UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING

40 CFR PART 60

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY

SOURCES AND EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING SOURCES:

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS;

PROPOSED RULE

T R A N S C R I P T

___________________

O F___T H E ___ _____

P U B L I C H E A R I N G

___________________________

V O L U M E 1 O F 1

_________________________

P A G E S 1 - _62

__________________ __

At Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Friday, October 29, 2010.Vol. 1, p. 2

A P P E A R A N C E S

_____________________

EPA H E A R I N G P A N E L

_______________________________

For EPA:

Robin Dunkins, Chair, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards

Amy Hambrick, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Ketan D. Patel, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards

Speakers:

Chris Hornback, National Associate of Clean Water Agencies

Bob Dominak, Northeastern Ohio Regional Sanitary District

Randy Schmidt and Margaret Orr, Central Contra Costa

Sanitary District

Mark Feltner, Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Don Howard, City of Greensboro, Department of Water

Resources

Jonathan Sprague, Saint Louis Metropolitan Sewer District

Tim Mauldin, Cabarrus County, NC, Water and Sewer Authority

___________________________________Vol. 1, p. 3

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

_________________________________

E X A M I N A T I O N S

_______________________

Proceedings Name Page No.

___________ ____ ________

Welcome Robin Dunkins, Chair 5

Presentation Chris Hornback, Senior 11

Director, Regulatory Affairs,

National Association of Clean

Water Agencies

Presentation Robert P. Dominak, RAE Manager, 18

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer

District

Presentation Margaret P. Orr, Director of 25

Plant Operations, Central

Contra Costa Sanitary District,

Martinez, California

Presentation Mark Feltner, Scientist, 36

Hampton Roads (Virginia)

Sanitation District

Presentation Don Howard, City of Greensboro 43

North Carolina

Presentation Jonathan Sprague, Director of 48

Operations, Metropolitan

Saint Louis Sewer District

Presentation Tim Mauldin, Cabarrus County 58

Water and Sewer Authority,

Concord, North Carolina

Colloquy 60

Certificate 62

________________________________________Vol. 1, p. 4

The following Public Hearing in the matter of the

Proposed Rule for Sewage Sludge Incineration Emission

Standards was held by U.S. EPA, Chairperson Robin Dunkins,

Presiding, and was reported by Manie P. Currin, Court

Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of North

Carolina at U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building C,

Conference Room C111A, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina, on Friday, October 29, 2010, commencing at 9:00

a.m.

The following proceedings were had, to wit:

________________________________________1 Welcome Chair Dunkins Vol. 1, p. 5

2 CHAIR DUNKINS: Good morning.

3 I'd like to thank everyone for attending

4 today's public hearing on the Environmental

5 Protection Agency's proposed rule for sewage sludge

6 incineration.

7 We appreciate you taking time -- the time to

8 address the proposal and look forward to hearing

9 your comments.

10 My name is Robin Dunkins. I'm the group

11 leader for the Natural Resources and Commerce Group

12 at EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and

13 Standards, and I will be chairing today's meeting.

14 With me on the panel today, are Amy Hambrick

15 from the Sector Policies and Programs Division in

16 our Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards;

17 and Ketan Patel, from our -- also from our Sector

18 Policies and Programs Division in the Office of Air

19 Quality Planning and Standards.

20 We are here today to listen to your comments

21 on the proposed rule that EPA announced on

22 September -- September 30th of this year, excuse

23 me, and was published on October 14th.

24 Before we begin the Hearing, I'd like to

25 provide you with a few comments, I mean background,1 Welcome Chair Dunkins Vol. 1, p. 6

2 excuse me, and briefly describe the proposal we are

3 here to take comments on today.

4 As you know, under the Clean Air Act, EPA is

5 required to develop new and existing standards for

6 solid waste incineration units including sewage

7 sludge incineration. EPA has never regulated

8 sewage sludge incineration units under section one

9 twenty-nine (129). We are aware that there are

10 currently two hundred eighteen (218) units in the

11 United States and Puerto Rico.

12 We issued standards for other solid waste

13 incineration units on December 16, 2005. We refer

14 to that rule as OSWI, where we established

15 numerical emission limits for very small municipal

16 waste combustion and institutional waste

17 incineration.

18 Following the finalization of that rule, EPA

19 received a petition for reconsideration asking that

20 sewage sludge incineration and other units be

21 covered under the OSWI rule. In January of 2007,

22 EPA took final action on the reconsideration and

23 concluded that no changes to OSWI were necessary.

24 Then in 2007, the United States Court of

25 Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,1 Welcome Chair Dunkins Vol. 1, p. 7

2 vacated and remanded the 2005 Commercial and

3 Industrial Solid Waste Incineration's definition

4 rule.

5 On June 4th of this year, the Office of Solid

6 Waste and Emergency Response proposed a new

7 definition of solid waste. In that proposal, we

8 determined that sewage sludge is a solid waste.

9 Therefore, sewage sludge incineration will be

10 regulated under Clean Air Act, section one

11 twenty-nine (129) rather than Clean Air Act,

12 section one twelve (112).

13 A sewage sludge incineration unit is an

14 incinerator or combustion device that is used to

15 burn dewatered sludge that are typically located at

16 wastewater treatment facilities. The types of

17 incineration subject to the proposed standards are

18 multiple hearth and fluidized incinerators.

19 The proposed rules that establish opacity

20 limits and emission limits for nine pollutants

21 emitted from the regulated sewage sludge

22 incineration units which include: mercury, lead,

23 cadmium, hydrogen chloride, particulate matter,

24 carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, nitrogen oxides

25 and sulfur dioxide.1 Welcome Chair Dunkins Vol. 1, p. 8

2 The proposed rules would reduce emissions of

3 these pollutants by an estimated six thousand three

4 hundred thirty (6,330) tons per year. According to

5 the rule, excuse me, the proposed rule, SSI units

6 are the sixth highest emitting source of mercury in

7 the country.

8 This proposed rule would reduce emissions of

9 mercury from sewage sludge incineration by

10 seventy-six percent (76%). The proposed rule may

11 also require approximately a hundred ninety-six

12 (196) of the two hundred eighteen (218) units to

13 install one or more air pollution control devices

14 including: activated carbon injection, fabric

15 filters, or high efficiency scrubbers.

16 The proposal also requires provisions for

17 testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and

18 operator training.

19 EPA is required by a Court Order issued by the

20 United States District Court for the District of

21 Columbia to take final action on the proposed

22 emissions standards by January 14, 2011.

23 More details about the proposed rule and

24 instructions for submitting public comments are

25 available at the registration desk.1 Welcome Chair Dunkins Vol. 1, p. 9

2 We have also prepared a list of topics on

3 which we are specifically seeking comments. You

4 should also find that outside at the registration

5 desk as well. EPA will accept written comments

6 until November 29, 2010.

7 Let me take a few minutes -- lines to comment

8 on this portion of the Hearing, and how today's

9 session will work.

10 I will call a scheduled speaker to the

11 microphone, one at a time. When it is your turn to

12 speak, please state your name and affiliation. We

13 may ask you to spell your name for the court

14 reporter who is transcribing your comments for the

15 official record.

16 To be fair to be everyone, we ask you to limit

17 your testimony to six minutes each. We have a

18 timekeeping system consisting of green, yellow and

19 red cards. When you begin speaking, the green card

20 will be signaled. The yellow card will signal that

21 you have two minutes left?

22 TIMEKEEPER: Unh-hunh (yes).

23 CHAIR DUNKINS: We will ask you to stop

24 speaking when the red card is signaled.

