatic hydrocarbon
emissions during testing and at least some CO and THC CEMs data. OSW
staff seems interested in waiting on the results of these data analyses
before asking hazardous waste combustors to gather additional data.
At this point in time, it is also not clear how the OSW wants to
proceed on obtaining additional CO/THC CEMs data for hazardous waste
combustors. It could come in a couple of different ways. One is a
simple request to provide the Agency with a certain number of days of
CO or THC CEMs data, depending upon which one that facility has. They
could also follow the Air Office lead and request that a number of
facilities install both CEMs (or the one they don’t have) and then
provide several days of data for both. To do either, EPA has to obtain
permission from Office of Management and Budget to obtain an ICR.
Getting an ICR takes at least two Federal
Register notices. That process will take 9-12 months.
Boiler MACT
EPA should be releasing the boiler/CISWI dataset in late December. All
indications are that EPA will sign three proposed rules on April 15,
2009. These three proposed rules will be the revised standards for
industrial boilers and process heaters, the revised standards for
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units, and
the proposed revisions to the definition of non-hazardous solid waste.
The revision to the definition of non-hazardous solid waste will be
used to determine which units are regulated under the boiler rule and
which are regulated under the CISWI rule. While the standard setting
methodology for the two is similar, the CISWI rule will regulate
additional pollutants and have a different implementation scheme. All
three proposed rules will have 45 day comment periods with little
chance for any extensions since EPA is under a court order to finalize
these rules by mid-December 2010. From all indications, EPA will
continue to use the straight emissions method and a HAP by HAP approach
to set the standards. There are no indications on how EPA will handle
startup, shutdown, or malfunction events in these rules.
ECF Rule
On November 30, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed the proposed rule to
withdraw the emissions comparable fuel (ECF) exclusion. A copy of the
signed rule can be found at
www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/td/combust/compfuels/exclusion.htm#emisscomp.
Expect the proposed rule to be published in the Federal Register in mid- to
late-December. The proposed rule has a 45 day comment period.
IRIS
During November, EPA announced notices of peer-review workshops for
draft toxicological reviews for four chemicals. The workshop for
chloroprene will be held on January 6, 2010 (December 1, 2009, Federal Register). The workshop for
cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene will be held on December 17, 2009,
the workshop for hydrogen cyanide and cyanide salts will be held on
December 14, 2009, and the workshop for trichloroacetic acid will be
held on December 10, 2009. The last three notices were in the November
10, 2009, Federal Register.
All four notices are in support of the Agency’s Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) Update Program. Additional details for each
can be found in their respective Federal
Register notices.
Regional Administrators
Appointed
On November 5, President Obama Administration appointed Regional
Administrators for EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9. H. Curtis Spalding
will head Region 1. Mr. Spalding previously served as Executive
Director of the organization Save the Bay (Rhode Island) for 20 years.
Judith Enck, a deputy secretary for the environment in New York State
since 2007, will serve as the Regional Administrator for Region 2.
Before that, Ms. Enck was the Executive Director of Environmental
Advocates of New York and was a senior environmental associate for the
New York Public Interest Research Group. Shawn Garvin is the Regional
Administrator for Region 3. Mr. Garvin has worked for EPA Region 3 for
10 years, most recently as the Region’s senior state and congressional
liaison. Dr. Alfredo Armendariz is the Regional Administrator for
Region 6. Dr. Armendariz was a professor at Southern Methodist
University where he taught courses in environmental and civil
engineering. He also conducted research to design, construct, and test
a filtration system to reduce particulate emissions from diesel
engines. Previously, he worked for Radian Corporation obtaining Title V
permits for natural gas utilities, pulp and paper mills, and wood
products facilities. He holds a PhD from University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in environmental engineering. Dr. Armendariz was one of
the environmental groups’ top picks for this position. Jared Blumenfeld
is the new Regional Administrator for Region 9. Mr. Blumenfeld was
previously the director of the San Francisco Department of the
Environment.
OMB
In October, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) voicing concern that OMB was
trying to influence what data EPA was using for their endocrine
disruptor screening program. On November 16, 2009, OMB Director Peter
Orszag sent a reply in which he told Congressman Markey that OMB “does
not question the scientific responsibilities and rigor put forth by
EPA...” He went on to say that EPA has the sole authority to make
scientific decisions. This appears to be a reversal of the policies
used by the previous administration.
