NACWA Comments - SSI ICR

November 17, 2009 

Page 1 of 2 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT

Kevin L. Shafer

Executive Director

Milwaukee Metropolitan 

Sewerage District

Milwaukee, WI

VICE PRESIDENT

Jeff Theerman

Executive Director

Metropolitan St. Louis

Sewer District

Saint Louis, MO

TREASURER

David R. Williams

Director of Wastewater

East Bay Municipal 

Utility District

Oakland, CA

SECRETARY

Suzanne E. Goss

Government Relations Specialist

JEA (Electric, Water & Sewer)

Jacksonville, FL

PAST PRESIDENT

Marian A. Orfeo

Director of Planning 

& Coordination

Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority

Boston, MA

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Ken Kirk

November 17, 2009 

Peter Tsirigotis 

Director 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Programs and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code D205-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Via e-mail: tsirigotis.peter@epa.gov 

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis: 

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) would like to express 

its concerns over the recent Information Collection Request (ICR) your office sent to 

nine municipal wastewater treatment agencies across the country, pursuant to 

authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as Office of Air personnel 

work to develop potential emissions standards for sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs) 

under Section 129 of the CAA. Most of the nine agencies selected for this data 

collection effort are NACWA members and we have serious concerns about the 

February 17, 2010, deadline for data collection and the representativeness of a 

national emissions program that would be based on air emissions data from only a 

handful of incinerators. 

NACWA and its members are committed to protecting human health and the 

environment and are willing and interested in participating in any data collection 

effort that is done in a reasonable manner and that will lead to robust and valid 

emissions standards where necessary to protect human health and the environment. 

Unfortunately, the timeframe mandated in the ICR for the comprehensive testing 

you are requiring and the reliance on data from less than ten percent of the more 

than 230 SSIs across the U.S., raise major concerns. 

NACWA understands that EPA is under pressure to meet a list of court-ordered 

deadlines for its air regulations. However, this does not mean that all of these 

wastewater treatment agencies will be able to expedite the scheduling of testing or 

dispense with time-consuming bidding processes that are mandated by local or state 

law. Much of the background information that is being requested can be compiled 

in a timely and straightforward manner. However, the emissions testing, for all of 

the agencies and a majority of the air emission parameters, will require the initiation 

of new air emission tests – recent existing data will not be available. Some of these 
NACWA Comments - SSI ICR

November 17, 2009 

Page 2 of 2 

agencies will be required by utility-specific or state rules to con

analytical work. This will take months to complete and will make meeting the February 17 deadline difficult, if 

not impossible. 

With the winter months upon us and the cold temperatures expected in many

being required, scheduling will become even more difficult. NACWA is requesting that EPA provide the nine 

wastewater treatment agencies selected for participation in the ICR 

necessary testing. We would like to discuss with you the timeframe we feel would be reasonable.

NACWA also believes that the validity of the development process for the potential MACT emissions standards 

is being undermined by the Agency’s efforts to meet a court

encompassing 20 SSIs, cannot be representative of the more than 230 SSIs in the country. By selecting only 

nine facilities to receive the ICR, EPA has avoided the review of the White House’s Office of Management and

Budget, which is required of all ICRs of a certain size. This certainly will save EPA months of review time and 

discussion with OMB, but unfairly burdens these nine utilities with the cost of testing and providing EPA with 

data without the certainty that the standards are being developed in a reasonable and valid manner. 

Developing a data collection plan to accommodate a schedule rather than ensuring that the data collected will 

be truly representative and result in environmentally protective standards f

basing policy on valid science. 

NACWA and its members understand that EPA needs this new information to update the data it currently has 

on SSI emissions that are now a decade or more old. Any attempt to develop the Sec

on this out-dated information would be an even worse alternative to the current ICR effort. Developing Section 

129 standards based on decades-old data or data from only a very small subset of the SSI community will only 

expose the Agency to additional legal challenges. NACWA believes that EPA must let only the science, not the 

schedule, drive its efforts to develop potential Section 129 standards for SSIs.

NACWA suggests that a conference call with the nine utilities involved wit

your staff to discuss how best to proceed.

a call, or with any questions about NACWA’s comments.

Sincerely, 

Chris Hornback 

Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs 

specific or state rules to conduct a public bidding process for the testing and 

analytical work. This will take months to complete and will make meeting the February 17 deadline difficult, if 

With the winter months upon us and the cold temperatures expected in many of the cities where testing is 

being required, scheduling will become even more difficult. NACWA is requesting that EPA provide the nine 

wastewater treatment agencies selected for participation in the ICR with additional time to conduct the 

ting. We would like to discuss with you the timeframe we feel would be reasonable.

NACWA also believes that the validity of the development process for the potential MACT emissions standards 

is being undermined by the Agency’s efforts to meet a court-ordered deadline. Nine facilities, though 

encompassing 20 SSIs, cannot be representative of the more than 230 SSIs in the country. By selecting only 

nine facilities to receive the ICR, EPA has avoided the review of the White House’s Office of Management and

Budget, which is required of all ICRs of a certain size. This certainly will save EPA months of review time and 

discussion with OMB, but unfairly burdens these nine utilities with the cost of testing and providing EPA with 

the standards are being developed in a reasonable and valid manner. 

Developing a data collection plan to accommodate a schedule rather than ensuring that the data collected will 

be truly representative and result in environmentally protective standards falls well short of EPA’s goal of

NACWA and its members understand that EPA needs this new information to update the data it currently has 

on SSI emissions that are now a decade or more old. Any attempt to develop the Section 129 standards based 

dated information would be an even worse alternative to the current ICR effort. Developing Section 

old data or data from only a very small subset of the SSI community will only 

legal challenges. NACWA believes that EPA must let only the science, not the 

schedule, drive its efforts to develop potential Section 129 standards for SSIs. 

NACWA suggests that a conference call with the nine utilities involved with the ICR, NACWA personnel, and 

your staff to discuss how best to proceed. Please contact me at chornback@nacwa.org or 202/833

a call, or with any questions about NACWA’s comments.

duct a public bidding process for the testing and 

analytical work. This will take months to complete and will make meeting the February 17 deadline difficult, if 

of the cities where testing is 

being required, scheduling will become even more difficult. NACWA is requesting that EPA provide the nine 

additional time to conduct the 

ting. We would like to discuss with you the timeframe we feel would be reasonable.

NACWA also believes that the validity of the development process for the potential MACT emissions standards 

ered deadline. Nine facilities, though 

encompassing 20 SSIs, cannot be representative of the more than 230 SSIs in the country. By selecting only 

nine facilities to receive the ICR, EPA has avoided the review of the White House’s Office of Management and

Budget, which is required of all ICRs of a certain size. This certainly will save EPA months of review time and 

discussion with OMB, but unfairly burdens these nine utilities with the cost of testing and providing EPA with 

the standards are being developed in a reasonable and valid manner. 

Developing a data collection plan to accommodate a schedule rather than ensuring that the data collected will 

alls well short of EPA’s goal of

NACWA and its members understand that EPA needs this new information to update the data it currently has 

tion 129 standards based 

dated information would be an even worse alternative to the current ICR effort. Developing Section 

old data or data from only a very small subset of the SSI community will only 

legal challenges. NACWA believes that EPA must let only the science, not the 

h the ICR, NACWA personnel, and 

or 202/833-9106 to arrange