25 We are here today to hear your comments on the1 Welcome Chair Dunkins Vol. 1, p. 10

2 proposed rule. However, from time to time any of

3 us on the hearing panel may ask questions to

4 clarify your testimony.

5 If you have brought written comments --

6 written copy of your comments, please give a copy

7 to Ms. Currin, our court reporter. All written

8 copies of the comments will be submitted to the

9 docket.

10 We will work hard to ensure that everyone has

11 an opportunity to comment. Today's hearing will

12 continue as needed until everyone that would like

13 to provide their testimony has spoken. That

14 typically -- we've got, so far, about eight

15 speakers. We'll typically hold it open an hour

16 longer if we don't have anyone else sign up. We

17 will take breaks for meals if the hearing is

18 extended.

19 If you would like to testify but have not

20 registered to do so, please sign up at the

21 registration table.

22 For those of you who have already registered

23 to speak, we have tried to accommodate your request

24 for a specific time slot. We ask for you patience

25 as we proceed through the list, and we may need to1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 11

2 make some minor adjustments as we progress this

3 morning.

4 Thank you for participating today and let's

5 get started.

6 So on my list here first, I have Chris

7 Hornback.

8 (Mr . Hornback comes to the podium.)

9 CHRIS HORNBACK: Good morning, my name is

10 Chris Hornback. I'm the Senior Director of

11 Regulatory Affairs for the National Association of

12 Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. We represent the

13 interests of nearly three hundred (300) public

14 wastewater treatments agencies nationwide. Our

15 members serve the majority of the sewered

16 population in the United States.

17 NACWA is very concerned about the impact of --

18 the proposed rule will have on the already limited

19 options that local governments have for managing

20 the thousands of tons of sludge that our country

21 generates on a daily basis.

22 While incineration is one of three main

23 options for managing sludge, those utilities that

24 incinerate, did not choose to do so randomly -- by

25 randomly selecting one of those options.1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 12

2 After careful consideration of the other

3 alternatives, costs and environment impact,

4 utilities that incinerate chose to design their

5 plant and treatment operations based on an

6 understanding that incineration was the best option

7 for their community.

8 POTWs are unlike the usual sources EPA

9 regulates, both from a technical standpoint in

10 terms of the combustion units we use, and from an

11 organizational standpoint, in that we are public

12 entities that have no choice but to accept the

13 sewage that flows into our plants.

14 Given these differences, the complexity of

15 EPA's MACT standards, and the very aggressive

16 schedule that EPA has imposed on this rule to date,

17 it is imperative that we all have more time to

18 review and revise the proposed standards.

19 We understand the pressure of Court Ordered

20 deadlines that EPA is trying to meet, but

21 forty-five (45) days is simply an insufficient

22 amount of time to review a rule this size and

23 importance.

24 Since EPA will likely have a difficult time

25 meeting its January 2011 deadline, we ask that if1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 13

2 the Agency is considering seeking an extension of

3 that deadline, that we be given some additional

4 time as well to provide the level of review this

5 rule demands.

6 Accordingly, NACWA is formally requesting that

7 EPA extend the public comment period for an

8 additional thirty (30) days beyond November 29th.

9 EPA has had to develop this rule at an

10 astonishing pace.

11 With little data in hand and no time for a

12 formal information collection request, EPA sought

13 data from only nine POTWs. Based on our review,

14 this subset of the best performing units does not

15 reflect the performance of the top twelve percent

16 (12%) of existing units. In the interest of time,

17 EPA has used assumptions, algorithms, and other

18 factors from rules for units that have little

19 similarity to SSIs and that burn wastes that are

20 not similar to sewage sludge.

21 All of this has been done based on a solid

22 waste determination that has yet to be

23 finalized. The proposed MACT standards assume a

24 particular outcome from that public comment

25 process, raising important Administrative1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 14

2 Procedures Act concerns.

3 As NACWA has stated before, SSIs do not belong

4 under section one twenty-nine (129) of the Clean

5 Air Act. For more than a decade, EPA has

6 consistently stated that SSIs belong under one

7 twelve (112).

8 EPA has used several arguments in the past to

9 illustrate why SSIs should not be covered under one

10 twenty-nine (129). None of these arguments were

11 called into question by the D.C. Circuit's ruling

12 in NRDC -v- EPA in 2007.

13 The Clean Air Act actually directs EPA, in

14 section one twelve E five (112(e)(5)), to develop

15 air emission standards for peer POTWs under section

16 one twelve (112).

17 In doing so, the Clean Air Act relies on the

18 definition of POTW in the Clean Water Act. That

19 definition was critical for implementation of the

20 construction grants program for wastewater

21 treatment plants in the '70s and '80s.

22 Only those treatment units and processes that

23 Congress included under the definition of POTW,

24 would receive grant funding. Many of the nation's

25 SSIs were built, upgraded, or rehabilitated using1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 15

2 those grant funds. In other words, Congress and

3 EPA have historically treated sewage sludge

4 incinerators as a component of the POTW. SSIs are

5 not separate units at a POTW and are not located

6 off-site where utilities send their sludge.

7 SSIs are integral components of the treatment

8 process, receiving a steady stream of sludge in the

9 solids handling portion of the treatment plant.

10 SSIs are a part of the POTW and, therefore,

11 according to one twelve E five (112(e)(5)) must be

12 regulated under section one twelve (112) of the

13 Clean Air Act.

14 In the preamble of the rule, EPA can only

15 point to one instance in the past three decades of

16 EPA's handling of POTWs and SSIs that might suggest

17 that SSIs should be handled separately from the

18 POTW. The POTW NESHAP rule was developed at the

19 time when EPA had, as it acknowledged later,

20 erroneously slated SSIs for rulemaking under one

21 twenty-nine (129).

22 EPA made the decision not to regulate sewage

23 sludge incinerators in the POTW NESHAP rule based

24 on this fact alone, not based on some legal

25 analysis of whether SSIs are part of the POTW.1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 16

2 The preamble to the MACT rule provides no

3 legal basis for ignoring decades of EPA actions

4 under the construction grants program that treated

5 SSIs as part of the POTW.

6 Even if EPA dismisses this interpretation of

7 the definition of POTW, it cannot ignore the plain

8 statutory language in one twenty-nine G one

9 (129(g)(1)).

10 POTW sewage sludge is not from a commercial or

11 industrial establishment or the general public.

12 OSWER, in its proposed definition of solid waste

13 rule, has determined there that is a new point of

14 generation within the POTW that we are, in fact,

15 generating solid waste.

16 If that interpretation is accurate, then POTW

17 sewage sludge is from a municipal source and does

18 not pass the broad applicability for solid waste

19 incineration under section one twenty-nine (129).

20 SSIs simply do not belong under section one

21 twenty-nine (129).

22 Other speakers today will be highlighting some

23 of our initial reactions to the proposal, including

24 concerns we have with some of the assumptions EPA

25 has made. The rule as a whole, however, sends one1 NACWA Chris Hornback Vol. 1, p. 17

2 clear message: that sewage sludge incineration

3 will not remain as a viable option for the nation's

4 POTWs into the future.

5 As will be evident from remarks you will hear

6 today and in NACWA's written comments, we have

7 dedicated a significant portion of our limited

8 resources to help your office over the past year,

9 as it has worked to craft these proposed standards.

10 We have never argued that we should not be

11 regulated under the Clean Air Act. In fact, our

12 members had been working closely with your office

13 in the past to craft Clean Air Act standards under

14 section one twelve (112). What we are asking is

15 that EPA give full consideration to our legal

16 arguments, as to why we best belong under section

17 one twelve (112), and should EPA proceed with

18 finalizing standards under section one twenty-nine

19 (129), give us a enough time to get the standards

20 right.