Dioxin
The World Health Organization’s International Agency on Cancer (IARC)
recently revised their monograph on dioxins and furan. In 1997, IARC
classified 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin as a human carcinogen
based on evidence that dioxin exposure would result in changes to human
biochemistry. At that time, there was no direct evidence of dioxin
exposure causing cancer. In 2009, a group of scientist meeting at IARC
headquarters in Lyon, France, decided that there was now a sufficient
relationship between exposure and cancer in humans to make this
decision. This new evidence was based on the carcinogenicity of dioxin
for all cancers combined. This is somewhat unusual because for most
carcinogens, there is a specific cancer related to exposure. The
authors of the monograph stated that this new information justifies
taking preventive action before waiting for cancers to be observed in
humans. In addition, IARC added 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran and
3,4,5,3’,4’-pentachlorobiphenyl to their list of human carcinogens. The
monograph indicates that these two new chemicals are indicators for a
larger class of dioxin-like furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).
On November 27, 2009, EPA sent their preliminary remediation goals for
dioxin in residential soils guidance document to the Office of
Management and Budget for review. EPA hopes to make this document
available for review before the end of 2009.
EPA Staffing and Nominations
The stand-off between EPA and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) over the
nomination of Paul Anastas to be the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Research and Development continues. EPA is moving forward to
finalize their IRIS assessment for formaldehyde but is resisting
submitting that assessment to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
panel for an additional review. The process was made more complicated
by a recent IARC study that concluded that there is sufficient evidence
that exposure to formaldehyde causes leukemia and sinonasal cancer in
humans. Both sides of the debate are using this monograph as a reason
to support their point of view. Those opposing the NAS review say that
the IARC process was a peer review and another one is simply not
needed. Those favoring the NAS review point out that the IARC panel was
almost evenly divided on whether the evidence was strong enough to
classify formaldehyde as a carcinogen.
Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) currently has a hold on the nomination
of Robert Perciasepe to be the next Deputy Administrator for EPA based
on a request for EPA to develop an economic analysis of the current
Senate climate change bill. Senator Voinovich worked out a deal with
EPA to drop that hold but the deal requires Senator Barbara Boxer
(D-CA) give her consent to the additional analysis. Senator Boxer
declined to give her consent and the standoff continues.
On November 18, 2009, President Obama nominated Arthur Elkins to be the
next Inspector General for EPA. Mr. Elkins is currently an associate
general counsel for EPA. The nomination was referred to the Senate
Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee for hearings. Once EPW
approves the nomination, it will then go to the Senate Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee. Hearings have not yet been
scheduled.
Janet McCabe has been selected to be the principal deputy for the
Office of Air and Radiation. Ms. McCabe has recently served as the
Executive Director for Improving Kids’ Environment, an Indiana group
focused on reducing environmental threats to children. Ms. McCabe’s
duties will be to help the Assistant Administrator on air quality
issues and climate change.
Elizabeth Feldt was recently named as an associate administrator for
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Ms. Feldt has had an
extensive career, working in EPA’s Superfund office (Love Canal
Superfund site), the Air office (National Radon program), the
Department of Energy Environmental Management program (Hanford and the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), and most recently as an environmental
consultant.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has appointed two individuals to help
energize the Agency’s environmental justice program. She named Lisa
Garcia as a senior advisor on environmental justice. Ms. Garcia was
recently the head of New York’s environmental justice program. Ms.
Jackson asked Patrick Chang to reform and restructure EPA’s Office of
Civil Rights. Mr. Chang was an attorney in the Department of Justice
working in environmental discrimination matters. Part of Mr. Chang’s
goals will be to address the backlog of pending administrative
complaints alleging violation of civil rights law in permitting
decisions.
