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 (N ACWA) 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 (C AA), as Office of Air personnel work to develop potential emissions standards for s ewage sludge incinerators (SSIs) under Section 129 of the CAA. Most of the nine age ncies selected for this data

collection effort are NACWA members and we have ser ious concerns about the February 17, 2010, deadline for data collection and the representativeness of a national emissions program that would be based on a ir emissions data from only a

handful of incinerators.

NACWA and its members are committed to protecting h uman health and the environment and are willing and interested in parti cipating 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 huma n health and the environment. Unfortunately, the timeframe mandated in the ICR fo r the comprehensive testing you are requiring and the reliance on data from les s than ten percent of the more than 230 SSIs across the U.S., raise major concerns

.

NACWA understands that EPA is under pressure to mee t a list of court-ordered deadlines for its air regulations. However, this d oes not mean that all of these wastewater treatment agencies will be able to exped ite 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 be ing requested can be compiled in a timely and straightforward manner. However, t he emissions testing, for all of the agencies and a majority of the air emission par ameters, will require the initiation of new air emission tests – recent existing data wi ll not be available. Some of theseNACWA 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 dif ficult, if not impossible.

With the winter months upon us and the cold tempera tures expected in many being required, scheduling will become even more di fficult. NACWA is requesting that EPA provide the nine wastewater treatment agencies selected for particip ation in the ICR

necessary tes ting. We would like to discuss with you the timefr ame we feel would be reasonable.

NACWA also believes that the validity of the develo pment process for the potential MACT emissions stan dards is being undermined by the Agency’s efforts to meet a court encompassing 20 SSIs, cannot be representative of t he 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 Manageme nt and Budget, which is required of all ICRs of a certain size. This certainly will save EPA months of revie w time and discussion with OMB, but unfairly burdens these nin e utilities with the cost of testing and providing EPA with data without the certainty that the standards are being developed in a reasonable a nd valid manner. Developing a data collection plan to accommodate a schedule rather than ensuring that the data collect ed will be truly representative and result in environmental ly protective standards f basing policy on valid science.

NACWA and its members understand that EPA needs thi s new information to update the data it currently h as 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 alternativ e to the current ICR effort. Developing Section

129 standards based on decades- old data or data from only a very small subset of t he 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 Se ction 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 comment s.

Sincerely,

Chris Hornback Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs specific or state rules to con 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 dif ficult, if

With the winter months upon us and the cold tempera tures expected in many of the cities where testing is being required, scheduling will become even more di fficult. NACWA is requesting that EPA provide the nine wastewater treatment agencies selected for particip ation in the ICR with additional time to conduct the

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

NACWA also believes that the validity of the develo pment process for the potential MACT emissions stan dards is being undermined by the Agency’s efforts to meet a court -ord ered deadline. Nine facilities, though encompassing 20 SSIs, cannot be representative of t he 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 Manageme nt and Budget, which is required of all ICRs of a certain size. This certainly will save EPA months of revie w time and discussion with OMB, but unfairly burdens these nin e utilities with the cost of testing and providing EPA with the standards are being developed in a reasonable a nd valid manner. Developing a data collection plan to accommodate a schedule rather than ensuring that the data collect ed will be truly representative and result in environmental ly protective standards f alls well short of EPA’s goal of

NACWA and its members understand that EPA needs thi s new information to update the data it currently h as on SSI emissions that are now a decade or more old. Any attempt to develop the Sec tion 129 standards based

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

old data or data from only a very small subset of t he SSI community will only legal challenges. NACWA believes that EPA must let only the science, not the schedule, drive its efforts to develop potential Se ction 129 standards for SSIs.

NACWA suggests that a conference call with the nine utilities involved wit h 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 comment s. 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 dif ficult, if

of the cities where testing is being required, scheduling will become even more di fficult. NACWA is requesting that EPA provide the nine

additional time to conduct the ting. We would like to discuss with you the timefr ame we feel would be reasonable.

NACWA also believes that the validity of the develo pment process for the potential MACT emissions stan dards ered deadline. Nine facilities, though encompassing 20 SSIs, cannot be representative of t he 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 Manageme nt and Budget, which is required of all ICRs of a certain size. This certainly will save EPA months of revie w time and discussion with OMB, but unfairly burdens these nin e utilities with the cost of testing and providing EPA with the standards are being developed in a reasonable a nd valid manner. Developing a data collection plan to accommodate a schedule rather than ensuring that the data collect ed will alls well short of EPA’s goal of

NACWA and its members understand that EPA needs thi s new information to update the data it currently h as tion 129 standards based

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

old data or data from only a very small subset of t he 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