21 Based on our initial review, there is a

22 significant amount of work left to be done and

23 simply not enough time to do it right.

24 Thank you.

25 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you.1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 18

2 Next we have Mr. Bob Dominak.

3 (Mr. Dominak comes to the podium.)

4 ROBERT P. DOMINAK: Good morning. My name is

5 Bob Dominak, and I am the Residuals and Air

6 Emissions Manager for the Northeast Ohio Regional

7 Sewer District, the Co-Chair of NACWA's biosolids

8 Management Committee and Chair of NACWA's

9 incineration work group.

10 The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

11 incinerates roughly ninety-five percent (95%) of

12 its sewage sludge in a total of seven incinerators.

13 After a thorough review of all options, a blue

14 ribbon panel of internationally renowned biosolids

15 management experts determined in 2008 that

16 incineration is the most viable, environmentally

17 sound, cost effective and greenest management

18 option for a district's sewage sludge.

19 We reviewed the proposed rule as published in

20 the Federal Register on October 14, 2010 and a

21 voluminous supporting documentation contained

22 within the docket. We understand that EPA is under

23 severe pressure to finalize this rule by January

24 16th of 2011.

25 EPA and its contractors made a number of1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 19

2 incorrect assumptions concerning the operations of

3 sewage sludge incinerators, that resulted in a

4 substantial over estimation of the quantity of

5 sewage sludge being incinerated in the United

6 States, the current baseline emissions, and the

7 potential reduction emissions due to implementation

8 of emission guidelines.

9 For example, EPA estimated that seventy-one

10 thousand (71,000) dry tons of sludge are

11 incinerated annually by the Northeast Ohio

12 Regional Sewer District. This is thirty-four

13 thousand (34,000) dry tons per year higher than

14 actual.

15 EPA also estimated that the District's seven

16 incinerators emit a total of one thousand three

17 hundred thirty-three (1,333) tons per year of the

18 ten (10) pollutants regulated under section one

19 twenty-nine (129). This is one thousand one

20 hundred sixty-five (1,165) tons per year higher

21 than actual.

22 Other NACWA members have reported similar

23 findings. As a result, the projected benefits of

24 this rulemaking will be substantially lower than

25 EPA's estimated two thousand six hundred ten1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 20

2 (2,610) ton per year reduction in emissions and its

3 projected health related cost savings of a hundred

4 thirty million (130,000,000) to three hundred

5 twenty million (320,000,000) dollars in 2015.

6 The proposed rule incorrectly estimates that

7 the two hundred eighteen existing sewage sludge

8 incinerators emit three point one (3.1) tons of

9 mercury per year to the atmosphere, and that by

10 using activated carbon injection, mercury emissions

11 will be reduced by more than seventy-five percent

12 (75%).

13 In EPA's 1997 mercury study report to

14 Congress, it is stated that in 1994 approximately

15 zero point nine five (0.95) tons of mercury were

16 emitted from sewage sludge incineration in the

17 United States, which was zero point six percent

18 (0.6%) of the total.

19 In 2009, the Water Environment Research

20 Foundation released a report titled: Minimizing

21 Mercury Emissions in Biosolids Incinerators.

22 The report conservatively determined, based on an

23 average mercury concentration of one milligram per

24 dry kilogram (1mg/kg) and an assumed control

25 efficiency of zero percent (0%), that sewage sludge1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 21

2 incinerators collectively emit less than one ton of

3 mercury to the atmosphere each year, which is

4 roughly zero point five percent (0.5%) of the

5 total.

6 Both EPA's 1997 report to Congress and WERF's

7 2009 report concur that mercury emissions from SSIs

8 are roughly seventy percent (70%) lower than being

9 reported in the proposed rule.

10 EPA, NACWA and WERF all agree that the best

11 way to minimize mercury emissions from SSIs is to

12 keep it from being discharged into the sewer

13 systems.

14 On September 27, 2010, EPA announced that it

15 intends to propose a rule to reduce discharge of

16 three point seven (3.7) tons per year of mercury

17 waste from dental offices, which accounts for fifty

18 percent (50%) of the mercury entering the local

19 wastewater treatment plants.

20 EPA expects to propose a rule in 2011 and

21 finalize the rule in 2012 which will require the

22 installation amalgam separators in dental offices

23 to capture a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%)

24 of the mercury.

25 The Metropolitan Council Environmental1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 22

2 Services, Saint Paul, Minnesota, implemented a

3 dental amalgam separator program a number of

4 years ago. They achieved one hundred percent

5 (100%) participation, along with a fifty percent

6 (50%) reduction in mercury in their biosolids.

7 The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is

8 implementing a dental amalgam separator program

9 that will require a ninety-nine percent (99%)

10 removal, and that all dentists in our service

11 area must achieve compliance by November 1st of

12 2011.

13 In the proposed rule, EPA is recommending that

14 the mercury limit be set at zero point zero two

15 milligrams (0.02mg) per dry standard cubic meter

16 for existing multiple hearth incinerators, which is

17 eight point five (8.5) times lower than the MACT

18 floor.

19 EPA then assumes that activated carbon will be

20 injected into the exhaust gas system for the

21 hundred sixty-three (163) existing multiple hearth

22 incinerators for mercury control. It was further

23 stated that neither additional ductwork nor air

24 pollution control devices would be required.

25 There are a number of problems associated with1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 23

2 the activated carbon injection system as proposed

3 that were not taken into consideration in

4 formulating the proposed rule.

5 The Saint Paul Metro wastewater treatment

6 plant is the only wastewater treatment plant in the

7 United States that injects activated carbon into

8 its incinerator exhaust gas system. The carbon is

9 injected into a carbon contact chamber followed by

10 a fabric filter, and the incinerator exhaust gases

11 entering the contact chamber are around four

12 hundred fifty degrees (450o) Fahrenheit.

13 Since multiple hearth incinerators have

14 exhaust gas temperatures in the range of one

15 thousand to sixteen hundred degrees (1000-1600o)

16 Fahrenheit, and minimal residence time within the

17 exhaust gas ductwork, mercury adsorption will be

18 negligible.

19 Since all plants recycle scrubber water, the

20 spent carbon will again end up in the sewage

21 sludge, and the buildup of mercury can occur within

22 the plant that could eventually result in a NPDES

23 permit violation.

24 Realistically, POTWs that utilize activated

25 carbon injection will have to install carbon1 Northeast Ohio Bob Dominak Vol. 1, p. 24

2 contact chambers in baghouses. EPA needs to

3 include the additional costs in the cost effective

4 analysis for going beyond the MACT floor -- mercury

5 MACT floor.

6 The proposed rule estimates the incremental

7 cost of adding activated carbon to all multiple

8 hearth incinerators to be twelve million dollars

9 ($12,000,000) per ton of pollutant removed, or

10 six thousand dollars ($6,000) per pound removed.

11 Our preliminary cost estimates indicate that

12 the cost to control the lower than anticipated

13 amounts of mercury may be a hundred thousand

14 dollars ($100,000) per pound removed or higher.

15 To date NACWA, and its member agencies, have

16 assisted EPA in the collection of information on

17 the number, type, and location of SSIs within the

18 United States, the type of air pollution control

19 and energy recovery devices that they utilize, the

20 positive impact that U.S. EPA sewage sludge and

21 pre-treatment programs have had on improving the

22 quality of the sewage sludge and reducing emissions

23 from SSIs, and the projected costs to comply with

24 potential MACT standards.