Climate Change – Legislation
Republicans decided that their best strategy to kill climate change
legislation in the Senate was to boycott all efforts by Chairwoman
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to amend the current draft. Committee rules
require that at least two members of the minority party must be in
attendance before any amendments can be considered. By boycotting the
proceedings, Republicans were preventing any of the more than 80
amendments to the Chairwoman’s mark from being considered. However,
they did not stop the Committee from reporting the bill. Chairwoman
Boxer simply ignored all the pending amendments and on November 5,
2009, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the
Chairwoman’s mark by a vote of 11-1. The only Democrat to vote against
the bill in committee was Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). The bill now goes
to Senate Finance, Commerce, and Agriculture Committees. The Finance
Committee is not scheduled to begin deliberation on their parts of the
bill until January. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently
stated that climate legislation will be taken up sometime in the Spring
of 2010. This will put the rest of the debate squarely in the middle of
the re-election season. Vulnerable Congressmen and Senators may be
reluctant to make difficult votes so close to the election. Some
observers take this as a sign of weakening political will to pass
climate change legislation in this Congress. Others suggest that the
current health care debate is consuming all the allotted time in the
Senate and there is simply no time left for debate on any other
legislation. Finally, there are some suggestions that a “job-creation”
bill in 2010 will keep climate change legislation on the back burner.
Climate Change – Regulation
In spite of Congress’ inaction, EPA keeps plugging along with their
goal of using the current Clean Air Act authority to regulate
greenhouse gases. The Agency sent their endangerment finding went to
the Office of Management and Budget on November 9, 2009. The While
House has expressed a desire to finalize that finding prior to
President Obama’s attending the international climate talks in
Copenhagen. In a November 25, 2009, press release, President Obama
stated that he is prepared to put a proposal on the table during the
Copenhagen talks for U.S. emissions reduction in the range of 17% below
2005 levels by 2020. He also announced that he would attend the
Copenhagen meetings on December 9, the day before receiving his Nobel
Prize. However, the lead U.S. negotiator for the meetings suggested
that it is unlikely that a legally binding, comprehensive greenhouse
gas emissions treaty will emerge from this meeting. What is expected is
a political agreement on key issues such as financing and mitigation
that can serve as a framework for a treaty that can be signed in 2010.
On November 25, 2009, EPA released a draft document on how the
Endangered Species Act could be used to control greenhouse gases. The
report lays out a framework for categorizing relative vulnerability of
threatened and endangered species to climate change. Comments on this
document will be accepted until December 28, 2009.
EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Gina
McCarthy, told the trade press that EPA would quickly move forward to
develop another round of greenhouse gas reporting rules in 2010. These
will be designed to include additional industry sectors (coal mining
and oil and gas drilling were mentioned) and a broadening of the types
of emission reported in sectors that are already required to report.
Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the
Canadian Province of Manitoba are developing a model rule for a
regional greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. This program aims to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 2020 as well as funding a
number of energy efficiency programs and R&D efforts into cleaner
technologies. To be enacted, some states must pass enabling
legislation. Other states already have such legislation. All will need
to develop the implementing regulations. This group would be similar to
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and the Western
Climate Initiative.
As if there was not enough controversy surrounding climate change, two
more surfaced in November. Two EPA attorneys made and published a
YouTube video that calls current climate change regulations a huge
mistake. They disclosed their affiliation with EPA but stated that the
video was their own views and not the opinion of the Agency. The video
argues that past experiments in using offsets results in nothing but
fraud with no reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. EPA originally
cleared the video but reversed that decision on November 6, 2009, and
told the two to remove the video. This action comes on the heels of EPA
“suppressing” an internal report by an Agency economist that was
critical of climate change science.
The other controversy is much more serious in nature. A hacker
penetrated the e-mail system for the University of East Anglia’s
Climate Research Unit (CRU), one of the major players in the climate
change debate. The hacker released decades of e-mails between
scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Some of these showed heated exchanges over climate science.
Some expressed concern that since the temperatures were not rising like
the models predicted, that the models may not be correct. Other
suggested different ways to present the data to minimize the impact of
the more recent data. Still others discussed methods of excluding or
marginalizing climate skeptics and the journals that publish their
work. In addition, it seems that CRU cannot find some of the raw data
used to develop their predictions. Not having access to the raw data
prevents an
independent assessment of the calculations used. At best, these are
poorly written private
conversations on how to address concerns. At worst, these are blatant
attempts to silence critics. This controversy has already captured the
attention of certain Senators and participants of the Copenhagen
meetings. It will be interesting to see
how “climategate” plays out at during these two debates.
CRWI Meeting
The next CRWI meeting will be held on March 2-3, 2010, in Victoria, TX.
The meetings will include a tour of INVISTA’s combustions operations.
For more information,
contact CRWI.
|