|
Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration | Pollutant | Large | Medium | Small | Small Rural |
| HCl (ppmv) | 6.6 | 7.7 | 44 | 810 |
| CO (ppmv) | 11 | 5.5 | 20 | 20 |
| Pb (mg/dscm) | 0.036 | 0.018 | 0.31 | 0.50 |
| Cd (mg/dscm) | 0.0092 | 0.013 | 0.017 | 0.11 |
| Hg (mg/dscm) | 0.018 | 0.025 | 0.014 | 0.0051 |
| PM (gr/dscf) | 0.011 | 0.020 | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| D/F total (ng/dscm) | 9.3 | 0.85 | 16 | 240 |
| D/F TEQ (ng/dscm) | 0.054 | 0.020 | 0.013 | 5.1 |
| NOx (ppmv) | 140 | 190 | 190 | 130 |
| SO2 (ppmv) | 9.0 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 55 |
EPA used straight emissions to pick the top performers and a 99.9% upper limit to set the standards. They continued to use the pollutant-by-pollutant approach, rejecting comments that this would lead to unachievable standards. In the preamble, EPA states that seven of the 57 facilities in the database could simultaneously meet the existing source standards without making modification. This is 12% seeming removing the argument that was raised during the comment period that no single source could meet all the standards simultaneously. This statistic is correct but when it is broken down into the subcategories, one finds that four of 36 large facilities can meet all the standards, none of the 17 medium facilities can meet all the standards, both of the small facilities can meet the standards, and one of two small rural facilities can meet the standard. It should be noted that the small and small rural subcategories are missing data making it difficult to tell if the units in those two subcategories could actual meet all standard. In the proposed rule, EPA did not mention how startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events would be handled. In the final rule, EPA removed the SSM exclusions and now requires that the standards apply at all times. It is expected that the environmental groups will praise it and industry will criticize it. It is not yet know whether industry will challenge this rule.
Greener Cleanups
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has just released a series of guidelines intended to limit additional environmental harm during cleanup operations. OSWER recommends that the following elements be considered when carrying out greener cleanups.
- Minimize total energy use by using energy efficient equipment, power onsite equipment using renewable sources, and purchase commercial energy from renewable sources.
- Minimize the generation of greenhouse gases, airborne contaminants and dust; use heavy equipment efficiently; use equipment with advanced emissions controls; use cleaner fuels; and sequester carbon onsite (re-vegetate).
- Minimize water use; capture, reclaim, and store water for reuse; minimize water demand from vegetation by using native species; and employ best management practices for stormwater.
- Minimize the use of virgin materials; use recycled and local products; and beneficially reuse waste products where possible.
- Minimize areas requiring activity; minimize unnecessary soil and habitat destruction; use native species; and minimize noise and lighting disturbances.
GHG Reporting Final Rule
On September 22, 2009, EPA signed the final greenhouse gas reporting rule. There were several changes from what was proposed. Probably the most pertinent to the HWCs is the exemption from reporting greenhouse gas emissions from burning of hazardous waste. Section 98.30(c) specifically excludes reporting of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion of combust hazardous waste (as defined in 40 CFR 261.3) unless the facility currently monitors carbon dioxide emissions using a CEMs. HWC facilities are required to report greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of all fuels listed in Table C-1. Table C-1 contains default carbon dioxide emission factors for a number of different types of fossil fuels. It is not clear whether the required reporting of fossil fuels combusted in a hazardous waste unit is subject to the 25,000 tons per year threshold. Neither the preamble nor the response to comments document address this issue. It may be that HWCs will not have any reporting requirements unless they currently have a carbon dioxide CEMs, produce more than 25,000 tons from burning non-hazardous fuels, or are part of a facility that emits more than 25,000 tons per year. It also may be that HWCs must report carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from the combustion of any fuels listed in Tables C-1 and C-2.
Other changes in the rule since proposal include reducing the records retention from five years to three years, excluding R&D activities from reporting, reducing the required frequency for sampling and analysis of fuels, and developing a mechanism for facilities that reduce emissions below the 25,000 tons per year threshold to stop reporting after five consecutive years of emissions below the threshold. Additional details can be found at www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
PSD Tailoring Proposed Rule
When EPA makes their endangerment finding for greenhouse gases final and proposes to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources (as required by the Supreme Court ruling), similar endangerment language in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act will require EPA to also regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. The current thresholds for the PSD program are 100 tons per year and 250 tons per year, depending on the type of facility. If these thresholds would be applied to greenhouse gases, a large number of small sources would be brought under the program. EPA believes that this was not Congress’ intent and on September 30, 2009, announced a rule proposing a 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. EPA based this proposed rule on the premise that literally following statutory provisions would create an outcome that Congress did not authorize and is counter to the intent. The proposal addresses emissions of six greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) and proposes to use carbon dioxide equivalents as the preferred metric. Once published in the Federal Register, EPA will accept comments for 60 days. A link to the signed rule can be found at www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20090930action.html.