25 NACWA and its member agencies are willing to1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 25

2 work with EPA and its contractors to more

3 accurately determine actual baseline emissions,

4 along with potential reduction in emissions and

5 costs required to comply with the emissions

6 guidelines.

7 However, as Chris Hornback has already

8 indicated, the comment period's November 29th

9 deadline is far too short for generating the

10 additional data and required analysis.

11 Thank you very much for the time you have

12 allotted me here today, to discuss some of NACWA's

13 and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's

14 concerns regarding the proposed new source

15 performance standards and the emission guidelines

16 for sewage sludge incinerators.

17 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you.

18 Next on the list, we have Randy Schmidt.

19 (Mr. Schmidt com es to podium.)

20 RANDY SCHMIDT: My name is Randy Schmidt. I

21 am a senior engineer with Central Contra Costa

22 Sanitary District and have elected to defer my

23 testimony time to our director of plant operations,

24 Margaret Orr.

25 CHAIR DUNKINS: Okay. With that, we'll have1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 26

2 Margaret Orr.

3 (Ms. Orr comes to podium.)

4 MARGARET ORR: Good morning. My name is

5 Margaret Orr, and I am director of plant operations

6 at Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in

7 Martinez California. With me today is Randy

8 Schmidt who's the district senior engineer that

9 supports air emissions compliance.

10 I appreciate you giving me your time, Randy.

11 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District also

12 participates as members of the executive board of

13 directors for the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies and

14 is an active member of the California Association

15 of Sanitation Agencies and the National Association

16 of Clean Water Agencies.

17 Central Contra Costa sanitary district, for

18 those of you who haven't been to beautiful

19 Martinez, California, provides wastewater

20 collection and secondary wastewater treatment for

21 approximately four hundred sixty-two thousand

22 (462,000) people in Contra Costa County,

23 California.

24 The wastewater treatment facility located in

25 Martinez, California has a permitted average dry1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 27

2 weather flow capacity of fifty-three point eight

3 (53.8) millions gallons per day and a peak flow

4 capacity of two hundred million (200,000,000)

5 gallons per day.

6 Central San has recorded twelve consecutive

7 years without a violation of our National Pollutant

8 Discharge Elimination System permit and has been

9 the recipient of many regional, state, and National

10 awards for excellence.

11 Central Contra Costa's sanitary district

12 solids handling train was designed in the early

13 1970s and is still considered state of the art.

14 Sewage sludge generated as part of the treatment

15 process is conveyed directly to one of two multiple

16 hearth furnaces for incineration.

17 Central Contra Costa sanitary district

18 co-fires approximately five million (5,000,000)

19 BTUs per dry ton of primarily landfill gas,

20 creating one hundred percent (100%) utilization of

21 landfill gas from a nearby closed facility.

22 The waste heat from the incinerator is

23 recovered and utilized for the production of steam.

24 The steam is used to drive the turbine/blower that

25 supplies air to the biological process. This1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 28

2 reduces Central San's need for electrical power to

3 aerate our secondary treatment process.

4 The fine ash from the sewage sludge

5 incineration is valued for its phosphorus content,

6 and is one hundred percent (100%) recycled by being

7 combined with other products to produce a

8 commercially available soil amendment product.

9 In 2009, Central San processed approximately

10 forty-one dry tons, a hundred ninety wet tons, of

11 sewage sludge per day.

12 Our comments today will focus on the proposed

13 requirement to use a beyond the MACT floor mercury

14 concentration limit of point 0 two (.02) milligrams

15 of mercury for the existing multiple hearth

16 furnaces.

17 This is an eighty-five percent (85%) below the

18 MACT floor mercury concentration limit.

19 It's far more costly than noted in the

20 proposed rule, and is not justified by any

21 scientific documentation provided to the public as

22 part of the rulemaking process.

23 More specifically, our comments are as

24 follows:

25 Comment number one: The district has reviewed1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 29

2 the Federal Register publication of the proposed

3 rule as well as all of the accompanying documents

4 and can find no scientific demonstration of the

5 benefits claimed in the many news articles

6 published on this rule.

7 The EPA press release dated October 1st, 2010

8 states is that EPA estimated the proposed ruling

9 would yield health benefits ranging from one

10 hundred thirty million (130,000,000) to three

11 hundred twenty million (320,000,000) in 2015.

12 The pathway claimed in the press release is

13 that the mercury emitted from the incinerators

14 deposits in the water where it changes into

15 methyl-mercury which can then bioaccumulate in

16 fish. When these fish are consumed by humans,

17 particularly children or pregnant women, there is a

18 risk of damage to the developing brain.

19 Has a health risk assessment been done to

20 demonstrate this pathway and calculate the actual

21 health risks? If so, where is this information

22 published such that the public can review and

23 comment on it?

24 Comment number two: EPA's cost data for

25 mercury controls is unreasonably low at six1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 30

2 thousand dollars ($6,000) per pound of mercury

3 removed. Using this cost, the EPA arrives at a

4 total annualized cost of one hundred five million

5 dollars ($105,000,000) for all currently operating

6 units to comply with the proposed standards, and

7 then justifies this cost by comparing it to the

8 hundred thirty million (130,000,000) to three

9 hundred twenty million (320,000,000) in un- --

10 unsubstantiated benefits discussed earlier.

11 We estimate the true cost to be orders of

12 magnitude greater than EPA's estimate and the

13 claimed benefits.

14 The documentation for the proposed rule

15 contends that multiple hearth furnaces, such as

16 operated by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,

17 would only need to add a powdered activated carbon

18 injection system to meet the beyond the MACT floor

19 mercury level of point 0 two (.02).

20 Based on input from consultants expert in

21 incineration operations, the district would

22 actually need to install powdered activated carbon

23 injection system, a fabric filter baghouse, a high

24 efficiency condensing scrubber, and a granular

25 activated carbon packed bed in order to meet the1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 31

2 extremely low, beyond the MACT floor mercury level

3 of point 0 two (.02) milligrams of mercury per dry

4 standard cubic meter.

5 EPA predicts the cost of mercury removal to

6 the level of eighty-five percent (85%) below the

7 MACT as six thousand dollars ($6,000) per pound of

8 mercury removed.

9 Central Contra Costa sanitary district with

10 our consulting team, predicts the cost of mercury

11 removal to the level of eighty-five percent (85%)

12 below the MACT to be one hundred twenty-five

13 thousand dollars ($125,000) per pound of mercury

14 removed.

15 Using the EPA figure of six thousand (6,000)

16 per pound, the cost of removing thirty-one point

17 five (31.5) pounds of mercury per year is a hundred

18 eighty-nine thousand dollars ($189,000).

19 When the actual expected cost of a hundred

20 twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) per pound

21 is utilized, the amount -- the annual cost to

22 remove thirty-one point five (31.5) pounds of

23 mercury jumps to almost four million dollars

24 ($4,000,000). But even if the claimed benefit of a

25 hundred thirty million to three hundred twenty1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 32

2 million (130,000,000-320,000,000) per year can be

3 substantiated, the actual costs of compliance are

4 expected to be more than twenty (20) times those

5 estimated by the EPA.

6 Taking EPA estimate of a hundred five million

7 (105,000,000) for all operating units to comply and

8 multiplying by twenty to estimate the true cost,

9 there is a two billion dollar per year cost for a

10 possible benefit of a hundred thirty million

11 (130,000,000) to three hundred twenty million

12 (320,000,000).

13 These costs are clearly not justified.

14 Comment number three: The EPA should use its

15 prestige and its authority to prioritize and

16 encourage much more cost effective means of

17 removing mercury.

18 Progressive wastewater management

19 organizations such as ours, are implementing source

20 control and pollution prevention activities that

21 are significantly reducing the mercury entering the

22 environment.

