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 the 
 1 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 to 
 1 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 if 
 1 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 Administrative 
 1 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 using 
 1 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 one 
 1 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 of 
 1 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 ten 
 1 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 sludge 
 1 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 Environmental 
 1 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 with 
 1 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 carbon 
 1 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 to 
 1 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 comes 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 have 
 1 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 dry 
 1 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. This 
 1 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 reviewed 
 1 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 six 
 1 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 the 
 1 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 twenty 
 1 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 percent 
 1 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 the 
 1 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 waste 
 1 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 Rail 
 1 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 floor 
 1 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 accurately 
 1 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 the 
 1 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 normally 
 1 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 EPA 
 1 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 you 
 1 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 a 
 1 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 cost 
 1 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 Sewer 
 1 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 and 
 1 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) just 
 1 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 you 
 1 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's 
 1 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 greenhouse 
 1 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 it 
 1 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 or 
 1 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 

25 
 Vol. 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