EPA Enforcement
In a presentation to the American Bar Association, EPA’s director of the Office of Civil Enforcement stated that the Agency has 50 ongoing investigations against coal-fired power plants primarily for not complying with new source review rules. In addition, the enforcement office is actively looking at the PVC manufacturers, acid production, cement plants, glass manufacturers, carbon black producers, oil and gas producers, polystyrene foam manufacturers, landfills, industrial boilers, iron and steel manufacturers, natural gas transmission, aluminum smelters, municipal waste combustors, ethanol producers, and pulp and paper facilities. EPA will soon announce a large settlement with a PVC manufacturer. The Agency has sent 43 information requests and 13 notice of violations (NOV) to acid producers, 60 information requests and nine NOVs to cement kilns, and 72 information requests and seven NOVs to glass manufacturers. Observers expect enforcement efforts to continue to expand.
IRIS
EPA announced several listening sessions and comment periods for reviews of compounds in support of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA will hold a listening session for ethyl tertiary butyl ether on October 7, 2009 (September 23, 2009, Federal Register). EPA announced (September 29, 2009) an external peer review draft for chloroprene. Comments on this document are due on November 30, 2009. On September 24, 2009, EPA announced review drafts and listening sessions for cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, trichloroacetic acid, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. The comment period for all three ends on November 23, 2009. The listening session for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane will be held on October 14, 2009, the listening session for cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene will be held on October 19, 2009, and the listening session for trichloroacetic acid will be held on November 4, 2009. Additional details for each can be found in their respective Federal Register notices.
Nominations
On September 10, 2009, the Senate confirmed Cass Sunstein as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) continues to block the vote for Paul Anastas to be the next Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. Senator Vitter is trying to force EPA to send their current risk assessment for formaldehyde to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a review. EPA is almost finished with their review and submitting it to the NAS would delay finalizing it by at least 18 months. In addition, Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) continues to block the nomination of Robert Perciasepe to be the Deputy Administrator for EPA. Senator Voinovich wants EPA to modify their cost analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill (see story below). So far, EPA has declined to conduct any additional analysis. Neither of these holds have anything to do with the qualifications of the individuals nominated. They are simply being used as levers by the Senators to force EPA to do certain things. Since the holds are not about qualifications, withdrawal of a nomination would not solve the conflict. To get these nominations brought before the Senate for a vote, EPA will need to find a way to address each Senator’s concerns or they will need to convince the Senate Minority Leader to release the hold.
Climate Change – Legislation
An EPA analysis of the cost of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill estimates that it would cost the average U.S. household an additional $80 to $111 per year. The Congressional Budget Office put the estimated cost at $175 per year and the Energy Information Administration estimated the cost at $83 per year. Industry groups argue that the costs are significantly underestimated. The National Association of Manufacturers, Charles River Associates, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Heritage Foundation all suggest that annual household income will fall by $730 to $1248 by 2030 if the Waxman-Markey bill is passed. While it is not easy to compare the different estimates, the perceived cost of this bill will have a significant impact on whether the public will back climate change legislation. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 58% of the respondents would support a cap-and-trade bill that adds $10 to their monthly electrical bill. The support fell to 39% if the cost were $25 per month. A Rasmussen Reports poll found that 56% would not be willing to pay any additional costs, 22% would pay an extra $100 per year, and 10% would be willing to pay more than $100 per year. What is important from these polls is that a small increase in the per person cost for this legislation results in a significant decrease in public support.
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) released their discussion draft climate change bill on September 30, 2009. The initial draft called for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from a baseline of 2005 by 2020 and 83% by 2050. This compares to a 17% reduction by 2020 that is in the House version. The bill does not choose whether Agriculture or EPA will run the offsets program and provides for 40% more domestic offsets than does the Waxman-Markey bill. It also provides for a $28 per ton cap on the price of allowances to curb speculation in a “carbon market.” The draft does not address some of the more controversial issues such as how many allowances will be distributed to each sector or whether the allowances will be given away or auctioned. Senator Boxer plans to hold hearings on the bill during the week of October 19th and mark up the legislation the following week. For this bill to move forward, the details of the more controversial areas will have to be worked out before mark up.