23 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has

24 supported a household hazardous waste collection

25 facility for thirteen (13) years. Fifteen percent1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 33

2 (15%) of all households in the district utilize the

3 facility to dispose of approximately two million

4 (2,000,000) pounds of household hazardous waste in

5 the last fiscal year alone.

6 As part of the program, the district focuses

7 on proper mercury disposal through acceptance of

8 mercury-containing wastes, including thermometers,

9 fluorescent bulbs, mercury switches and elemental

10 mercury.

11 Last year, ninety-five (95) pounds of

12 elemental mercury was collected from over

13 twenty-six thousand (26,000) pounds of

14 mercury-containing wastes. This is seven point six

15 (7.6) times the amount of mercury in the incoming

16 wastewater to the plant.

17 Since we began tracking mercury collected in

18 2004, the program has collected almost seventeen

19 thousand (17,000) -- I'm sorry, one thousand seven

20 hundred (1,700) pounds of elemental mercury.

21 The annual operating cost for the Household

22 Hazardous Waste Program is approximately two point

23 three (2.3) million dollars. This is a cost of

24 about twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) per

25 pound of mercury removed and does not consider the1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 34

2 benefit of all the other materials removed from the

3 environment at this facility such as paints,

4 pesticides and herbicides.

5 The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District was

6 one of the first agencies in northern California to

7 implement a mandatory amalgam separator program.

8 After trying for several years to achieve our

9 objectives of reducing mercury in our influent

10 through a voluntary program, we determined that

11 participation was limited and a mandatory program

12 was necessary.

13 Dentists were required to install amalgam

14 separators and document proper disposal. We

15 achieved one hundred percent (100%) compliance over

16 a period for approximately two years and are now

17 inspecting our dental offices to ensure that they

18 are practicing proper maintenance of their

19 separators and are following other recommended best

20 management practices.

21 More recently, we have focused on working with

22 local hospitals, colleges, high schools, and middle

23 schools to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury

24 in their operations and laboratories.

25 The results of the household hazardous waste1 Central Sanitary Margaret Orr Vol. 1, p. 35

2 program and the source control effort targeting

3 mercury have been better than we anticipated.

4 Central Contra Costa sanitary district has

5 lowered the influent mercury concentrations by

6 seventy percent (70%) in the past six years.

7 In 2004, the influent numbers were forty-seven

8 point three pounds, and in 2009 the numbers were

9 twelve point four pounds. 2010 is tracking even

10 lower to date.

11 In conclusion then, I will conclude by saying

12 that by requiring existing incinerators to remove

13 mercury to these very low limits, wastewater

14 agencies will be incurring costs that are orders of

15 magnitude higher than the benefits which the EPA

16 has claimed.

17 Thank you for the time you have alloyed us

18 today to bring this matter to your attention.

19 We sincerely hope that you will take another

20 look at the ill-considered proposed requirement to

21 use a beyond the MACT floor mercury concentration

22 limit of zero point zero two milligrams of mercury

23 for existing multiple hearth furnaces.

24 And we have our cost calculations attached as

25 backup.1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 36

2 Thank you.

3 MS. HAMBRICK: I have a clarifying question,

4 actually.

5 Could you just go back over briefly, you

6 mentioned the cost of -- where did I write that

7 down? -- what you anticipated the costs to be

8 compared to the benefits that you have then

9 estimated, that the actual cost, you said, is

10 twenty times higher?

11 MARGARET ORR: The actual cost is two billion

12 dollars ($2B) per year, and the benefit that EPA

13 stated was a hundred thirty million (130,000,000)

14 to three hundred twenty million (320,000,000), and

15 that benefit was given in a press release.

16 MS. HAMBRICK: Okay. Thank you.

17 CHAIR DUNKINS: Any other questions?

18 MS. HAMBRICK: No.

19 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you for that.

20 The next speaker is Mark Feltner from Hampton

21 Roads Sanitation District.

22 (Mr. Feltner comes to the podium.)

23 MARK FELTNER: For the public record, I'm Mark

24 Feltner, Environmental Scientist with the Hampton

25 Roads Sanitation District, HRSD, 1432 Air Rail1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 37

2 Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455.

3 HRSD is the southeast Virginia regional public

4 wastewater utility, operating thirteen (13)

5 publicly-owned treatment works, POTWs, including

6 five plants that utilize incineration for the

7 safe and effective handling of biosolids received

8 in, and from the treatment of, a hundred sixty-five

9 million gallons (165,000,000) of wastewater per

10 day.

11 HRSD agrees and supports EPA's proposed

12 subcategorization of SSIs between fluid bed and

13 multiple hearth incineration technologies. In

14 review of the basis for the proposed rulemaking,

15 HRSD has found that our solids feed rate and

16 mercury emissions have been overestimated by EPA

17 for our five furnace facilities in total, by

18 seventy-four percent (74%) for solids feed rate,

19 and a hundred two percent (102%) of the mercury

20 emissions.

21 And I have a spreadsheet to give to you to

22 support that statement. Given the overestimation

23 of mercury emissions by EPA, and the cost to comply

24 with the proposed mercury standard, HRSD cannot

25 support EPA's proposal to go beyond the MACT floor1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 38

2 for mercury.

3 EPA's analysis does not justify the additional

4 mercury removal or the installation of a carbon

5 system.

6 Further, mercury by no means is as simple as

7 injecting carbon into the existing furnace off-gas

8 system.

9 For HRSD just the capital cost alone for a

10 carbon system to remove our point 0 four three

11 three tons (.0433) of mercury at our five

12 facilities is two-and-a-half million dollars which

13 is equivalent to the cost of fifty-seven point

14 seven million dollars per ton removed.

15 And I have recently been advised by

16 engineering experts and air pollution control

17 manufacturers that our mercury removal cost is

18 actually potentially five to ten (5-10) times low.

19 In the proposed rule, EPA assumes the number

20 of smaller POTWs will abandon incineration, because

21 it is more cost effective to haul their sludge to a

22 municipal solid waste landfill.

23 These decisions must be being made locally by

24 each POTW based on the viability of the options

25 available in their area. EPA cannot accurately1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 39

2 predict what a POTW will do based purely on an

3 economic calculation, particularly when the

4 calculation is a function of several of the

5 following assumptions.

6 Assumption one: Landfilling may be used on an

7 as-needed basis and the capacity of landfills

8 nationwide to accept sludge from incinerator plants

9 has not been evaluated.

10 In the event that all of the sludge generated

11 by a plant cannot be incinerated, or incineration

12 is discontinued, a landfill may not be able to

13 process all of the POTW sludge.

14 Sewage sludge has been -- has to be mixed with

15 other wastes when you place it in a landfill cell

16 for stability purposes, and landfills have daily

17 limits on the total quantities of waste they can

18 manage.

19 Two: landfills -- landfilling biosolids will

20 require a much more capital costs than that is

21 required to fund a simple concrete pad to store

22 dewatered solids over a weekend. Additionally,

23 pad storage will result in a substantial release

24 of odors and a number of other housekeeping

25 problems.1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 40

2 EPA should understand that POTWs do not

3 process the same quantities of biosolids each day.

4 For example, during wet weather conditions, a POTW

5 might have to process two to three times the amount

6 of sewage sludge that it processes on an average

7 day. As a result, each POTW will have to

8 investigate the need for the storage of liquid

9 sludge and a dewatered cake storage facility,

10 along with a truck-loading facility that can handle

11 peak conditions if landfilling of solids is

12 pursued.