Despite the introduction of this draft, there is still significant disagreement among Democrat Senators about how this legislation should be drafted. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) held a hearing on September 15, 2009, where he explored the idea of a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade program. At least a couple of Democrat Senators expressed concern that a cap-and-trade scheme would create a large market for carbon allowances and derivatives “ripe for speculation and manipulation.” Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee stated in a September 9, 2009, hearing that it would not be her preference to move a cap-and-trade bill this year. She went on to state that the Senate would likely pass a climate change bill in the future but it was important to take their time and get the details correct. The Senate Leadership has not set a timetable to move this legislation but it appears unlikely that it will be considered by the Senate this year.
Climate Change – Regulation
EPA continues to forge ahead with regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the current version of the Clean Air Act. In April 2009, EPA proposed that greenhouse gas emissions would endanger public health and welfare. On September 22, 2009, EPA signed a final rule requiring a large number of sources to report greenhouse gas emissions starting with the 2010 calendar year. On September 28, 2009, EPA proposed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. On September 30, 2009, EPA signed a rule proposing to raise the threshold for greenhouse gases under the PSD program from 250 tons per year to 25,000 tons per year. EPA expects to finalize the endangerment finding, the mobile source rule, and the changes in the PSD thresholds by the Spring of 2010. Somewhere in the process, EPA will have to determine how to define Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and/or develop methods of controlling greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. Most observers agree that the current structure of the Clean Air Act does not easily allow for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. However, Congress’ unwillingness or inability to modify the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court ruling has forced EPA to attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. One thing that is clear from this is if Congress does not act in the near future to set up some method for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, EPA will. You can find a complete listing of EPA’s climate change programs at www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html.
Climate Change – Courts
Eight states, the City of New York, and several non-profit land trusts filed a public nuisance suit against five large power companies alleging that greenhouse gas emissions from these five companies would impact water supply, coastal erosion, and have a number of other impacts on the rights common to the general public. In 2005, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York dismissed the suit stating that the case raised non-justiciable political questions. The District Court reasoned that only the political branches of the government could resolve the balancing of environmental and economic issues presented. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit. On September 21, 2009, the Appeals Court overturned the District Court ruling stating that just because an issue is political does not make it non-justiciable. The court went on to state that a court cannot decline to decide an issue within its jurisdiction simply because the issue has political ramifications or because issue was complex. They pointed out that courts have been deciding complex issues for more than a century. This ruling opens the door to a potential judicial remedy for alleged harm from greenhouse gas emissions. It also provides another avenue for control of greenhouse gas emissions should neither Congress nor EPA develop a comprehensive program to control greenhouse gas emissions.
RGGI
A total of 28.4 million allowances were sold during the September auction of greenhouse gas allowances by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for an average price of $2.19 per allowance. Another 2.2 million allowances were sold for $1.87 each for use in 2012. An allowance sold for $3.23 in June and $3.51 in March. Each allowance represents a limited authorization to emit one ton carbon dioxide.
Plastic to Oil
Envion Inc. introduced its first market-ready commercial unit to convert plastic into synthetic light to medium crude oil on September 16, 2009, at the Montgomery County Solid Waste Transfer Station in Derwood, MD. The unit uses a proprietary process to convert the plastic into crude oil without needing fossil fuel combustion. This synthetic crude can be used to produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and kerosene. It works by melting the plastic in an oxygen starved environment using an infrared technology. Each unit can handle 10,000 tons of plastic per year. Envion estimates that one ton of plastic can be converted into approximately 4 barrels of synthetic crude. Envion claims that that the process will cost $17 per ton of plastic, making it a cost effective alternative to other recycling ($50 to $150 per ton) or to landfilling ($70 to $200 per ton).
CRWI Meeting
The next CRWI meeting will be held on November 4-5, in Baton Rouge, LA. The major topics for discussion will be implementation issues for the 2005 rule and the next HWC MACT rulemaking. For more information, contact CRWI.
| About CRWI | Technical Information | CRWI Newsletter |
| Members | Operator Certification | CRWI
Comments |
| Mission Statement | Selected Citations | Links |