13 Three: The cost that a contractor charges an

14 incineration facility to haul sewage sludge to a

15 landfill on an as-needed basis will be less than

16 that if all of the sludge is hauled to a landfill

17 on a daily basis. This is due to the number of

18 trucks and drivers that will be required,

19 increased operating and maintenance costs, and

20 other factors.

21 Four: A more accurate analysis of the actual

22 costs to incinerate versus the costs to landfill

23 need needs to be conducted by EPA before finalizing

24 this rule. Currently every POTW has a different

25 way of determining costs to incinerate, and the1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 41

2 data collected through EPA's information collection

3 request, did not include enough information to

4 accurately determine unit costs.

5 For HRSD, the EPA suggested rule compliance

6 alternative to landfill solids is not cost

7 effective or sustainable. Converting from

8 incineration to landfilling would require capital

9 improvements at each HRSD furnace facility

10 costing an estimated thirty million dollars

11 ($30,000,000).

12 This does not include O and M costs. Also,

13 local landfill space is limited, and the potential

14 for solids odors makes the landfill compliance

15 option unrealistic.

16 Lastly, the proposed rule requires annual air

17 emissions testing of each sewage sludge incinerator

18 using three, four-hour test runs. These

19 requirements are based on EPA's work with hazardous

20 medical and infectious waste incinerators. Sewage

21 sludge incineration is very different, and our

22 emissions pose less of a risk than hazardous,

23 medical, and infectious waste incineration.

24 We recommend that EPA follow the guidelines

25 established for Title V permits, which normally1 HRSD Mark Feltner Vol. 1, p. 42

2 requires air emissions testing of each sewage

3 sludge incinerator, once during a five-year permit

4 cycle using three, one-hour test runs.

5 HRSD thanks EPA for holding this Public

6 Hearing and the opportunity to comment.

7 And all this is for you.

8 MS. HAMBRICK: Could I have just a clarifying

9 question?

10 MARK FELTNER: Sure.

11 MS. HAMBRICK: You, in your last statement,

12 you talked about the three, four-hour test runs.

13 MARK FELTNER: Yes.

14 MS. HAMBRICK: And did I understand you

15 correctly, you said you're proposing --

16 MARK FELTNER: (Interposing) What we do now

17 which is --

18 MS. HAMBRICK: (Interposing) Oh, what you do

19 now?

20 MARK FELTNER: -- yeah, three, one-hour test

21 runs for a stack test compliance.

22 MS. HAMBRICK: Every five years --

23 MARK FELTNER: (Interposing) Yes.

24 MS. HAMBRICK: -- based on the permit?

25 MARK FELTNER: Yes, yes.1 City of Greensboro Don Howard Vol. 1, p. 43

2 MS. HAMBRICK: Thank you.

3 CHAIR DUNKINS: Any other clarifying

4 questions?

5 MS. HAMBRICK: Unh-unh (no).

6 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you.

7 Next we have Don Howard from the City of

8 Greensboro.

9 (Mr. Howard comes to the podium.)

10 DON HOWARD: Good morning, everyone. I am Don

11 Howard, the Water Reclamation Manager for the City

12 of Greensboro, North Carolina, just an hour down

13 the road. I'm not going to read a speech off my

14 paper. I just wanted to kind of give a few talking

15 points.

16 Here in North Carolina, there are four

17 entities that have incinerators in our state, and I

18 believe we are, by far, the largest group as far as

19 what we process daily in the City of Greensboro.

20 And my colleagues have pointed out a lot of the

21 viewed shortcomings already, so I'm not going to go

22 into the details of one twelve (112) versus one

23 twenty-nine (129). I'll leave that all to legal

24 folks. And I will say, Amy, I don't envy you your

25 position, because you're in a tough spot.1 City of Greensboro Don Howard Vol. 1, p. 44

2 I would like to note some of the things that I

3 have found out as I look through the -- through the

4 proposed standard and talk with our engineers.

5 And one of the things that has stuck out for

6 us is the actual data collection issue of

7 collecting twelve percent (12%) or all the top --

8 from the top twelve percent (12%) of the performers

9 in the country, and it appears, and again I'm not

10 -- not going to jump right out there and say it's

11 definitely this way, but it appears that the data

12 reflects all three units at the Saint Paul,

13 Minnesota facility being used in the data, and that

14 we feel like skews the data substantially compared

15 to what other facilities do in the country. And I

16 think that should be reviewed, and I've got it in

17 my comments, and you'll see it in the comments

18 coming in the next few weeks.

19 Further, to that, we checked into the

20 activated carbon injection issues, and we agree

21 with some of the sentiments that have been voiced

22 already. The estimates for what it will take for

23 fluid bed incinerators, and I believe, multiple

24 hearth incinerators, is easily orders of magnitude

25 off from what the estimates are in the EPA1 City of Greensboro Don Howard Vol. 1, p. 45

2 projections.

3 We have found out in our site -- I think in

4 the proposed rule, I think for the City of

5 Greensboro, you estimate somewhere on the order of

6 two hundred sixty-eight thousand dollars

7 ($268,000).

8 My engineers and the folks right down the road

9 from you in Richmond at IDI, indicate just the

10 equipment alone will be five million dollars

11 ($5,000,000) for our facility.

12 And I'm looking at that as an FBI operator,

13 and I'm thinking to myself, we just built -- or

14 we're in the process of building a brand new unit,

15 and we would have to add an additional five million

16 for equipment.

17 The design and installation is another five

18 million, so we are talking ten million (10,000,000)

19 to our facility alone.

20 If that's happening to us, and we're in the

21 top twelve percent (12%), what's happening to other

22 folks as well? So I think that needs to be looked

23 at a little tighter.

24 My friend back here hit pretty hard on one of

25 my points and that is landfill operation. If you1 City of Greensboro Don Howard Vol. 1, p. 46

2 are in this business, you will find that -- and if

3 you go around the business much -- you will find

4 landfills, as soon as you say you want to bring

5 sewage sludge, go, WHAT? We don't want this

6 stuff!

7 For the New England states, I think the

8 standard estimates approximately two hundred (200)

9 mile trips. For the City of Gre- -- and I think

10 you're allowed fifty (50) miles for the rest of the

11 country.

12 For the City of Greensboro, our nearest

13 contracted facility is seventy (70) miles each way.

14 I think the standard also overestimates how much

15 can be hauled in a load, and the greenhouse carbon

16 effects would be pretty tough, I think, in that

17 situation as well.

18 My colleague also mentioned the fact of having

19 to build loading facilities, trucking facilities;

20 it's not like you can just pour it on the concrete

21 slab and hope it will be okay for a few days. It

22 doesn't work that way.

23 And I think in our back of the envelope sketch

24 we figured somewhere on the order of twenty-five

25 million dollars ($25,000,000) to retrofit to a1 City of Greensboro Don Howard Vol. 1, p. 47

2 hauling operation, and then the operating costs on

3 top of that.

4 The NOx emissions limits, we do not think were

5 calculated correctly either. When we look at it,

6 one of the problems with the NOx emissions limits

7 is the variability of sludges that will enter into

8 incinerators.

9 The proposed standard indicates that sewage

10 sludges, in general, going into incinerators, are

11 homogeneous blends. While they are homogeneous

12 blends at each individual facility, each individual

13 facility has constituents within that blend that

14 make it entirely different from the next facility

15 down the road.

16 And some of the general blanket statements

17 about NOx we feel are -- can be skewed greatly

18 depending on what each facility is doing.

19 So, I think I'll stop there, but the bottom

20 line for us is:

21 Some of the standards are not correct or have

22 not been correctly calculated. Some of the

23 predictions, I don't need to review that as my

24 colleagues here have done that pretty well, but

25 some of the standards are in question, and the cost1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 48

2 factors and benefit factors are definitely in

3 question as to what the perceived benefits are and

4 what they will really be.

5 We feel you're -- your estimates are easily

6 orders of magnitude off, and that's coming through

7 engineers and equipment providers that are -- have

8 designed my most recent incinerator installations.

9 With that I'll leave it and go.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIR DUNKINS: Are there any other questions?

12 MS. HAMBRICK: I don't think so.

13 DON HOWARD: You know where I am.

14 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you.

15 The next person we have is Tim Mauldin,

16 Cabarrus County.

17 He's not here?

18 (Comments from audience.)

19 CHAIR DUNKINS: The next one on the list is

20 Jonathan Sprague from the Metropolitan Saint Louis

21 Sewer District.

22 (Mr. Sprague comes to the podium.)

23 JONATHAN SPRAGUE: Good morning. My name is,

24 again, Jon Sprague, and I'm the Director of

25 Operations for the Metropolitan Saint Louis Sewer1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 49

2 District.

3 Again, MSD, Saint Louis, is one of the larger

4 wastewater providers in the country. We serve over

5 one point four million (1,400,000) people, and we

6 treat over three hundred fifty million

7 (350,000,000) gallons of wastewater a day.

8 We are -- currently incinerate about

9 eighty-five percent (85%) of our solids, and we

10 actually represent about ten (10) of the two

11 hundred plus (200+), of the two hundred (200)

12 multiple hearth incinerators on your list.

13 So, about five percent (5%) of the study.

14 Currently, we are in the midst of a consent

15 decree negotiation. The final stages is going to

16 encompass the next few decades and challenge the

17 affordability when it's of our rate payers.

18 Well, it's a unique situation. One of the

19 reasons I'm here today is we just completed a

20 comprehensive solids handling master plan, looking

21 at the future, and we looked at things like meeting

22 anticipated MACT standards, alternatives such as

23 landfilling, and moving the fluidized bed

24 incinerators.

25 And our data contradicts much of the data and1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 50

2 assumptions in your study, and that's what I want

3 to focus today; first talk about meeting the

4 proposed MACT standards as well as some of the

5 alternatives.

6 Currently the district, to meet the proposed

7 standards, would have to put in advance emission

8 controls for both mercury and new opacity limits.

9 As my predecessor said, you set the mercury limits

10 magnitudes below the MACT standards, and I believe

11 that's been justified again by a cost/benefit ratio

12 that I believe is flawed.

13 I can tell you the district operates only

14 three of its ten incinerators on a normal day,

15 three of the ten (10). So the emissions stated in

16 your study are greatly overstated as well as the

17 reductions, possible.

18 Also our study shows that moving towards

19 putting advanced emissions controls for our ten

20 (10) incinerators would cost sixty million dollars

21 ($60,000,000); sixty million just to meet the

22 current MACT standards, and I believe your study

23 says something like two hundred million

24 (200,000,000) for the entire country; whereas,

25 it's going to be sixty million (60,000,000) just1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 51

2 for us.

3 And I think this is due to some of the things

4 that were pointed out, questionable assumptions

5 made on space constraints, the simplicity of

6 injecting carbon for mercury controls.

7 So in our case you overestimated emissions,

8 and they've significantly underestimated the costs.

9 Other concerns, like the alternatives

10 envisioned in the analysis, and one of the things

11 that was stated is that, we cross the fifty percent

12 threshold on improvements to our incinerators, or

13 changes to our incinerators, when we have to move

14 to the new standards, in which case -- in our case

15 would require fluidized bed incinerators.

16 That move for us would mean two hundred and

17 fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) to meet our

18 incineration needs. I'm not clear on what

19 constitutes that fifty percent (50%) change, but I

20 know that it will significant moving from sixty

21 million to two hundred and fifty million on the

22 backs of the same customers who will be struggling

23 to afford wet weather improvements that are needed

24 over the next decade.

25 Again, I'm talking about the alternatives you1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 52

2 propose; landfilling as an option. You seem to

3 consider it a viable option. I believe your study

4 concerns major omissions and errors in this

5 analysis as well.

6 In the cost for emissions reduction memo,

7 supported your study, this landfilling cost for us

8 is three point eight million (3,800,000) for ten

9 (10) incinerators annually.

10 Our study just came out and told us it would

11 be eleven million, and we're not running -- as I

12 said, we're only running a portion of those ten

13 incinerators daily. So, eleven million versus

14 three point eight, magnitude of three for less than

15 -- less incinerators. And that was hard to

16 reconcile, until I realized that your cost of

17 emissions study made an error. It based the

18 landfill cost on dry tons. This is stated on page

19 six of the cost of emissions control study.

20 You based it on the incinerator feed rates,

21 which are based on dry tons, but that's not the way

22 sludge is fed into the incinerators. Again, it's

23 dewatered sludge, or pressed or centrifuged sludge,

24 and that's approximately four times the weight, and

25 so it's about twenty-five percent solids, so it's1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 53

2 four times the weight.

3 So your study underestimated the cost of

4 landfilling by a factor of four. It's four times

5 the trucks, four times the tipping fees, four times

6 the weight.

7 In addition, let me talk about -- you've heard

8 that the capital costs were underestimated, just

9 can't put a concrete slab out there. You need

10 buildings, odor control facilities, truck-loading

11 facilities and a number of other things that were

12 missed to try to make it socially acceptable.

13 And, again, we've talked about -- others

14 talked about the viability. We currently ran for

15 about fifteen percent (15%) of our solids; we're

16 already getting pushed back from the local

17 landfills, because, again, they can't accept more,

18 because it needs to mix with other solids, and

19 there would be odor concerns and other things.

20 Now lastly, our study also looked at the

21 greenhouse gas emissions. Some others touched on

22 this.

23 We actually did a study on this landfilling

24 versus incineration, and our study found that

25 incineration actually produces much less greenhouse1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 54

2 gas emissions than landfilling; much less. And in

3 our case, it was -- greenhouse gas emissions were

4 seventy-three hundred ton equivalents for the

5 multiple hearth incinerators, and landfilling would

6 generate twenty-seven thousand (27,000).

7 So seven thousand (7,000) versus twenty-seven

8 thousand (27,000) would be the landfill.

9 When you think about it, you get twenty-five

10 trucks putting out emissions and wet sludge

11 emitting methane.

12 So, I urge you not to rush these types of

13 rules. It is essential that you take more time to

14 understand the implications of setting the mercury

15 limits below or the MACT standards, alternatives,

16 and the time that we have for compliance. The

17 standards are significant, and they will change the

18 disposal methods used by many utilities.

19 And these are the things you need to

20 thoroughly consider; the impact these changes will

21 have on the utilities, the communities and the

22 environment.

23 If you fail to do so, it will result in higher

24 costs, an unintended social and environmental

25 impacts.1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 55

2 I'm done. Thank you for letting me speak.

3 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you. Any clarifying

4 questions?

5 MS. HAMBRICK: Yes. I think at the beginning

6 you said your facilities process four hundred

7 fifty-three million gallons per day, --

8 JON SPRAGUE: (Interposing) Three --

9 MS. HAMBRICK: -- is that correct?

10 JON SPRAGUE: Three hundred fifty million

11 gallons on an average.

12 MS. HAMBRICK: Okay. Three hundred fifty

13 million gallons.

14 And it's one point four million people that

15 you serve?

16 JON SPRAGUE: (Interposing) That's correct.

17 MS. HAMBRICK: Would you mind just

18 re-explaining when you mentioned that in EPA's cost

19 emissions reduction memo, the errors that you found

20 that you think we need -- you talk about dewatered

21 sludge and how it is four times by weight; what --

22 JON SPRAGUE: (Interposing) Sure.

23 MS. HAMBRICK: -- would you mind going over

24 that, please, again?

25 JON SPRAGUE: (Interposing) So on page six it1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 56

2 talks about that all the landfill costs were based

3 on dry ton feed rates of the incinerators.

4 MS. HAMBRICK: Unh-hunh.

5 JON SPRAGUE: Again, our dry ton feed rate, in

6 Saint Louis is about a hundred fifty tons per day,

7 but that's not the way sewage sludge is fed into

8 the incinerators. It's dewatered -- it comes in

9 the incinerators dewatered, either from a press or

10 a centrifuge. It's kind of like wet laundry coming

11 out of your washer, going into the dryer versus dry

12 laundry, and it contains, typically, it's about

13 twenty-five percent (25%) solid, so it's a wet

14 cake, and it's not the same weight as dry.

15 Assuming dry tons is off by a factor of four

16 weight lots. So the weight that they use to

17 calculate landfills, and trucks, and tipping fees,

18 is off by a factor of four, so it would have to be

19 four times the trucks, four times the tipping fees,

20 four times the amount to deliver to landfills.

21 MS. HAMBRICK: Okay, so I just -- it's the

22 nomenclature that you use, like you don't consider

23 then dry tons of sludge to be --

24 FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Interposing) They are

25 wet tons.1 MSD/Saint Louis Jon Sprague Vol. 1, p. 57

2 JON SPRAGUE: (Interposing) Right, wet tons

3 are fed into the incinerators.

4 MS. HAMBRICK: Okay, so you --

5 JON SPRAGUE: (Interposing) They're rated on

6 dry tons, but you feed it in in wet tons. So a wet

7 ton is about four times the weight of a dry ton.

8 MS. HAMBRICK: So your wet ton is actually

9 dewatered sludge.

10 FROM THE AUDIENCE: That's correct.

11 JON SPRAGUE: That is correct.

12 MS. HAMBRICK: I wanted to make sure to get

13 the nomenclature right.

14 JON SPRAGUE: Right, and so plus that's six

15 hundred (600) tons a day and not a hundred fifty

16 (150), and that's what we -- that's over a million

17 pounds of sludge a day that would have to go to the

18 landfills.

19 MS. HAMBRICK: I have it. Thank you.

20 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you.

21 We have one more speaker, and Tim Mauldin is

22 here. And you weren't here when I made

23 introductions, so you can come up here and just

24 state your name and affiliation, and if you have

25 any written remarks, that you submit those.1 Cabarrus County, NC Tim Mauldin Vol. 1, p. 58

2 (Mr. Mauldin comes to the podium.)

3 TIM MAULDIN: My name is Tim Mauldin of the

4 Water and Sewer Authority for Cabarrus County, in

5 Concord, North Carolina.

6 I don't have any written remarks. I wanted

7 the keep things kind of simple, and I apologize

8 for being late. I just want to reiterate what I

9 caught on the end of that.

10 A rough estimate of our cost to landfill;

11 right now we're about two hundred thousand dollars

12 a year, operating cost. It would go to about one

13 point two million (1,200,000) to go to landfill.

14 And our landfill is about ten (10) miles away.

15 From what I understand, some of the guys are

16 talking about a hundred -- about two -- about a

17 hundred (100) miles.

18 As well as, the landfill we can go to may not

19 take it all the time without lime stabilization,

20 depending on the odor, and that type of thing.

21 And I really didn't want to get into emissions

22 on our end very much. I just wanted to give you a

23 rough estimate of the cost of current operations

24 versus landfill operations, and as well as our

25 ash.1 Cabarrus County, NC Tim Mauldin Vol. 1, p. 59

2 We currently have a beneficial reuse, ash

3 reuse. Our last estimated cost to go to landfill

4 was five hundred thirty-four thousand dollars

5 ($534,000). With this land application permit,

6 actual cost was a hundred thirty-four thousand

7 ($134,000). So it was actual savings of four

8 hundred thousand dollars ($400,000). And you can

9 divide that over a three-year period. It takes us

10 about three years for us to fill up one of our ash

11 bins.

12 MS. HAMBRICK: And that was for your -- the

13 beneficial ash --

14 TIM MAULDIN: Ash reuse.

15 MS. HAMBRICK: -- recycling program?

16 TIM MAULDIN: Yes.

17 MS. HAMBRICK: And that was a hundred (100)

18 and --

19 MR. MAULDIN: (Interposing) A hundred

20 thirty-four thousand (134,000), versus the estimate

21 to go to landfill, hauling cost, of five hundred

22 thirty-four thousand dollars ($534,000), because it

23 would be considered a contaminated hazardous

24 product with the mercury involved.

25 And that's about all I wanted to speak on.1 Colloquy Vol. 1, p. 60

2 CHAIR DUNKINS: Okay, are there any other

3 questions?

4 MS. HAMBRICK: No.

5 CHAIR DUNKINS: Ketan?

6 MR. PATEL: No.

7 CHAIR DUNKINS: Thank you.

8 Those are all we have for speakers signed up

9 for now. I suggest we take a break and convene

10 back in an hour to see if we have any other

11 speakers.

12 ______________________________

13 (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD.)

14 ______________________________

15 CHAIR DUNKINS: There is a cafeteria nearby

16 for those who want to wait around, and we will just

17 take a break for an hour and if any other speakers

18 come in, we will check back in.

19 CHAIR DUNKINS: I would like to make one

20 comment for those who are here, in case you do

21 leave. Many of you made comments about analyzing

22 the data and doing your own calculations. As you

23 are preparing written comments to submit in

24 response to the rule, please, we encourage you to

25 provide the data that support any calculations or1 Colloquy Vol. 1, p. 61

2 any new information that you provide us in order

3 for us to assess it fully.

4 It's not a requirement, but goes it's strongly

5 encouraged if you have information that could

6 influence how we set the floor, how we estimate

7 costs, the data behind some of those summaries and

8 results will help us.

9 Thank you.

10 __________________________________________

11 (BREAK, 10:04 - 11:06 A.M.)

12 __________________________________________

13 CHAIR DUNKINS: I wanted to double-check. Is

14 there anyone who has any more comments to add?

15 (No response. )

16 CHAIR DUNKINS: There are no more speakers

17 that have any comment?

18 (Comments off record.)

19 CHAIR DUNKINS: With that, then I will say

20 we'll conclude the meeting.

21 _____________________________________________________________

22 WHEREUPON, THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 11:08 A.M.)

23 _____________________________________________________________

24 10-29-10:MPC:mpc:11-12-10

25Vol. 1, p. 62

C E R T I F I C A T E

_____________________

I, Manie P. Currin, Court Reporter and Notary

Public in and for the State of North Carolina, duly

commissioned, qualified and authorized to take and

certify hearings, do hereby certify that on Friday,

October 29, 2010, I stenographically reported the

foregoing hearing at the time and place aforesaid, and

that same was reduced to typewritten form under my

direct supervision; that the transcript contained

herein, pages 1-62 inclusive, is a true and correct

transcription of said proceedings to the best of my

ability and understanding; that I am not related to any

of the parties to this action; that I am not of counsel;

and that I am not interested in the event of this cause.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand,

this the 12th day of November, 2010.

_______________________________ COURT REPORTER

Manie P. Currin and Associates, LLC

Court Reporters

203 East Industry Drive - Suite C

Oxford, North Carolina 27565

Telephone: (919) 693-6954